Talk:Patterson power cell/Archive 1

Stub

 * This article is a stub, is contradictory, is lacking information, external links, and citations, and gives no reason for why this isn't the most important scientific discovery ever. We need an expert badly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.176.31 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 27 October 2007
 * This invention was written about in the late 1990s in several publications I added as external links. I will not incorporate these in the article because I do not have much training in this area, but I encourage others to do so. The POV uncritical tone of the existing article needs to be taken back a few notches. This invention was at least widely discussed, and was demonstrated at a legitimate scientific meeting. It is apparently very easy to come up with bogus excess energy findings doing calorimetry, with the key being that the measurements should hold up when carefully replicated by others. Edison (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A widely quoted but apparently unpublished attempted replication of the device and experiments is found at  Merriman, Barry and Burchard, Paul "An Attempted Replication of the CETI Cold Fusion Experiment " retrieved Dec. 5, 2007. These researchers found no net energy, but did not have the device as produced by the inventor. . Merriman was apparently a mathematics visiting prof at UCLA when the experiment was done. As an unpublished manuscript it does not qualify as a reliable source. Prof George Miley at the University of Illinois apparently did claim to have replicated the excess energy results and demonstrated it at a nuclear conference there in 1995. Edison (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Although I think the failure of replication pretty much puts the nail in the coffin of this device, I maintain that it is not a perpetual motion machine any more than a fission reactor - or any power source! The claim in question seems to be the fact that it puts out more energy than it uses. By this definition, a gasoline-powered internal combustion engine is a perpetual motion machine, because with the small energy input required to ignite the gasoline fumes, a large amount of energy is put out. But of course, the energy was there all along in the bonds between molecules - combustion of gasoline is simply an exothermic process, and when the fuel is consumed, the engine stops. Likewise, Patterson, while avoiding the term "cold fusion," states that the device requires hydrogen or deuterium (or radioactive nuclei) fuel in the form of normal or heavy water solution, which would be consumed in some finite amount of time - so by definition it is not a perpetual motion machine. Neither would it violate the laws of thermodynamics because the energy is there all along, just in a different form. The only legitimate problem with the machine is the physics of breaking the coulomb barrier at low temperature, which is likely why no independent lab has been able to replicate Patterson's results. St3vo (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Speculation
I disagree with the following statement: "If the cell worked in either of these ways, well constructed, peer reviewed experiments would soon prove their efficacy and revolutionise physics and power generation."  That's someone's opinion, or speculation. It's not proven fact. There are innovations, such as the idea that doctors should wash their hands to prevent the spread of infection, that were rejected by the mainstream for decades. The idea that an idea should be rejected because there are no mainstream experiments verifying it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. People have found it extremely difficult to get funding to carry out certain types of experiments considered "fringe". I shouldn't have to say what I'm not saying, but I will say that I'm not saying that I think this idea works; however, I disagree with the quoted sentence in the article and think it should be changed, perhaps by inserting a prose attribution. --Coppertwig (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources
I recognize that "Atlantis Rising" is not a reliable source, but I threw it in as it seemed to be the origin of the specious "1.4 Watts" and "1000 times the energy" claims. I'm not familiar with policy in this area - is it acceptable insomuch as it reliably reports these unreliable claims? St3vo (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal
This invention was just one of the many failed attempts to make cold fusion work, so its article should be merged with the parent subject. A line or two might survive there. --71.126.54.123 (talk) 03:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Definitely DO NOT merge. This article does not cite a single reliable source.  The only reason it survived nomination for deletion is that it received coverage in the press.Articles for deletion/CETI Patterson Power Cell.  If a reliable source is ever found, a posting on the Cold Fusion talk page will lead to inclusion Cold Fusion.


 * I found a 1998 article that reported 8% excess power with a device of this type, however, the article was a symposium presentation that had not been peer reviewed. There was not a word about the size of the measurement errors, or any number of controls that would be required by anyone seriously hoping to convince the scientific community that here was proof of cold fusion.


 * Currently, the cold fusion page is constantly being petitioned to include information from non-reliable sources and has had to take a stand.


 * The deletion review panel made a mistake. They did not realize claims of this type are perenial.  http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/1999/Apr/hour2_040999.html (NPR, 1999); http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1805623 (NPR 2004); http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2006_March_23/ai_n26803998/pg_1 (2006, the now infamous D2fusion) http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/sci-tech/cold-fusion-success-in-japan-gets-warm-reception-in-india_10053182.html (2008) ~Paul V. Keller  07:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)\\


 * Those of us who contributed to the deletion review fully appreciate the fact that claims of cold fusion are not uncommon - and, to date, unsubstantiated. The question here is not whether the machine works, but whether it is notable, independent of the truth value of the claims put forth on its behalf; for this reason, I submit that it deserves its own article - not just a line or two in cold fusion. St3vo (talk) 07:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The mistake in the deletion discussion was lumping this device with cold fusion claims, and distinguishing it only by its noterieity. Some cold fusion claims appear in reliable sources, and some are more substantiated than others.  Substantiation is a matter of degree and opinion.  Unsubstantiated cold fusion claims in unreliable sources are of far less interest than more substantiated claims in reliable sources.
 * "David Nagel, an engineer at George Washington University in Washington DC, says: "Of the 3,000-plus papers in the field, 10% are very hard to make go away. One per cent are, in my view, essentially bulletproof, as good as key papers in other fields of science.""
 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2005/mar/24/research.highereducation2
 * So the issue is not that it is a cold fusion claim, but that until we see a reliable source it has no chance of making the list of 10% that are compelling (to a cold fusion researcher), and definitely not the list of 1% that are hard to explain away.
 * I listed four citations, but I could probably come up with two or more for each year between 1989 and now. There is nothing special about getting on a news show with a claim to a cold fusion device.  And for $10,000 I can get anyone a patent on a cold fusion device.  All you'll get for your money is your name on a patent and a misleading appearance of credibility to those unfamiliar with the ins and outs of the patent system.
 * It was that hit and run specialist ScienceApologist's fault for nominating this article for deletion without doing homework and making the case. ~Paul V. Keller 09:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose Merger. The merger will distract from the main article. And someone should do a short page on Patterson anyway. He has no Wikipage. History2007 (talk) 09:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

There's been no support for the merge proposal so I removed it. --72.74.23.164 (talk) 02:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Cold Fusion Failed? Oh, really?
FIRST:

Why does the first section of the wiki claim that cold fusion has not been replicated? That seems flatly false and propagandistic. I would like to know who composed that sentence.

This external page suggests that cold fusion has been replicated:

[blacklisted]

How in the name of god is the the New Energy Times information blacklisted!?

Since these experiments are complex, the fact that SOME attempts at replication have failed only indicates (might indicate) that the the procedures through which to succeed have not been perfected; there are variables that have not been enough controlled.

It is a logical straw man argument (knocking down an easier foe) to suggest the inability to get replication %100 of the time shows that a discovery is not real or not promising. That logical fallacy is not uncommon in fights over new inventions.

SECOND:

Two define the Patterson Experiment as "Cold Fusion" is a matter of arbitrary terminology that seems to invoke the past ugliness over the cold fusion origins, which contained nasty personal attack.

It has the practical effect of implicitly "transferring" the past nasty attacks onto new researchers. But each experiment may differ, and claims of positive results need to be dealt with using integrity, not labels.

RELATED:

It seems, from books and the link above (blacklisted), that cold fusion has (sometimes) produced energy, and there are reports that their findings have been published in journals. The page as it is seems to be written as the service of cloudy analysis to knock down Galileo before the evidence is in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nK1JXhXfGwY&feature=PlayList&p=11894CF1757A2739&index=10&playnext=5&playnext_from=PL

Ihaveabutt (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Who wrote: "No independent, objective testing" ?
These papers need to be dealt with:

Yun, K-S., J-B. Ju, B-W. Cho, S-Y. Park, “Calorimetric Observation of heat Production During Electrolysis of 0.1 M LiOD_D2O Solution,” (Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, 306, 1991), p. 279.

1. Storms, Edmund, “Critical Review of the “Cold Fusion” Effect,” (preprint, 1993). Subsequently updated in 2001 in Cold Fusion: An Objective Assessment, Table 2.

2. Aoki, T., Y. Kurata, and H. Ebihara, “Study of Concentration of Helium and Tritium in Electrolytic Cells with Excess Heat Generation,” (Trans. of Fusion Technology, vol. 26, no. 4T, pt 2), p. 214.

3. Appleby, A. John, J. Kim Young, Oliver J. Murphy, and Supramaniam Srinivasan, “Anomalous Calorimetric Results During Long-Term Evolution of Deuterium on Palladium from Alkaline Deuteroxide Electrolyte,” (First Annual ICCF-1, Nat. CF Institute, SLC, Utah, 1990), p. 32.

4. Bertalot, L., L. Bettinali, F. De Marco, V. Violante, P. De Logu, T. Dikonimos Makris, and A. La Barbera, “Analysis of Tritium and Heat Excess in Electrochemical Cells with Pd Cathodes,” (S.I.F., “The Science of CF”, Proceedings ACCF-2, June 29, 1991, Como, Italy), p. 3.

5. Bertalot, L., F. De Marco, A. De Ninno, A. La Barbera, F. Scaramuzzi, V. Violante, and P. Zeppa, “Study of Deuterium Charging in Palladium by the Electrolysis of Heavy Water: Search for Heat and Nuclear Ashes,” H. Ikegami, ed., (University Academy Press, Frontiers of CF, 1993). p. 365.

6. Bush, Robert T., “Cold ‘Fusion’: The Transition Resonance Model Fits Data on Excess Heat, Predicts Optimal Trigger Points, and Suggests Nuclear Reaction Scenarios,” (Fusion Technology, 19, 1991). p. 313. Eagleton, R. D., and R. T. Bush, “Calorimetric Experiments Supporting the Transmission Resonance Model for CF,” (Fusion Technology, 20, 1991), p. 239.

