Talk:Energy Catalyzer/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

WP:OR in lede

"In 1998 a similar system, but yielding considerably less power, was described in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Il Nuovo Cimento A by Focardi et al." Judging that they are similar seems like OR to me. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. Since we don't know what the E-Cat is, we cannot possibly say what it is 'similar' to. The Focardi paper is irrelevant unless a reliable source says otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not original research: we know what the E-Cat is from the patent: "a method and apparatus for carrying out nickel and hydrogen exothermal reactions", and a method for carrying out nickel and hydrogen exothermal reactions is precisely what Focardi et al described in 1998.

Moreover, Focardi specify it in this interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmWbVH5A4gI

--79.6.8.194 (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand what Wikipedia means by original research - your own comment is itself OR. As for anything Focardi says, as an involved party he is only citable for his own opinions, not for statements of fact. Find an independent reliable source that states the similarity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

They are similar in that they both are supposed nickel-hydrogen cold fusion devices. That's not original research it's in the links. In fact it's hard to tell how they are different Bhny (talk) 16:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

ok "related" is good. let's go with that Bhny (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy regarding original research is better - we'll go with that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

http://www.tecnosophia.org/documenti/Articoli/SessioneI/Focardi.pdf PRODUZIONE DI ENERGIA E REAZIONI NUCLEARI IN SISTEMI NI-H A 400 C (translation: PRODUCTION OF ENERGY AND NUCLEAR REACTIONS IN NI-H SYSTEMS AT 400 C)

http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/search/en/WO2009125444 METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CARRYING OUT NICKEL AND HYDROGEN EXOTHERMAL REACTIONS

http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2009125444&recNum=1&maxRec=&office=&prevFilter=&sortOption=&queryString=&tab=PCTDescription

- S. Focardi, R. Habel, F. Piantelli: Anomalous heat production in Ni-H systems, Nuovo Cimento Vol. 107, pp 163-167, 1994

- S. Focardi, V. Gabbiani, V. Montalbano, F. Piantelli, S. Veronesi: Large excess in heat production in Ni-H systems, Nuovo Cimento Vol. Ill A pp. 1233-1241, 1998

A. Battaglia, L. Daddi, S. Focardi, V. Gabbiani, V. Montalbano, F. Piantelli, P. G. Sona, S. Veronesi: Neutron emission in Ni-H systems, Nuovo Cimento Vol. 112 A pp 921-931, 1999

- S. Focardi, V. Gabbiani, V. Montalbano. F. Piantelli, S. Veronesi: On the Ni-H systems, Asti Workshop in Hydrogeldeuterium loaded metals, pp 35-47, 1997

(All these documents are cited in the patent, and the patent stated that it is a nuclear reaction)

--79.6.8.194 (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Find an independent reliable source that asserts there is similarity between the E-Cat and Focardi's earlier work. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Andy,

I just made a correction in the lede: tell me if it is ok now for you.--79.6.8.194 (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

No. I've removed it. Either find a proper source, or drop the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I've removed similar OR from the article itself (roughly the same wording too). IRWolfie- (talk) 16:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I added previous work by Focardi, with different wording. It is not OR to add previous work by the mentioned scientist. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

No independent reliable sources make the link that is done in the article so it is OR for the reasons above. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Stop your Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing. You are on a personal crusade against the mentioning of a paper published in a peer reviewed journal. It is not OR that Focardi has published about Ni-H in Il nuovo cimento. Your ridiculous misuse of WP:OR policy is clear Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing. Your demand that there must be a secondary source making the link between the current "Ni-H work" and previous "Ni-H work" by the same researcher is absolute nonsense. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the rights and wrongs here, repeatedly accusing other editors of 'tendentious_editing' is questionable - see WP:AOTE - and note that this article is subject to Wikipedia discretionary sanctions: "Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators". If you think that other contributors are behaving inappropriately, I suggest you raise this at the appropriate noticeboard, as I have previously suggested. Your repeated accusations, combined with your unwillingness to pursue the matter, might be seen as harassment. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not OR. There is no need to provide a secondary source making the link, but as you are both refuse to use common sense, here it is:

Interview with Focardi, published by Focus.it: [1] "...Today as then, the cold fusion or LENR (as it was then called to try to clean up the reputation) or condensed matter physics, is still considered the "Fairy of physics" by mainstream science. But not by researchers who have suggested the existence of a new territory to explore and interpret, such as Sergio Focardi. ... Sergio Focardi, born in 1932, Professor Emeritus of Experimental Physics of Bologna Alma Mater, from the early 90's investigates the "abnormal processes in the metal-hydrogen systems" at temperatures of 300 ° C, ie the "territory "cold fusion. In this summary of a long interview with Mario at the conference Menichella Cold fusion has become a reality? (Viareggio, July 23, 2011) Focardi says of his research in the field of low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR, Low Energy Nuclear Reactions), until the first results from collaboration with Andrea Rossi and E-Cat."

--POVbrigand (talk) 12:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Fringe theories: "Ideas that are of borderline or minimal notability may be mentioned in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight. Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting new ideas, for countering any systemic bias in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs". The fact that Focardi has previously written on cold fusion is no indication that his ideas have received any acceptance, and the reference to 'peer review' appears to be intended to imply that it is, thereby giving his work more weight than scientific consensus would support. Like it or not, cold fusion/LENR has not been accepted by the scientific mainstream (as far as can be determined from reliable sources), and we should not be suggesting that it has. The mention of Focardi's 'peer reviewed' publication (which only he seems to link explicitly with the E-Cat) in the lede seems to me to be unacceptable. This isn't an article about 'peer reviewed science', and we should avoid any implications to the contrary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

If you think that the current wording in the lead is not appropriate, then you should provide a suggestion how to improve the article and build a consensus here on this talk page first. --POVbrigand (talk) 13:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Please respond to my comments regarding WP:FRINGE and inappropriate attempts to imply 'peer reviewed science' is of relevance to this article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Please note: IRWolfie- and Andy claim that the mentioning is OR. Then Andy demands that somebody should find him a secondary source that mentions the relation and when I provide such a source he changes to complaints about FRINGE. There was never a consensus about the deletion, it was discussed before Talk:Energy_Catalyzer#Il_Nuovo_Cimento_is_the_most_well_respected_Italian_scientific_journal_since_1855. And the last revert merely had the edit comment "per ATG", I guess that means that editor supports Andy's tactic. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

There was no consensus reached in that discussion (and consensus can change). Now, what are your comments regarding WP:FRINGE? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

My comment about FRINGE is that I wonder why you bring this up after your complaint about OR doesn't get a consensus ? It seems that claiming FRINGE is your catchall in this article if you can't get things deleted otherwise. The fact that Focardi published a paper in a peer reviewed journal in not FRINGE. It's verifiable, go look it up. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, now I get it. Someone simply hasn't understood or has forgotten wp:BURDEN. A central idea on WP is that we'd rather leave something out than get it wrong. That's what drives much of our policy. If I add some statement that others find dubious, it should come out until I find sufficient reliable sources that can be verified so that any reasonable person will think "those sources adequately support that statement". This is the only road that gets to true wp:consensus. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

"I guess that means that editor supports Andy's tactic." No. But you could infer that the editor supports Andy's reasoning. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 15:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

1. - Has Rossi said that his work is based on Focardi's work?
2. - Does Rossi cite Focardi's second paper?
3. - Does Focardi's second paper cite his first paper?

Find the answers and sources for these 3 questions, then dump it in "Design" section or something. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, Focardi's name is on the paper in which he and Rossi describe the principles of the thing. I don't know that we need all the rest of the elaboration. Mangoe (talk) 20:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in the paper from Focardi and Rossi (the one they posted on Rossi's blog) all of Focardi's previous work is mentioned. So the three questions by Enric can all be answered with yes. But Enric's proposal means absolutely nothing, because other editors will just apply different reasoning and contest any mentioning of Focardi's previous work. As you can see above, if OR doesn't work, they'll just use FRINGE. And those editors also think the whole article should be deleted.

Currently we are doing the reader a huge disservice by not offering him info on Focardi's previous work. The wording is completely unimportant to me. But shouting OR for obvious things is a complete misuse of that policy. --POVbrigand (talk) 08:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Time Limit

Is there any source discussing the reason for limiting the test to a few hours (rather than running for days or weeks)? It seems like the obvious way to rule out conventional explanations. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you've probably answered your own question, though to describe Rossi's circus act as 'tests' is rather stretching things. He shows what he wants to, for as long as he wants to, and expects everyone there to take his word for what is going on. Of course, even the believers may begin to tire of this - Ny Teknik seems finally to have got fed up with the smoke and mirrors: "There’s still no clear indication of when a test performed by independent experts can be done, although this is still what both readers of Ny Teknik and most experts Ny Teknik has spoken to demand". [2] AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Given the sources, shouldn't the "Demonstrations and investigations" section be renamed to just "Demonstrations"? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes - there have been no 'investigations'. There cannot be until Rossi lets independent examiners know what his system consists of. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It was named just "demonstrations" for quite a while. "investigations" is not appropriate. The only thing that was investigated was the used nickel charge that Essen and Kullander had analyzed. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