7. Celani, F. A., A. Spallone, P. Tripoli, A. Nuvoli, A. Petrocchi, D. DiGioacchino, M. Boutet, P.Marini, and V. Di Stefano, “High Power Microsecond Pulsed Electrolysis for High Deuterium Loading in Pd Plates” (Trans. of Fusion Technology, vol. 26, no. 4T, pt.2), p. 127. Celani, F., A. Spallone, P. Tripoli, and A. Nuvoli, “Measurements of Excess Heat and Tritium During Self-Biased Pulsed Electrolysis of Pd-D2O,” H. Ikegami, ed., (University Academy Press, Frontiers of C.F., 1993), p. 93.

8. Fleischmann, Martin, Stanley Pons, Mark R. Anderson, Lian Jun Li, and Marvin Hawkins, “Calorimetry of the Palladium—Deuterium—Heavy Water System” (Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, 287, July 25, 1990), p. 293. Fleischmann, Martin, Stanley Pons, and Marvin Hawkins, “Electrochemically Induced Nuclear Fusion of Deuterium,” (Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, 261-2A, April 10, 1989), p. 301. Fleischmann, Martin, and Stanley Pons, “Heat After Death,” (Trans. of Fusion Technology, vol. 26, no. 4T, pt.2), p. 87.

9. Gozzi, D., P. L. Cignini, M. Tomellini, S. Frullani, F. Garabaldi, F. Ghio, M. Jodice, and G. M. Urciuoli, “Multicell Experiments for Searching Time-Related Events in CF,” (Proc. ACCF-2, Como, Italy, June 29, 1991 The Science of CF, vol. 33, (T. Bressani, E. Del Giudice, and G. Preparata, eds.), p. 21. Gozzi, D., P. L. Cignini, L. Petrucci, M. Tomellini, and G. De Maria, “Evidences for Associated Heat Generation and Nuclear Products Release in Pd Heavy-Water Electrolysis,” (Il Nuovo Cimento, 103, 1990), p. 143. Gozzi, D., R. Caputo, P. L. Cignini, M. Tomellini, G. Gigli, G. Balducci, E. Cisbani, S. Frullani, F. Garabaldi, M. Jodice, and G. M. Urciuoli, “Helium-4 Quantitative Measurements in the Gas Phase of CF Electrochemical Cells,” (EPRI, Proceedings: ICCF-4, vol. I), p. 6-1.

10.Guruswamy, S. J. G. Byrne, J. Li, and M. E. Wadsworth;, “Metallurgical Aspects of the Electrochemical Loading of Palladium with Deuterium,” (Workshop on CF Phenomena, Santa Fe, NM, May 23, 1989).

11.Hasegewa, N., N. Hayakawa, Y. Tsuchida, and Y. Yamamoto, “Observations of Excess Heat During Electrolysis of 1M LiOD in a Fuel Cell Type Closed Cell,” (EPRI, Proc. ICCF-4, vol. I, December 6, 1993), p. 3-1. Hasegawa, N., K. Kunimatsu, T. Ohi, and T. Terasawa, “Observation of Excess Heat During Electrolysis of 1M LiOD in a Fuel Cell Type Closed Cell,” H. Ikegami, ed., (Univ. Academy Press, Frontiers of CF, 1993), p. 377.

12.Hugo, Mark, “A Home CF Experiment,” (EPRI, Proceedings ICCF-4, vol. 2, December 12, 1993), p. 22-1.

13.Hutchinson, D. P., J. Bullock, C. A. Bennet, G. L. Powell, and R. K. Richards, “Initial Calorimetry Experiments in the Physics Division—ORNL,” (Oak Ridge Nat. Lab, ORNL/TM-11356, May 1990).

14.Bockris, John O’M., N. J. C. Packham, et al., “Sporadic Observation of the Fleischmann–Pons Heat Effect,” (Electrochemica Acta, vol. 34, no. 9, 1989), p. 1315.

15.Lewis, Derek; and Kurt Skold, “A Phenomenological Study of the Fleischmann–Pons Effect,” (Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, 294, November 9, 1990), p. 275.

16.Okamoto, M., Y. Yoshinaga, M. Aida, and T. Kusunoki, “Excess Heat Generation Voltage Deviation and Neutron Emission in D2O-LiOD Systems,” (Trans. of Fusion Technology, vol. 26, no.4T, pt.2, 1994), p. 176.

17.Ota, K., H. Yoshitake, O. Yamazaki, M. Kuratsuka, K. Yamaki, K. Ando, Y. Iida, and N. Kamiya, “Heat Measurement of Water Electrolysis Using Pd Cathode and the Electrochemistry,” (Trans. of Fusion Technology, vol. 26, no. 4T, pt 2, 1994), p. 138.

18.Storms, Edmund, “Measurement of Excess Heat from a Pons-Fleischmann-Type Electrolytic Cell Using Palladium Sheet,” (Fusion Technology, 23, 1993), p. 230. Storms, Edmund, “Some Characteristics of Heat Production Using the “Cold Fusion” Effect,” (Trans. of Fusion Technology, vol. 26, no. 4T, pt 2, 1994), p. 96.

19.Takahashi, A., T. Iida, T. Takeuchi, H. Miyamaru, and A. Mega, “Anomalous Excess Heat by D2O/Pd Cell Under L-H Mode Electrolysis,” H. Ikegami, ed., (Universal Academy Press, Frontiers of CF, 1993), p. 79. Takahashi, Akito, “Nuclear Products by D2O/Pd Electrolysis and Multibody Fusion,” (Elsevier, Proc Fourth Int ISEM Symposium on Nonlinear Phenomena in Electromagnetic Fields, Nagoya, Japan 26, 1922, Supplement to vol. 3 of Int. J. of Applied Electromagnetics in Materials).

20.Yang, C. -S., C. -Y. Liang, T. -P. Perng, L. -J. Yuan, C. -M. Wang, C. -C. Wang, “Observation of Excess Heat and Tritium on Electrolysis of D2O,” (Proc. CF Symp., 8th World Hydrogen Energy Conf., July 22, 1990), p. 95.

22.Zhang, Z. L., B. Z. Yan, M. G. Wang, J. Gu, and F. Tan, “Calorimetric Observation Combined with the Detection of Particle Emissions During the Electrolysis of Heavy Water,” (Proc. Anomalous Nuclear Effects in Deuterium /Solid Systems, Provo, Utah, October 22, 1990), p. 572. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihaveabutt (talk • contribs) 19:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

A patent issue angle for this article
I recently came across a couple of writings complaining about how the United States Patent & Trademark Office has handled cold fusion. We could use this article to discuss those issues and provide a destination for anyone wondering about that angle.

According to Storms 2007, The University of Utah spent nearly a million in an unsuccessful attempt to patent Pons and Fleischmann invention. In its 1992 annual report, the US Patent and Trademark Office explained over 200 cold fusion patent applications had been filed and were being routinely rejected for failing to meet operability and enablement requirements (the application must enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without engaging in undue experimentation). Rejections under these provision are generally reserved for situations im which the utility or operability issue is notorious. http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2107_02.htm (e.g., "'incredible in view of contemporary knowledge' and where nothing offered by the applicant would counter . . ."). Storms mentions the USPTO relying on newspaper articles, which reported failed reproductions attempts. Another sourrce says the USPTO also relied on the DOE's 1989 assessment of cold fusion assessment.

The enablement and operability requirements can be avoided by not claiming cold fusion, e.g., claiming an apparatus for efficiently electrolyzing water. I was surprised to find the CETI patent claimed a device for producing "excess power", placing the issue front and center. CETI satisfied the USPTO by submitting evidence of enablement and operablity. The USPTO is not in a position to counter this type of evidence and generaly accepts it at face value. To balance this, the USPTO places a duty of full disclosure on the applicant and the applicant's attorney. If a violation is proven while attempting to enforce the patent, the applicant and his attorney face several penalties, including rendering the patent unenforceable. Withholding evidence of inoperability while submitting evidence of operabilty is inequitable conduct.

This is all just throwing out an idea. I am not sure this content would be considered interesting and appropriate

If we put it in this article, it may run afoul of WP:OR

If we put it in the cold fusion article, I am worried about keeping the entry brief without creating a false sense that CETI acheived operability and enablement. I would say the big difference was that CETI gamed the system to procure an unenforceable patent. ~Paul V. Keller 10:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If a source like the Storms book shows no one followed up on the CETI method—whether or not it "worked"—it might be fair to mention CETI and their patent in the CF article together with that info. (The renouned Infinite Energy reported CETI's inability to manufacture new "working" beads.)  Let readers draw their own conclusions.  --72.70.19.79 (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In July 2009 I added a patents section to Cold fusion Cold_fusion. I think that one of the sources mentioned that Patterson obtained a patent (several patents?) by distancing himself from the "cold fusion" label. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, right...
"At its peak efficiency, the cell continuously produced 470 watts of energy, as heat, while 0.1 watt of electrical energy was flowing through the cell". Cited to this Given that www.padrak.com doesn't look remotely like WP:RS, I'm going to delete this. If someone wishes to assert that this is some sort of cold fusion/LENR device, they will need to find a proper source to back it up - which for claims like this would mean a mainstream peer-reviewed scientific journal, not some obscure website which also publishes articles on 'Anti-Gravity', 'The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program', 'Orgonne Energy' [sic] and 'Zero-Point Energy'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Currently the article sounds like Electrolysis of water
The device does Electrolysis of water, right? Hcobb (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Probably. Passing a current through water can have that effect. As for what else it does, nobody knows ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS/N
Comments needed here: RSN AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Cravens and a patent
User:AnnaBennett Seems insistent that we include material referring to a Dr. Dennis Cravens who apparently worked with Patterson, and to a patent they apparently took out, without giving any indication of why such material is relevant (the patent is a primary source, in any case). I'd like to see what others think about the inclusion of this material, which seems to tell us nothing meaningful about the Cell itself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * In his article for Wired magazine, Charles Platt wrote, "Power-Gen '95 conferencegoers were astonished by a cell that seemed to produce more than 1,000 watts of heat - from only 1 watt of input power." The cell did not have that kind of efficiency before Patterson and Cravens worked together to improve it. The improved cell is an absolutely crucial part of the story. AnnaBennett (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * So once again you are using Wired to make ridiculous assertions about the Cell? If this is the only 'evidence' available, then nothing is 'crucial' - it is a non-event. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem here is that you are constantly very rude to me. You use "ridiculous assertions" as thou I am the one making assertions about the heat-generating capacity of the PPC. Stop doing that! I have tried not to make assertions about "cold fusion" (transmutations) or "excess energy" but just document what other have said and written. I suggest that the article have a "Controversies" section where the claims and counter-claims of various authors can be presented. These controversies should be kept separate from the description and history of the cell. That is why I did not include a quote from the Wired article in the paragraph about the Patterson/Cravens improvements and patent. AnnaBennett (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No, the problem here is that you seem not to understand what Wikipedia is for. And no, we shouldn't have a 'controversies' section in the article, firstly because Wikipedia practice is to avoid such sections as far as possible, and secondly because there is no 'controversy' anyway. Wild claims were made about the Cell, but nothing whatsoever has been offered up as scientific evidence (in recognised journals etc) to prove that it does anything. There is no reason to see this device as of any more significance than a multitude of other failed 'free energy' devices. Attempts to imply otherwise by repeatedly naming other scientists, patents etc are an indication of how little substance there is to this story, rather than anything else.


 * (BTW, while you are here, can you please also respond to the 'obsolete criticism?' section above, and tell us on what grounds you consider such criticism 'obsolete'?) AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * A controversies section is completely unnecessary. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Getting back to Cravens and the patent, since the only source for this is the patent document (a primary source), can anyone give a policy related argument as to why this shouldn't be deleted? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that using a patent document to verify the fact that a patent was applied for, the names of the applicants, and the date the patent was granted is one of the allowable exceptions to the use of primary sources (per WP:SCHOLARSHIP). It neither makes nor requires any interpretation to substantiate those facts, so ought to be acceptable. Nevertheless, the second patent seems remarkably similar to the first. I suspect that the claim that "Dr. Dennis Cravens, a physicist, worked with Dr. Patterson in 1995 to optimize the heat-generating capacity of the Patterson Power Cell" is WP:OR, since I don't find any evidence that the second patent represents an optimisation of the process described in the first. At this rate, we're really going to end up with so little verifiable content that there seems no point in having the article. --RexxS (talk) 01:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the truth seems to be that there is very little verifiable content in reliable sources for anything beyond a statement that the media took an interest in the device, back in the mid 1990s. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

please be specific in your deletions
just deleting the whole article because you don't like the topic is of course silly. You should not distort an article before an AFD. It is a work in progress, I am working on it. You should allow this. Use where you feel the sources failed. Delete what you dont' like but do describe why.

Thanks, 84.106.26.81 (talk) 06:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * if you wish to revert material then find a citation for it. Do not revert materials back in which are not verified. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Excess heat
It has been my goal to keep acrimonious screaming about "cold fusion" out of the main body of the article so that the reader can calmly understand the Patterson Power Cell. As the article stands now, I believe that I have accomplished that goal. Now I have undertaken to compose a few paragraphs about "excess heat" and "cold fusion" and "nuclear transmutation". This is what I have written so far. Please review it and improve it. Thank you. And do try to remain calm.


 * The Patterson Power Cell (PPC) and other electrolysis devices generate heat while they are operating. The PPC has been the subject of newspaper and magazine articles, television reports, and documentary films because it has been asserted that the PPC generates more energy (as heat) than is put into it (as electricity). This alleged "excess heat" is asserted to be the result of a type of nuclear fusion known as cold fusion.


 * George H. Miley, a physicist, has studied the PPC and has found evidence that nuclear transmutations occur in the PPC. His findings support the assertion that cold fusion does occur in a PPC.

AnnaBennett (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If a physicist has studied it then where is the peer reviewed journal article? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Mr. Wolfie, this is the code for the Miley reference: G.H. Miley, J.A. Patterson. "Nuclear transmutations in thin-film nickel coatings undergoing electrolysis". Infinite Energy, no. 9, July/August 1996, p. 19–32.
 * This is the same reference that is in the Wikipedia article about George H. Miley. The full text of the article is linked to the New Energy Times page "Selected Papers": http://newenergytimes.com/v2/reports/SelectedPapers.shtml
 * AnnaBennett (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * So you are citing an article from the 'Journal of New Energy'! As I have already pointed out to you (see User_talk:AnnaBennett, this so-called 'Journal' isn't remotely WP:RS. Or if you are going to claim that it is, then take it to WP:RS/N as I have suggested. Endless repeated citations of the same rejected sources isn't going to achieve anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * George Miley is eminently qualified to do the kind of element analysis that he reported in his paper. No one has published contrary findings and, as you already know, his article is in Google Scholar and has been cited dozens of times. Miley is a reliable source and if his paper can be cited in the Wikipedia article about him then it is fit to be cited in the PPC article too. Note that Dr. Miley was interviewed by Nightline regarding the PPC. They treated him as a reliable source. Miley's interview begins at 2 minutes and 2 seconds. AnnaBennett (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * How many ******* times do you need to be told that claims regarding significant scientific advances need to be based on mainstream peer-reviewed sources? I don't give a rats arse whether you think Miley is reliable. I don't give a rats arse whether Miley is reliable. Wikipedia policy says that we don't base articles on guesswork, and nor do we base it on the opinions of POV-pushers as to who is 'eminently qualified' - we base science-based statements on the consensus of mainstream scientists, not on those investigating fringe subjects hyping their own unpublished research. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

To add to my edit summaries, removed my cleanup tag failed verification without addressing the concern that the webpage http://www.power-eng.com/articles/print/volume-99/issue-11/features/power-gen-95-show-preview.html does not mention either Patterson or CETI and does not support the assertion that the cell was demonstrated there. I've therefore reviewed the text which relies on cites to non-RS sources like Infinite Energy magazine or on cites which don't support the claim made in the text. I've now removed that text, as the burden of proof that the content is verifiable from reliable sources lies with the editor wishing to add that content per WP:BURDEN. --RexxS (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * RexxS, You have misunderstood the reason for citing the page about POWER-GEN 95. That reference was only to give the reader a link to information about POWER-GEN 95. The succeeding sentence, which included a reference Jeane Manning's report about POWER-GEN 95, included the fact that CEIT demonstrated a Patterson Power Cell at that convention, but another user deleted that sentence, creating a verification failure.
 * When I added the Wired magazine reference about the CETI demonstration at POWER-GEN 95 that corrected the verification problem, and the verification tag became obsolete, so I deleted it. In regard to the Wired magazine article, CETI and POWER-GEN are on page 8 of the article, as stated in the reference. I will change that link to http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.11/coldfusion.html?pg=8&topic=&topic_set= (taking the reader directly to page 8). And I will search for a different report and reference about the CETI demonstration at ICCF5. AnnaBennett (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Why is the fact that the Patterson Cell was demonstrated at POWER-GEN 95 of any lasting significance? What does adding this information to the article tell the reader about the device? It looks like trivia to include it without further justification. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Public exhibitions of the PPC generated lots of publicity and public interest, leading to the production of the ABC News video report about the PPC. Now that the reference to the transcript of that video report has been deleted, are you going to delete the reference to the video report too? AnnaBennett (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * So it is just being cited to show that there was 'public interest'? Like I said, trivia. It is becoming more and more apparent that this article is about nothing much at all, other than media hype and wishful thinking... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No, it's not just to show that there was "public interest". I am trying to lay a foundation for adding an "Excess heat" section to the article. That section should contain references to the claims and counter-claims that have been made about "excess heat" and "cold fusion" and "nuclear transmutation". I believe that the average reader will find it easier to understand the PPC if the contentious claims and counter-claims are kept separate from the description and history of the PPC. I have found an excellent reference about the demonstration of the PPC at ICCF5. It's in an article written by Dr. Cravens for ICCF5. AnnaBennett (talk) 04:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You really don't get it, do you? WE ARE NOT GOING TO ADD ANYTHING ABOUT 'EXCESS HEAT' UNTIL IT CAN BE SOURCED FROM A RECOGNISED MAINSTREAM PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL. Stop wasting everyone's time with your repetitive nonsense. Either conform to Wikipedia policy, or go elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Andy, Dennis Cravens is competent to report that a demonstration was held. That information does not have to be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal in order to be referenced in Wikipedia. So, to keep you from SCREAMING IN ALL CAPS and flinging four-letter-words, I have deleted the hyperlink to Dr. Cravens' paper and added a quote from his paper. The revised sentence will read: A demonstration>ref/ref< was also held during the Fifth International Conference on Cold Fusion. (Note: I reversed the arrow symbols so that the reference code will show up on the talk page.)
 * Now anyone who wants to read Cravens' entire paper will have to dig it out of the Internet for themselves. Please try to be calm. AnnaBennett (talk) 05:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't give a fuck whether you think Cravens is 'competent' to report anything. Bollocks about 'demonstrations' at obscure conferences doesn't belong in the article. Actually, nothing belongs in the article. The article doesn't belong on Wikipedia. If you wish to argue to the contrary, do this at Articles_for_deletion/CETI_Patterson_Power_Cell_(2nd_nomination) - but first, find some reliable sources that justify this bit of vacuous fluff about a failed magic teapot... AndyTheGrump (talk)


 * No reliable peer reviewed publications are needed. End of story. Also seperating couter-claims etc out is specifically warned about in WP:FRINGE. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Importance of reliable sourcing and verifiability
If an article is to exist on Wikipedia, the content needs to be verifiable from reliable sources. This article simply does not have anything close to reliable sourcing for most of its claims. A claim that this "power cell" can produce more cold fusion would represent a considerable departure from mainstream scientific consensus, and per WP:REDFLAG "exceptional claims require exceptional sources." None of the sourcing here is exceptional, and a lot of it is well short of being a reliable source, being self-published or published only in fringe sources that have no mainstream credibility.