What about this Domenico Fioravanti fellow? Is he independent? // Liftarn (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Unknown at this time. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

delete excessive "demonstration" info?

there is a very tedious list of demonstrations that doesn't add up to much information. I think this should be just reduced to a small summary Bhny (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Undoubtably (and remove "investigations" from the section header. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree too. If others still want all the tests mentioned, it might be a good idea to make a table giving the date, power and length of each test. SmartSE (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The list has already been shortened, there is no need to shorten more.--79.6.8.194 (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources for 'power' - none of the demonstrations have been set up in a way for independent observers to be able to make meaningful measurements. Frankly, I think the whole thing could be covered in a single paragraph, stating locations, durations and dates, with maybe a link or too to sources. The rest is just repetition and hype. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, feel free to do it (I'm busy at moment) Bhny (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes of course; if we can't get rid of this irritating and irksome subject/article entirely, let's at least work to minimize informative details -- hate to see all those poor bits wasted... Seriously, just let it be for now. Come back in a year and trim it down as appropriate when it is possible to be objective, with the wise perspective of time/distance.-96.237.13.111 (talk) 21:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I already started to clean up, but I got reverted. [3]. The only thing that should be mentioned about the demonstrations is when they were and what notable spectators or secondary sources reported about them. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Can I suggest that you create a draft here, so we can come to a consensus, rather than getting involved in more reverting etc? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Andy, you reverted it. If you don't like a version, then make positive changes to it. Mangoe (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

No another Andy reverted it --POVbrigand (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake. Well, if he isn't going to engage here, I'm inclined to ignore him. Mangoe (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I already made a proposal a while ago [[4]], and AndyTheGrump's reply was "Given that none of them even approximate a proper scientific trial, they can really be seen as nothing more than attempts by Rossi to get publicity - so I'd say it is questionable as to whether they merit more than the briefest mention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)".

Now, he is just asking me to work on a proposal, which he will then dismiss anyway. AndyTheGrump is eminently good at Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, his comments on the talk page are just part of his habit. I have lost faith that he is trying to improve the article. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

If POVbrigand doesn't want to work on a draft, perhaps someone else will? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Why don't YOU Andy work on something constructive like a proposal for a change. The only thing you're good at is pushing the undo button and filibuster. --POVbrigand (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

See WP:NPA. If you have any complaints about my behaviour, raise them at the appropriate noticeboard. Otherwise, please stay on topic.

As for me writing it, am I to assume that anything I produce is going to be acceptable by you? We have new contributors involved now, and fresh eyes on the article would be a good idea anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Andy, if you would stop pushing so hard, I wouldn't feel obliged to keep you at bay and we could ... cooperate. In your comments there is every now and then a tiny shimmering of common sense that gives me hope that you are capable of actually contributing to improving the article. Give it a try and surprise us all. --POVbrigand (talk) 23:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding fresh eyes. we could both commit to a voluntary edit-stop on this article and talk page for a week and give the new contributers a chance. --POVbrigand (talk) 23:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason for Andy to stop editing this article. Also please assume good faith WP:AGF. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Just so there's no ambiguity

I've tagged this as having WP:UNDUE issues because, well, it does. There's way too much emphasis on a lot of primary source data to the point of obscuring the fundamental doubt that this thing actually works. Mangoe (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

"the fundamental doubt that this thing actually works" is written:

• In the Lede, ie at the beginning of the article

• In the "Demonstration" section at the beginning

• In the "Evaluation of the device" section at the beginning

• In the "Patent" section at the beginnning, which cites that an unfavorable preliminary report on patentability at the World Intellectual Property Organization was received from the European Patent Office

So what else have we to do? Write it in each line of the article?

--79.6.8.194 (talk) 21:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

What we have to do is stop misrepresenting questionable 'demonstrations' as evidence that the E-Cat works. They aren't. Such evidence can only come from proper scientific tests, conducted in appropriate conditions by qualified uninvolved third parties. As for 'evaluation', much the same applies - nobody can evaluate a device of unknown construction. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

And we do not do it. As the matter of fact, the misleading term "test" was replaced with the most neutral term "demonstration".