I challenge each one of the following sources as being non-RS, and remind editors that the burden of demonstrating that text is verifiable to a reliable source lies with the editor wishing to add the content (WP:BURDEN.



The Further reading section is similarly padded with non-RS material, despite our requirements to the contrary:
 * Miley, G.H. and J.A. Patterson (1996). "Nuclear transmutations in thin-film nickel coatings undergoing electrolysis. Journal of New Energy, 1(3): p. 5. Retrieved November 19, 2011.
 * "Dr. George Miley Replicates Patterson, Names Rossi". e-Cat Site, October 22, 2011. Retrieved November 19, 2011.

I'm also very doubtful of the reliability of "http://www.padrak.com/ine/PPC97.html A review of the Patterson Power Cell" and ""2011 World Green Energy Symposium". October 19–21, 2011" and I'll point out for the second time that http://www.power-eng.com/articles/print/volume-99/issue-11/features/power-gen-95-show-preview.html does not mention Patterson or CETI - obviously in their haste to stuff the article with cites in an attempt to make it look respectable, the editor failed to check that the problem had been raised before. --RexxS (talk) 09:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I fully agree with RexxS. What the editors who put in these non-RS do not realize is, that because of their actions, we are now discussing an AfD. What a waste of time. They should understand that you can only use RS in wikipedia and especially for fringe topics the reprisal for pushing things too far is mostly far worse that what was intented.
 * I kindly but urgently ask User:AnnaBennett and IP 84.106 to step back for a while. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Mr. RexxS, I believe that Steven Krivit is a reliable source for the purpose of reporting that Dr. Patterson was born on May 17, 1922 and died on February 11, 2008. These are the same dates reported in the Social Security Death Index. Please withdraw your challenge to Mr. Krivit's report. AnnaBennett (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Mr. RexxS, Dr. Dennis Cravens worked with Dr. Patterson to improve the PPC and they were granted a United States patent on the improved PPC. I believe that Dr. Cravens is a reliable source for the purpose of reporting that a PPC was demonstrated at the Fifth International Conference on Cold Fusion. I did not cite Dr. Cravens' report, titled "Flowing Electrolyte Calorimetry", for any purpose other than that and, after Andy's objection, I amended my initial citation to make it clear that I was citing Dr. Cravens' report only for the purpose of establishing that a PPC had been demonstrated at ICCF-5. If you do not object to citing Dr. Cravens' report for this purpose then please withdraw your challenge to the citation. AnnaBennett (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Anna, Please cut out the Mr. nonsense. You have no idea of whether you're addressing a Mr, a Dr, a Prof, a Rev, or a Rear-Admiral, and I find your assumptions unwelcome. What makes Steven Krivit a reliable source for reporting on birth and death dates? Is he a published expert on the subject or perhaps the District Registrar for Births and Deaths? Does he have a reputation for fact-finding and accuracy? If he's such a reliable source, why didn't he publish his findings in a mainstream journal? Because those are the sort of grounds that make a source reliable here - as you'd know if you'd read the policies that you have been referred to several times. Why should we believe the stuff that written on http://newenergytimes.com/ ? I could just as easily make a pretty looking website on my webserver and say that John Doe was born on 1 April 1811 and died today - but it wouldn't be any more reliable a source than that which you are trying to foist on Wikipedia. If you have a source like the Social Security Death Index that you can cite, why don't you use that instead? As for Dennis Cravens, is he noted for his accurate reports on conferences? The same applies as above, and I'm left wondering why you think that a report which seems to make its only appearance on the newenergytimes.com website should be trusted for any fact? Put simply: (1) Don't use non-reliable sources; (2) Start by reading reliable sources and constructing your content from that; (3) Don't write your text first and then scrape the bottom of the barrel for any old source that vaguely supports what you want to write. You may be surprised by how much you "know" just isn't supported by reliable sources and hence doesn't belong in our encyclopedia. Hope that clarifies it for you. If not - feel free to take your sources to the reliable sources noticeboard. --RexxS (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe that using birth and death dates from the Social Security Death Index is an acceptable practice but I would not do that because an extremely grumpy and vulgar person would attack me with obscenities and SCREAM SCREAM SCREAM SCREAM SCREAM that using such data constitutes the sin of original research. That is what I have come to expect here.
 * Dennis Cravens does not need a BA or MA or PhD in journalism to be qualified to report the simple fact that a device which he co-invented was publicly demonstrated. He has a PhD (Florida State University) and his brain works well enough to allow him to accurately report that a device was demonstrated at a particular time and place. He is a reliable source for such simple information. Here is a little evidence that his brain is still functioning well; he recently co-authored this book chapter: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/bk-2009-1029.ch005 Interestingly, the book, titled Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions and New Energy Technologies Sourcebook Volume 2, was co-edited by Steven B. Krivit. AnnaBennett (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing Cravens publishes on his own will be considered reliable for Wikipedia. Cravens will have to be covered by a WP:Reliable source, specifically a WP:Secondary source. Cravens by himself is a primary source and Wikipedia rarely draws from such sources. There is also the issue of giving Cravens WP:Undue coverage. We should use secondary sources to make certain that Cravens is accorded the proper weight. Binksternet (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that Dennis Cravens is of sound mind. I'm sure he's a nice guy and utterly honest, but that still doesn't make him a reliable source for anything. Any of his work that's been published in a mainstream peer-reviewed journal is likely to be a RS and he may even qualify as an RS in his own right in a field where he's a published expert ... but you already know all this, right? Because you surely read what our policies and guidelines say on the matter before you came here to explain to us that having a PhD makes him a reliable source. --RexxS (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

If you think you can change the article to say Patterson is still alive you got the wrong idea. I will look into it, it would be nice if you would find such source yourself. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you've confused this article with the James A. Patterson biography where biographical details are relevant. And as you seem to have difficulty following links, here's a quotation from WP:BURDEN that I referred to earlier:
 * The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it (although an alternate procedure would be to add a citation needed tag).
 * and you may find the quote from Jimbo informative as well:
 * I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. – Jimmy Wales, WikiEN-l, May 16, 2006
 * It would indeed be lovely if folks went away and searched for sources to support the material you wanted to insert into an article at your request, but unfortunately that practice was was outlawed throughout the British Empire in 1833 and in the USA some 32 years later. --RexxS (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * RexxS, I found another reference about the demonstration of the PPC at ICCF-5. Is this reference a "reliable source"?
 * Simon, Bart (2002). Undead science: science studies and the afterlife of cold fusion. Rutgers University Press, page 162. ISBN 0813531543, 9780813531540
 * AnnaBennett (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, a book published by Rutgers University Press is a reliable source. Yworo (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks to me, Anna, like a rock-solid reliable source that verifies the demonstration at ICCF-5. I'd use it without hesitation in the article. Is it of any value in verifying anything else that is contended? --RexxS (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

transcribe company
we lost this bit here:
 * We just finished a $2.5 [sic] offering about nine months ago. That enabled us to hire a president, Jack St.Genis, who was a very senior manager at Matsushita, NEC, and IBM. And Lou Furlong joined us six months ago as director of research, formerly at Exxon. Altogether we have 10 people here. Now we're going to raise another $5 million for three projects. The first is filtering tritium from waste water out of fission reactors, using a different invention of Patterson's. The second project is neutralizing other forms of radioactivity. The third is power cells. When the first venture creates revenue, we'll spin that out and use it as liquidity to raise capital for the other two.  (Jim Reding ref name=wired2/>)

I didn't really have time to decipher that into readable language. If anyone wants to give it a shot please do. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 22:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I will just put it back so that it can be fixed the right way. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 04:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I removed this paragraph as unneeded conjecture voiced by CETI. This article should be pared to the minimum because of the controversial nature of the device, and reports of hopeful plans do not hold any weight. Binksternet (talk) 05:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing problems again
It doesn't take long to fill back up with rubbish. Sourcing problems: How can these meet WP:V & WP:RS? --RexxS (talk) 08:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * - how is this a cite that can be used to verify anything?
 * Calorimetric Study of Pd/Ni Beads From the CETI RIFEX Kit, Scott Little and Hal Puthoff - what makes earthtech a RS?
 * http://www.worldgreenenergysymposium.us/newsroom.html - how can this be considered a RS?
 * - how is this a cite that can be used to verify anything?
 * Cravens, Dennis (May 1, 1995). "Flowing Electrolyte Calorimetry". Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Cold Fusion, 1995, page 79.(archive) - what makes newenergytimes.com a RS?
 * Jet Rothwell, Eugene Mallove, Cold Fusion Technology Magazine, One Kilowatt Cold Fusion Reactor Demonstrated December 7, 1995 - what makes Cold Fusion mag a RS (it's self-published, not an MIT-reviewed source)?
 * Transcript of ABC-TV "Good Morning America" Program on Cold Fusion Excess Energy and Radioactivity Reduction, June 11, 1997. Transcribed by Infinite Energy magazine. - what makes Infinite Energy mag a reliable source?
 * - what makes Lightworks Audio Video a RS?


 * IP 84.106 is pushing that stuff in. I have reverted it. Maybe the IP should stop editing this article for a while until he understands what is reliable source and what is not. I propose to semi-protect this page for a while. --POVbrigand (talk) 10:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * More than that, the section is useless. None of the demonstrations and media hype resulted in proving the device. All of this stuff should be removed per WP:UNDUE. Binksternet (talk) 18:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The article exists because of the media spectacle, it doesn't exist as a science topic.

Wired2 - not independent?
In the wired2 article the writer went and visited Patterson and had many discussions with him. Therefore the source can not be independent. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * That's a ridiculous assertion. Visits and interviews are an inherent part of the journalist's job and the result still has to be approved by the Wired editorial staff. Yworo (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Your deletion was not helpful irwolfie. Pleases add something constructive to the article. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The source may still be secondary but it is no longer independent. It doesn't matter if it's part of their job. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * By that logic, any journalist who actually does research into the topic about which s/he's writing would be considered "involved." This assertion is not grounded in policy.  N o f o rmation  Talk  22:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Noformation. Wired must be accepted as reliable. Binksternet (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

RSN. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong, end of discussion. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 03:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Lets clear one thing up
This is an article about a media event. Note worthiness only has to be established in the appropriate time frame (15 years ago) Pretending this is a science article is POV pushing. It might not be intentional it is.

It has historic significance because our readers should know such historic false promises do exist. We for example also have an article about blacklight Power. We have an article about Stanley Meyer, we have an article about Joseph Newman, even an article about Water_fuelled_car. This by no means reflects the actual history of the topic. I noticed editors find it annoying there are so many new users trying to make the Energy Catalyzer look like something real. If you remove the clearly note worthy history from Wikipedia you should not moan people are completely uninformed because you are the primary cause of it.

The requests for peer review shows you to be ignorant about the topic as well. After the most respectable Julian Schwinger didn't get to publish his 8 papers about cold fusion you shouldn't expect anyone else to be allowed to publish their work on the topic. The papers are officially refused without review. We don't have to wonder why the cold fusion article doesn't mention this.(see?) This interesting bit of context has been deleted from the article. With such censorship of the greater context you nor anyone else is really going to get the picture.

The situation is this:
 * Other editors like yourself didn't think you should know peer review is universally rejected. If the Physics Nobel prize winner cant publish papers, you shouldn't expect anyone else to.
 * In the same way you don't want the Energy Catalyzer editors to know there have been previous media spectacles just like it. The censorship is what powers this enthusiasm.

This phenomenon is called Pseudoskepticism, it is when the skeptic is trying to get rid of the information in stead of refuting it. Of course there are plenty of skeptical publications from prominent sources. A skeptic would add those sources, a pseudoskeptic would try to erase as much information as possible. Any kind of review from a prominent source is good for the article. Bad reviews are more important than good ones (unless the positive reviews are peer reviewed)

James Paterson really existed and George Miley is still working on the thin film LENR. BUT! What we cant do however is pretend Miley's work on related technology is part of the Patterson Power Cell. It would require quite the sources to make such statements.

You are mistakingly thinking this is a science article while it is an article about a popular media event. A media event that was significant in 1995. If it was a science article the content would be dramatically different. Please compare: muon-catalyzed fusion and cold fusion.

You can not prevent Wikipedia from covering note worthy con men fusion. Meanwhile respectable scientists spending millions of their their own money are successfully censored.

This is not good, we should prefer Low Energy Nuclear Reactions as described by actual scientists. What has Rossi shown that gets close to the Patterson cell? Could that be nothing at all? It is just bad to limit coverage to non academic exercises. It is an awful way of distorting the picture.

I hope this helps and thanks for your time, 84.106.26.81 (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Making conspiratorial claims as well as unsourced assertions against users does not appear productive for this article. This article is about a cold fusion device. Reliable mainstream journal articles which are peer-reviewed are always required for any extraordinary scientific claims in any article on wikipedia. I find the claim that "peer review is universally rejected" laughable. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "Reliable mainstream journal articles which are peer-reviewed are always required for any extraordinary scientific claims in any article on wikipedia.". You made that one up yourself. We, the editors, are not claiming anything extraordinary. We present an article about a device for which claims were made that are not accepted by mainstream science. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There were unreliable scientific claims in the article about their energy returns which have since been removed. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice if you would actually help write the article. If you cant contribute constructively maybe you should consider a topic that is more interesting to you. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 03:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles are written in accord with policy, as arrived at by consensus amongst contributors, and not with the wishes of fringe-pushing conspiracy-theorists. As long as mainstream science considers the claims of LENR researches as unverified and questionable, so will we. If you can't work in accord with Wikipedia policy regarding this, maybe you should consider an encyclopaedia that is more accomodating to you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

IRWolfie's question
Kozima wrote, "The products of cold fusion phenomenon (CFP) observed by Miley et al. [Miley and Patterson 1996] are tabulated in Table C6.1". That table lists the kinds of atoms that Miley and Patterson reported finding in microspheres that had been used in a Patterson Power Cell. At the top of Kozima's page 148 he uses the abbreviation TNCF and he defines that term on page page 192 as "trapped neutron catalyzed fusion".

Using TNCF to refer to the transmutation of nickel into copper seems appropriate because the nickel is being transmuted into a heavier element (copper) and that is an example of nuclear fusion. However, using TNCF to refer to the transmutation of nickel into lighter elements is a bit misleading because such transmutations are actually examples of nuclear fission, not fusion. In contrast, Miley has used the term "fissfus" to describe the transmutation of nickel into a heavier element (copper) and lighter elements (chromium, manganese, iron, and cobalt). The term "fissfus" is derived by combining the "fiss" from fission with the "fus" from fusion. AnnaBennett (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This does not verify that he "has suggested that nuclear transmutations occurred in the cell". IRWolfie- (talk) 18:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * In section C6.1 Kozima uses the phrase "cold fusion phenomenon (CFP)". In that context I equate "cold fusion phenomenon (CFP)" with nuclear transmutation. However, perhaps it would be better to summarize Kozima as follows:
 * Hideo Kozima, professor emeritus of physics at Shizuoka University, asserts that an atomic analysis of microspheres which had been used in a Patterson Power Cell shows that the microspheres contain atoms that are the "products of cold fusion phenomenon (CFP)".
 * Kozima uses his "TNCF model" to explain the presence of the "new" atoms but it is probably not necessary to include a reference to that hypothesis. AnnaBennett (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I still do not see where he states this. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * fixed it --POVbrigand (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry but where does he suggest it happened; i.e give a quote so I can see IRWolfie- (talk) 09:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The whole book is about cold fusion. "The products of cold fusion phenomenon (CFP) observed by Miley et al. [Miley and Patterson 1996] are tabulated in the Table C6.1". --POVbrigand (talk) 11:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to be missing my point so I went ahead and altered the wording. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

questions about sources

 * how is this a cite that can be used to verify anything? --RexxS
 * how is this a cite that can be used to verify anything? --RexxS


 * The article existed because it had a lot of media coverage. This was mostly TV coverage. You can illegally download the episodes elsewhere on the internet if you must validate.84.106.26.81 (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Calorimetric Study of Pd/Ni Beads From the CETI RIFEX Kit, Scott Little and Hal Puthoff
 * what makes earthtech a RS? -- RexxS

Thats simply there to avoid having to explain it doesn't work. We do have an article about Hall Puthoff, that makes his opinion note worthy. It is also interesting he had to buy the beads. Notice how the E-Cat article quotes James Randi. Puthoff is a much better source. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * http://www.worldgreenenergysymposium.us/newsroom.html
 * how can this be considered a RS? -- RexxS
 * That is just there to show it exists.84.106.26.81 (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Cravens, Dennis (May 1, 1995). "Flowing Electrolyte Calorimetry". Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Cold Fusion, 1995, page 79.(archive)
 * what makes newenergytimes.com a RS? -- RexxS

Your question is "what makes the 5th International Conference on Cold Fusion a reliable source." The archive link is just there so that Wikipedia readers can find and check such information. Unlike the TV sources the material is not copyrighted.84.106.26.81 (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Jet Rothwell, Eugene Mallove, Cold Fusion Technology Magazine, One Kilowatt Cold Fusion Reactor Demonstrated December 7, 1995
 * what makes Cold Fusion mag a RS (it's self-published, not an MIT-reviewed source)?-- RexxS


 * Eugene Mallove held a BS (1969) and MS degree (1970) in aeronautical and astronautical engineering from MIT and a ScD degree (1975) in environmental health sciences from Harvard University. He had worked for technology engineering firms such as Hughes Research Laboratories, the Analytic Science Corporation, and MIT's Lincoln Laboratory, and he consulted in research and development of new energies. Mallove taught science journalism at MIT and Boston University and was chief science writer at MIT's news office.


 * Cold Fusion Technology Magazine was his magazine. Can we use printed magazines as sources? For example on the "Permaculture" article:


 * We can use magazines for media spectacles. Notability only has to be established in 1990's. It is only a good source from a news media perspective, and only in that time frame. You shouldn't source any science on it obviously. While it is a dubious source there is enough reason to think such a demo did take place. You also have to wonder if erasing this event from history is good for the article. The information is so old that no real damage is done by using it. There are many sources that confirm the demonstration sourced on this did take place. The (later found) Wall street journal ref is not better but more reliable.84.106.26.81 (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Transcript of ABC-TV "Good Morning America" Program on Cold Fusion Excess Energy and Radioactivity Reduction, June 11, 1997. Transcribed by Infinite Energy magazine.
 * what makes Infinite Energy mag a reliable source?-- RexxS


 * Your question is "what makes ABC News Good Morning America a reliable source." The archive link is just there so that Wikipedia readers can find and check such information. Unlike the TV footage the transcript is not copyrighted.84.106.26.81 (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * what makes Lightworks Audio Video a RS?-- RexxS
 * There is nothing wrong with mentioning a documentary under "further reading" even while it isn't a "read" technically.
 * There is nothing wrong with mentioning a documentary under "further reading" even while it isn't a "read" technically.


 * Hope that helps,


 * P.S.


 * The article was in AFD that was why I put that version live, you shouldn't expect me to magically source everything while you sit back and moan about it.


 * 84.106.26.81 (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Making sense out of the CETI section
It's not clear to me what any of the material in the section on the company is doing in this article, because it isn't at all obvious that this cell has anything to do with the activity discussed there. Mangoe (talk) 16:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I will go farther than that and say not only CETI company info should be deleted but also the list of public demonstrations, none of which definitively proved the device. Binksternet (talk) 18:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Wholeheartedly agree. The lot can be axed. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * We should explain CETI as being the company name "Clean Energy Technology Inc.". --POVbrigand (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ I agree. Binksternet (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * For what its worth, Clean Energy Technologies, Inc. changed its name to MSI Ventures, Inc., effective May 3, 2000. See http://www.sunbiz.org/pdf/80275408.pdf
 * MSI Ventures, Inc. is no longer qualified to do business in the State of Florida. I do not know whether the corporation is still listed as "active" in the State of Texas, where it was originally incorporated. AnnaBennett (talk) 02:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that was the link?84.106.26.81 (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Is the United States Senate a reliable source?
An article in the Wall Street Journal is referenced in United States Senate Document 105-10; http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CDOC-105sdoc10/html/CDOC-105sdoc10.htm Is this a reliable source?
 * Bishop, Jerry E. "A bottle rekindles scientific debate about the possibility of cold fusion". Wall Street Journal, Jan. 29, 1996: 7A.
 * A bottle no bigger than a man's fist is stirring up the debate again over cold fusion. The little bottle known as a Patterson Power Cell, named for its inventor, James A. Patterson, is the basis for a new technology start-up, Clean Energy Technologies, Inc. Despite skeptics, CETI has demonstrated the Patterson cell at three technical conferences in the last nine months, including the Dec. 1995 annual gathering of generating-equipment manufacturers in Anaheim CA.

AnnaBennett (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think the Senate document lends a sense of enduring notability to the WSJ article as the Senate work is from a year or two later. The glacial way the Senate works, that timing is almost simultaneous. ^_^
 * Binksternet (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Anna, what are you trying to say ? That the cell has been demonstrated ? --POVbrigand (talk) 10:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * From what I gather, she is looking for a source for the fact taht the cell is named after its inventor. That's a trivial bit of information that doesn't require a source. Inventions are routinely named after their inventor. Nothing odd about that. A source would be needed only if there were some actual debate about who the cell was named after, and there isn't in this case. If the source were to be used, we would cite it to the WSJ itself, not the US Senate anyway. The Senate is not a source here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * POVbrigand, The article in the Wall Street Journal might be useful because it reports that the PPC had been demonstrated "at three technical conferences in the last nine months". AnnaBennett (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * ...With inconclusive results, yielding no breakthrough. Binksternet (talk) 15:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice find, we can definitely use the Wall Street Journal article as a source for the Power-gen America demonstration.

I will ask some one to check if the article exists. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 04:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to cite a source for something, you should read it, not just confirm that it exists. In any case a source stating that a demonstration occurred is no evidence that anyone considers it noteworthy. Per WP:NOTNEWS, we'd need evidence that any demonstrations had lasting significance - not just that they had taken place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * In the lead we write that the device was demonstrated at a conference in '95. The source for that is the wired article, the conference was the Power-Gen '95. The ABC television demonstration is also mentioned in the article. If you can find a demonstration where a scientists or commentator stated something useful to add to our article, then we could look into it. Adding more demonstrations just for the sake that the demonstrations happened, doesn't really add anything to the article. At most we could write a one liner saying "the device was demonstrated a few more times", but even that wouldn't add anything useful.
 * A line like that would only be useful if we could add a "qualifying" statement like " ..., but those demonstrations couldn't convince mainstream science". But we wouldn't be able to find RS for such a qualifying statement. So I think we should just leave it. The device is history, it deserves a short article in WP and that's it. -POVbrigand (talk) 11:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What? No, the demonstration should be listed because they gave false credibility to the invention. In at least one demo the flow rate of the control cell (without the beads) was cluttered causing it to produce readings way above 100%. This shows how easy it is to give a credible demonstration. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I asked Fæ to check the referrence

Wall Street Journal

January 29, 1996, Monday

A Bottle Rekindles Scientific Debate About The Possibility Of Cold Fusion

Byline: By Jerry E Bishop

Jerry E Bishop article discusses the renewed debate over cold fusion, focusing on chemist James A Patterson's 'Patterson Power Cell'; Patterson has turned the power cell over to a start-up, Clean Energy Technologies Inc, run by his grandson James W Reding; Reding once touted the cell as a cold fusion system, but has since dropped that claim (M)

84.106.26.81 (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Excess heat verification reports
Binksternet, you deleted the "Verification reports" section that I added because I cited a primary source. Yes, I see that the citation is incorrect. I am going to correct that error and put the section back into the article. "Excess heat" is the reason that Wikipedia has an article on the Patterson Power Cell. This aspect of the PPC must be fully presented. AnnaBennett (talk) 16:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The patent is a primary source. The report is also a primary source. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The TV programs are valid sources. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 05:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * TV programs cannot be reliable sources for scientific claims of this nature. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No one is suggesting that.84.106.26.81 (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

delete the patent?
I would like an explanation for the deletion of the patent. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a primary source. Provide evidence that this patent is seen as significant by reliable secondary sources please - and then cite them instead. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It is very normal to link to patents, please familiarize yourself with this. We even have a template for it. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 19:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Provide evidence that this patent is seen as significant by reliable secondary sources please. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

what is electrolyte?
here Andy stated: "there is nothing 'well known' about using lithium sulfate to make water conduct electricity"

The cell is an electrolysis device. I added: "This makes the fluid conductive so that electric current can flow though it." which should be good as articles should be written for everyday readers, not for academics. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If one wished to make the water into an electrolyte, there are cheaper 'solutions' (pun intended) than lithium sulfate. Why not simple Wikilink electrolyte and avoid unnecessary repetition? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This isn't a valid argument Andy. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That isn't a valid response, anon IP. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

RfC on citing a patent
Should the article discuss and cite a patent relating to the Patterson Power Cell? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael Guillen reported for ABC News that the U.S. Government had issued a patent to Patterson on his system for electrolysis. And then Bart Simon quoted Guillen on that point. Furthermore, the government knew it was issuing a "cold fusion" patent! The patent includes a reference to the work of Pons and Fleischmann and it claims "excess heat". The patent is itself a milestone in human history. Failing to include mention of the patent in this article would be just silly. AnnaBennett (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * And you have a source for all that? The patent is a primary source, and should not be cited without evidence from reliable secondary sources that it is significant. Indeed, if it is significant, we should be citing the source that says so, not the patent itself. As it stands, we have no evidence that this is even the correct patent. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see no reason why it shouldn't. It's specific information related to the subject and it is commonplace to include patent information, if available, in articles on patented products. If the information is from reliable sources, Andy, I don't understand why you're trying to keep it out of the article. Sure, there's weight issues to consider, but patent information is pretty darn important and easy to verify. Silver  seren C 20:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Verification of material from patents themselves is WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What exactly is OR in this? What is being included that is OR? Is the information from the patent being synthesized into something else? Are conclusions being drawn that aren't included specifically in the patent? Silver  seren C 20:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * As I noted above, there is nothing to indicate that this is even the correct patent - Patterson had hundreds, including several relating to the Cell, apparently. But yes, the patent is being cited for more than just it's existence, which looks to me like WP:OR to me. I can see no merit in citing it for existence without evidence from reliable sources that it is seen as significant - and it shouldn't be cited for content at all, except as confirmation of material cited from elsewhere. The repeated attempts to present this patent as important look to me to be a classic example of citation for credibility, as a method to hype up the device - as :AnnaBennett's comments above make clear. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This source is being used in the section, which seems reliable for our purposes. Some of the Dennis Cravens info in regards to excess heat is included in this source, though not all of it, so anything extra should be removed. But, other than that, i'm not seeing any OR. Silver  seren C 21:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The page you linked to makes no mention of any patent. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Look on page 159. Silver  seren C 21:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sadly, Google Books will only show me a brief excerpt of that page - not even enough to be sure it is referring to the Patterson Cell, never mind the particular patent in question. Can you quote the section in sufficient detail to confirm these points? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the start of Chapter 6: Tales From The Crypt and the start of the section Shades of Cold Fusion. It's discussing Patterson's interview on Good Morning America. Michael Guillen, the host I assume of the show, introduces him with,


 * "It's a device that it's inventor says produces a hundred times more energy than it consumes. Now let me say right off the bat that lots of ideas come across my desk that claim to be the energy source of the future, but this one is different. For one thing, the inventor has a distinguished track record. Second, the invention itself has been issued a patent by the U.S. Patent Office. Furthermore, and this is key, independent scientists now claim to have reproduced the results, and major corporations like Motorola are taking a serious interest in it. So, is this potentially the greatest discovery since electricity? Since fire? Good question! Have a look."


 * It then goes on to discuss the power cell, the excess heat thing, and also the history of Patterson getting it patented and working with CETI. Later on in the page, it also states, "This excess power effect had been confirmed by scientists at the Universities of Missouri and Illinois using Patterson's beads, and U.S. patents had been granted for the coating technique as well as for the power generation process." And it goes on for many pages after that discussing the power cell. Silver  seren C 21:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If Simon's book makes reference to several patents, rather than just one (which one?) we should probably do the same if it is significant - which means citing Simon's book, rather than a particular patent. We need to be careful here though. Bart Simon is a social scientist, not a physicist, and his work shouldn't be cited for factual claims regarding the Cell. Indeed, it seems evident from what I can see on Google Books that Simon sees those working on the Patterson Cell as 'cold fusioneers' rather than as part of the core continuing researchers into the field - and gives them less credence as a result. We shouldn't use Simon to support arguments he doesn't himself make. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * From what i'm getting out of this page, this System for Electrolysis patent is an overall patent that Patterson made for the Power Cell and all of its components that includes the other two (coating and power generation process) patents, as he discusses them within this one. The palladium coating was made with a US patent, numbers 4,943,355 and 5,036,031. And the process of power generation was put under the patents numbered 5,318,675 ('675) and 5,372,688 ('688). Silver  seren C 22:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This seems like guesswork; we just don't reliably know which patent the book is referring to. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not moved by the hyperbole about "a milestone in human history", but I think the patent can be presented in the article as a reference for its existence. I do not think that a patent on any cold fusion subject—or any other contentious subject—can be used to support truth presented in Wikipedia's voice: we should stick with secondary sources to interpret the text of the patent. Binksternet (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As I noted above, we don't even know that this particular patent is the right one - there are several. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I need more convincing than that. Wouldn't any topic expert know immediately which one was which? I'm not talking laypersons... Binksternet (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The book mentioned was written by a non-expert. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What gives the patent due weight for a mention? As it stands one of the patents is being used for the statement "and the patent includes exhibits "A" and "B", documents written by Dr. Dennis Cravens which verify Patterson's claim of excess heat." IRWolfie- (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't read through the 47 pages of the patent, so i'm not sure if exhibits A and B are in there, but I assume they are. The patent for a specific commercial product is important in regards to the history of the product. Silver  seren C 23:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The current wording states as a fact that it has been verified on the basis of the patent. The guidelines specifically warn that patents are not reliable for this: Reliable_source_examples "The government relies wholly on the inventor's assertion that he is telling the truth and his assertion that the any testing performed by the inventor was adequate and appropriate to prove that his invention works, e.g., that colloidal silver cures AIDS because people who didn't have HIV felt better after taking it (US patent #5,676,977).". IRWolfie- (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Then the sentence should be reworded to clearly clarify that it is the opinion of Cravens and the patent. Silver  seren C 23:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Would that not be a BLP issue since the patent is not reliable? Ah it seems Craven works for CETI IRWolfie- (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * CETI claimed to have 150 patents. Do you think all of them should be mentioned in the way they currently are? Microsoft has thousands of patents but neither microsoft nor microsoft windows mention patents in the respective articles. What gives this particular patent due weight for being included in the article if the contents are not being discussed in reliable sources?
 * The fact that this article is on a patented subject. It isn't about a company with thousands of patents and it's not even about Patterson himself, who has a number of patents, this article is about one subject, which was patented. That's why the patent is important and should be included, because it is directly related to the subject of this article. Silver  seren C 23:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ... and Microsoft Windows is a (heavily) patented product. If it is mentioned in reliable sources (I don't see the link to the above ABC news source so I can not confirm) then it may have due weight for a mention but most products have patents as a matter of course. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Microsoft Windows likely has too many patents to count, but you are correct about reliable sources and the patent is mentioned specifically in the book source given above. It is specifically pointed out in the book that the power cell was patented. Silver  seren C 23:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think the book has a lot of due weight attached to it. The author . IRWolfie- (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've altered the current wording as well, since we don't know which patent (and there were several) it is original research and a synthesis to say specifically which patent it is and then to describe it with it. What is the reliable source we have discussing the patent US5494559? IRWolfie- (talk)


 * Depends on how it is used - A patent is only a reliable source for the fact that a patent was filed for and issued. It can't be viewed as any  sort of endorsement by the patent office that it works, is original, or even that it's  physically possible.  This is generally true, and not just here.  Similarly, patents have very little value until they are upheld in court.  A13ean (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * For reference the current wording the patent reference is being used for here :
 * The patent was issued on February 27, 1996 and is titled ''System for electrolysis. Patterson claims in the patent that his system for electrolysis produces "excess heat" and the patent includes exhibits "A" and "B", documents written by Dr. Dennis Cravens which verify Patterson's claim of excess heat.
 * IRWolfie- (talk) 23:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Now that is an interesting use of the word 'verify'. So the patent document is being cited to claim 'excess heat', based on documents written by a person working for the organisation submitting the patent. Utter codswallop. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, clearly not an appropriate use of the patent as a ref. A13ean (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've made some changes to the patent section since it is a synthesis to link a specific patent to the book (we don't know which one). I've also changed the wording to make fewer claims. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: We may just want to make the sentences more general, in regards to the [available source. It is clear that a patent was filed for the device, as this source and, though it, Good Morning America, notes. There is a significant amount of further information in the source that would need to be gone through to see what should be added, as there's a lot more available information in there. [[User:Silver seren| Silver ]] seren C 00:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And once again, I'd remind you that the author isn't a physicist, he is a social scientist. The book isn't about the validity or otherwise of the Patterson Cell, and the author clearly considers those involved with the Cell as being marginal even within the field of cold fusion research. The use of this source to 'validate' any claims made about the Cell would be entirely inappropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about using it to validate anything about the claims on whether it works or not, which I don't believe it even comments on. I'm talking about using it for the history of the product, how Patterson took it to CETI and all of the other related history in regards to that. The most that could possibly be used in terms of the physics it somewhat discusses would be that it is a secondary source putting forth Patterson's claims, but even then, I wouldn't want to use it for that. Just the history is good enough. Silver  seren C 01:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The current wording states that patterson was given a patent. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Depends on how it is used The fact that patents are primary source does not invalidate them from being used in any WP-article. When using primary sources in general one has to be careful not to fall into OR. The way it is used right now "... in the patent it is claimed ..." Is a perfect way to use it. It is verifiable that that is indeed written in the patent. And the claim is presented as a claim not as fact. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue is of due weight. No reliable source seems to explicitly mention the particular patent in the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Given the above discussions, I've removed the reference to Cravens documents - we clearly cannot use a patent as WP:RS for 'verification' of anything. I've still as yet not seen any valid arguments as to why we should be mentioning particular patents in any case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Cite_patent&limit=500

84.106.26.81 (talk) 15:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What are you trying to show? Yes other articles use the cite patent template. As has already been mentioned it is perfectly ok to mention a patent if it has been discussed in reliable sources. That is the current issue. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Nonsense, the discussion was never about citation, the discussion was about blacklisting the patent. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 15:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The patent is already used in the article for the image. Which considering it's not discussed in reliably sources seems a fair compromise. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There should not be any discussion about changing the guidelines on this page. Specially not to support a pov. Examples of articles that cite patents have been provided. What more do you think you are entitled to? 84.106.26.81 (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody is proposing to change the guidelines. Now, can you provide a reason for citing the patent, based on existing Wikipedia policy? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it should be included. Gerardw (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't a vote, it is a discussion. Please explain your reasoning. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

obsolete criticism?
This removed all criticism and failed replications from the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. What exactly is "obsolete criticism", and what source is being cited to characterise it as obsolete? Frankly, edit summaries like that can only indicate further just how much POV-pushing has been going on with regard to this article. I'd suggest that those wishing to ensure that the article isn't deleted for the piece of meaningless waffle about old 'news' that it currently is produce some evidence that the Cell has been shown (in mainstream peer-reviewed science journals, or similar WP:RS sources) to actually do anything beyond that which recognised science expects it to - though of course, no such sources exist. This article only survived an AfD in 2007 because of claims regarding media interest, and the media seems no longer to be interested either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There doesn't have to be ongoing media attention to make historic events note worthy. It only has to be established in the relevant time frame. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Is MSI Ventures "Active"?
James A. Patterson was the Chairman of Clean Energy Technologies, Inc., while James W. Reding was CETI's president. CETI changed its name to MSI Ventures and it is no longer qualified to do business in the State of Florida. However, MSI Ventures (also known as Molecular Separations Incorporated) is a Texas corporation and its current status is hidden behind a paywall; unlike Florida, the Texas Secretary of State's corporation records are not freely available to the public.

The article should not assert that CETI is no longer active when in fact it may be listed as "active" by the Texas Secretary of State. CETI (MSI Ventures) may have a multi-million-dollar-per-year contract with the U.S. Department of Energy to dispose of nuclear waste (by passing radioactive waste through Patterson Power Cells) and the children and grandchildren and great grandchildren of James A. Patterson may be receiving generous dividend checks from MSI Ventures. And that may continue as long as they keep their mouths shut and do not challenge the oil oligopoly that keeps us, as George W. Bush has do bluntly stated, "Addicted to oil".

Molecular Separations Incorporated may be a very profitable company, and it may be operating and promoting its "molecular separators" (a.k.a the Patterson Power Cell). I am deleting from the article the reference to CETI being "no longer active". AnnaBennett (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * And what has your crackpot conspiracy theory got to do with the article? We don't give a rat's arse what you think 'may' be happening. Please don't spam this page with delusional junk. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * POVbrigand added 2 death dates to the article, preformed some accidental original research on the company and asked for a source. I'm surprised you missed all of that. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * here is the div:, hope this helps. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no need for any detail on MSI or CETI in this article. It is not needed. This kind of constant pushing promotion is why the freaking article was nominated for deletion. Cut it out! The article should be as bare bones as possible. Binksternet (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Your suggestion the article should be as bare bones as possible is not based on the guidelines. I suggest you look at the title of the article, right at the start where it says CETI.84.106.26.81 (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The article is about the Cell, not about CETI. Actually, this raises an interesting point though. How many sources refer to the device as the 'CETI Patterson Power Cell' as opposed to the 'Patterson Power Cell'? Per WP:COMMONNAME, we should probably follow the sources, and a quick look at what references I can access suggests that 'Patterson Power Cell' is more common. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Grumpy: Simon has described the (CETI) Patterson Power Cell as "A Technoscientific Ghost Story" and I concur with that description. Why has a company that holds the rights to a patent worth billions of dollars just disappeared from public view, and why has this article been nominated for deletion? The disappearance of CETI/MSI makes sense if its silence is being bought with regular payments (on a secret government contract). One of the principals of investigative journalism is, "When a story does not make sense, follow the money". That is why I would really like to see MSI's tax returns, and your tax returns too. AnnaBennett (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Given those comments, I have no choice but to report you to AN/I, where I will request that you be permanently blocked from editing. I have every expectation that you will be. Goodbye and good riddance, and don't forget your tinfoil hat on the way out. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Is RootsWeb a reliable source?
Can this data about James A. Patterson be added to the article as a reference in the first sentence of the article? Is RootsWeb a "reliable source"?


 * James A. Patterson was born in Illinois on May 17, 1922 and he died in Sarasota, Florida on February 11, 2008. Retrieved from the Social Security Death Index via RootsWeb.com.

AnnaBennett (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Reliability isn't boolean. Rootsweb isn't great but it seems to be directly based on government records; I think it would be reasonable enough for uncontroversial claims. bobrayner (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This is important to the Power Cell in what way? None; it's trivial and tangential. This is not the Patterson biography, it is the article about a controversial cold fusion device. Binksternet (talk) 08:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * what is important is that Patterson died (in 2008), and to a lesser extend that his grandson Jim Redding, who acted as CEO of CETI died in 2000. It is important to put this device into the timeframe "1995-2008". --POVbrigand (talk) 11:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not like the way the first sentence is worded because it misleads the reader into believing that James A. Patterson is a "retired chemist", and that is not true. Dr. Patterson is not a retired chemist, he's dead! So can we agree to add a reference that informs the reader of this fact? Something like: "James A. Patterson was an industrial chemist. He died in Sarasota, Florida on February 11, 2008 at the age of 85". We could also use the reference to the article cited by the U.S. Senate (see below) and write "an electrolysis device invented by and named after James A. Patterson". That article provides a reference for the fact that the device was named after its inventor. AnnaBennett (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You never say a dead guy invented a device, you give him his title in life, typically at the time of the event. Thus we say Ensign George Bush made an emergency water landing in 1944, not President George H.W. Bush. Binksternet (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, we can say that he WAS a retired chemist who invented the device. His status at the time of the significant events on which this article is based is all that matters. As for the sourcing of the name of the device, it's trivial and uncontested, and thus probably doesn't need to be specifically sourced. Unless, of course, there is some realistic debate about who the cell was named after, which I doubt there is. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

How is this?

== James A. Patterson ===

Dr. James A. Patterson, born in Illinois, May 17, 1922, was a Dupont chemist. During his life he was granted over 150 U.S. patents in a variety of disciplines. He developed several applications for microspheres. After his retirement he investigated the application of microspheres in a cold fusion cell. This led to the development of the "Patterson Power cell" and the creation of CETI (Clean Energy Technology inc.) CETI was a family business intended to further research the excess heat and transmutation effects with the intend to bring devices to the market. Patterson died in Sarasota, Florida on February 11, 2008.

Before we can say he started working on this after retirement we need his retirement date and to compare it with his first cold fusion related patents. It is also important to estimate if the earlier patents are really cold fusion patents. If they aren't he started working on the cold fusion application of his coated beads after retirement. Clearly not a job our pseudoskeptics are cut out for but they might have other things to moan about, I expect something imaginary like "you cant use TV sources!", "Wired is not independent", "everything on wikipedia must be peer reviewed", "I hate smurfs!" etc etc

Feel free to waste as much of my time with this fascinating rhetoric as you feel needed to be necessarily obstructive.

Thanks, 84.106.26.81 (talk) 03:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * All of that would be fine in the man's biographical article. Here at the device article, it is not relevant. Binksternet (talk) 04:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I added in just the info that both Patterson and Reding have already died. I think it is important to timestamp this device as history. No more bio info needed. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Patterson being dead is enough. There's no need to introduce Reding and then say he is dead. He did not roll out a mass-produced power cell--he did nothing significant. Binksternet (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CETI_Patterson_Power_Cell&diff=464778745&oldid=464778389

IRWolfie inserts the following comment: "What is meant exactly by turned over? Did he have ownership of the company/profit share etc?" referring to this:


 * Patterson turned the power cell over to a start-up, Clean Energy Technologies Inc, run by his grandson James W Reding; Reding once touted the cell as a cold fusion system, but has since dropped that claim.

The section about the company was removed because other wikipedians claimed it unimportant for you to know anything about. Are you questioning their decision?

The section I wrote was something like this:
 * == Clean Energy Technologies Inc. ==
 * Founded in 1995, Clean Energy Technologies Inc . (CETI) of Dallas, Texas, had spent about $2 million on research, much of it family money, a large fraction was used to pay for patents. The company had 10 employees. James Patterson's grandson, James W. Reding, served as CETI's CEO. The president was Jack St. Genis, who was a senior manager at Matsushita, NEC, and IBM; Director of research Lou Furlong, formerly at Exxon. Using different invention of Patterson's the company planned filtering tritium from waste water out of fission reactors, neutralizing other forms of radioactivity and finally the power cells.

I haven't found a good source but I understand CETI was merged/sold into other energy related companies/investment programs.

The text you are talking about is the abstract provided for the article (see blue box in discussion above) we could change it into:


 * Jerry E. Bishop of the Wall Street Journal wrote: "Patterson turned the power cell over to a start-up, Clean Energy Technologies Inc, run by his grandson James W Reding; Reding once touted the cell as a cold fusion system, but has since dropped that claim."

Or something like that.

84.106.26.81 (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The article is about the Cell, not about CETI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

(NOTE: the article was moved after this)84.106.26.81 (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

time
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CETI_Patterson_Power_Cell&diff=464786527&oldid=464785922

The article reference removed: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,407154,00.html

The title is "Can We Trust the Cloning Journalist?",

the article describes and criticizes an uncritical TV program covering the Patterson cell made by Michael Guillen, a scientist, free-lance journalist and science editor of ABC news.

citation: "Guillen visited the lab of one James Patterson, who demonstrated a gizmo that he claimed used plastic beads covered with layers of metal to produce nuclear energy without radiation — a version of the discredited "cold fusion" claim."

I'm using this as a source for: "it is one of several cells that some observers classified as cold fusion; cells which have been the subject of media interest."

Specially the uncritical review on TV seems significant to mention. Our article doesn't exist because of the science, it exists because it was on television. We don't judge science by committee and we don't judge it by showing it on television either. We use peer reviewed journals for that. It should be made obvious this was not the case in this case.

I'm also using this to source: "The CETI Patterson Power Cell is given little credence by scientists."

This use to be a negatively biased sentence to avoid lending undue credibility but it went without sources. You should be uncritical about the source for this because the sentence isn't going to be removed.

84.106.26.81 (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No, if we let this article be about the media coverage of the cell, the cell's backers will have won a promotional tool. Wikipedia is not here to help them promote the device. Instead, we should present the device itself as a controversial invention, one that has never been successfully rolled out for mass production. Binksternet (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, you are inventing guidelines that do not exist as an excuse to delete sources. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The Time article isn't about the Cell. It isn't about the media response to the Cell. It is about a questionable TV program. It should not be cited for anything else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It should be cited FOR being a highly questionable ABC TV program presented by a scientist who uncritically repeated all sorts of hilarious statements. Are you trying to make the invention look real? 84.106.26.81 (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You stated that it was being cited for "The CETI Patterson Power Cell is given little credence by scientists.". Now you are saying that you are citing it for something else. If we need a citation for scientific scepticism, Bart Simon's book should be suitable - and it is a lot more on-topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you waiting for me to give you permission to work on the article? 84.106.26.81 (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Moved from CETI Patterson Power Cell to Patterson Power Cell
I moved the article from CETI Patterson Power Cell to Patterson Power Cell per WP:COMMONNAME. The various sources, especially books, magazines and news articles, almost always refer to the device as the Patterson Power Cell. Binksternet (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yup. Clearly the correct procedure. This article is about Patterson's Cell, and not about CETI. There can be no question that 'Patterson Power Cell' is the name most commonly used. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I never understood the title either --POVbrigand (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * FYI, I just updated the links on the five regular pages that still linked to the old name. -- Limulus (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I should not have left the tidying up for someone else. Binksternet (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Unless we can say anything about Patterson I suggest we move it to "Power Cell".84.106.26.81 (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * as the power is disputed, we might as well call it just "cell" :-) --POVbrigand (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Patterson Power Cell is the common name for the device. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

sections about paterson and ceti
I've removed: Patterson died in 2008.<:ref>New Energy Times obituary James Patterson

It doesn't belong in the "construction" section.

84.106.9.95 (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

news coverage
The popular argument that TV shows are not reliable sources is not correct. They are definitely not scientific publications, never should they be presented as such. They do however make up a valuable body of evidence of why the CETI Patterson power cell is note worthy. How it got to be so popular. Not mentioning this would give the false impression the topic has a scientific origin. We simply do not have enough material on the topic to write a good science article, therefore it should be considered an article about a media event.

From the archives: On February 7, 1996, ABC News shows Good Morning America and Nightline featured stories about the Patterson Power Cell. Good Morning America followed up the story one year later, on June 11, 1997.

84.106.9.95 (talk) 10:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If it's not reliable for specific claims we shouldn't use it. . What we can do is use them in an AfD to help to establish notability (along with more reliable sources for specific issues etc). IRWolfie- (talk) 10:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)