--79.6.8.194 (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

We remove all the primary source material that is being used to suggest that the thing does work. The upshot of the demos is that the doubts make all the detail about how much power was supposedly put out etc. essentially meaningless: OK, he can get a bunch of people to get him to demonstrate it for him, but each time there are all the same doubts and criticisms. It seems to me that you can't get rid of the doubts, which is true: the science says that the doubters are right and that Rossi's device is either a scam or a failure, depending upon his intent in creating it. So the particle is being padded with all this irrelevant description of a set of unconvincing demos to keep it from being an entirely negative article. Mangoe (talk) 22:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The article must be neither positive nor negative. The article must be neutral and represent facts as they are reported.

--79.6.8.194 (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. Reliable, scientifically informed sources say that the thing almost certainly doesn't work. We aren't here to argue Rossi's case against them for him. The "neutral" article you seem to want is actually biased in a positive direction. Mangoe (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

"Reliable, scientifically informed sources say that the thing almost certainly doesn't work." MARVELLOUS: I am looking forward to add these sources to the article in order to improve it.

--79.6.8.194 (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I put extra disclaimers to the demonstration section to clarify that the demonstrations do not indicate scientific proof [5]. Andy reverted it. --POVbrigand (talk) 22:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

How many bloody times do I have to tell you? I reverted that because we don't need "not been independently verified" twice in one short paragraph. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Instead of reverting you could have helped to improve [6] it. --POVbrigand (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

@Mangoe UNDUE has nothing to do with PRIMARY. The UNDUE tag is not appropriate. --POVbrigand (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in this case it does. The mass of primary source data about the demonstrations is being used to distract readers from the assessment that the demonstrations don't show that the device works. Mangoe (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Basically Mangoe is concerned that, because the readers of Wikipedia have an I.Q. below the average of the hominid, they can be distracted/deceived by all the numerous words put in the "Demonstration" section and hence it may happen that they can omit to read:

• the Lede, ie at the beginning of the article

• the "Demonstration" section at the beginning

• the "Evaluation of the device" section at the beginning

• In the "Patent" section at the beginnning, which cites that an unfavorable preliminary report on patentability at the World Intellectual Property Organization was received from the European Patent Office

Personally, I do not share those concerns. --79.6.8.194 (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I do not like contributors who make personal attacks on others - and neither does Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

blablabla, the IP wasn't attacking Mangoe

I AGF. Mangoe thinks the demonstration section misleads the reader to think "the thing works", which is not something wikipedia is allowed to claim. The question is how we are going to solve that. Delete, delete delete until there is nothing left to mention, or WARN the reader so he can rightly assess what he is reading. --POVbrigand (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I apologise to all the readers and contributors of Wikipedia if they have perceived my words as offensive.

However, I am confident to have well summarised those concerns. Which are inconsistent, IMHO.

--79.6.8.194 (talk) 23:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

To be precise, Mangoe feels that the sections on the demonstrations are written to leave open the possibility that the device worked, by drowning the reader in a lot of really quite irrelevant detail. Mangoe (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Factory acceptance tests and consistency of scam-like behavior

This is not a forum for general debate on the E-Cat

You know, if you ever get involved in purchasing of a moderately large (megawatt or so) diesel engine/generator set, the manufacturer will offer to let you attend at the factory and witness all the standard tests - you can, for very little extra change, bring your own meters if you like and don't believe the calibration stickers on the manufactuer's test equipment. It's not deep science, people have been making accurate standardized tests of power sources since James Watt's day. This is why I call "scam" on this topic and consider it to be unworthy of an independent Wikiedia article; it's the same old flim-flam that every inventor of a perpetual motion machine has tried to pull, telling us to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC) That's all well and good, but your opinions don't belong here: WP:NOTFORUM. SmartSE (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC) Comments about deletion should go to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Energy_Catalyzer. Before going there, try reading how to participate in a deletion discussion and what sort of arguments are expected of participants. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC) I'm collapsing this discussion because it has nothing to do with the article itself, and in terms of the deletion discussion.... the Wtshymanski started the whole thing. --Robert Horning (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Demonstration material

The article at present contains a long section on demonstrations of the this cold fusion-like device; the science behind the device, however, says that it almost certainly doesn't work, so it seems to me that the lengthy discussion of the details of each demo places undue weight on the possibility that the device might actually function, by presenting a lot of almost certainly spurious "data". Readers have to decode why all this data is spurious, or simply disregard it; but in the latter case there's no reason to include it, and in the former case the effect is to confuse readers who aren't equipped to analyze the test setup and its various faults. Mangoe (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Stubify the article I recommend looking for sources from respected science journalists, scientists, engineers, and the like who are completely independent of the inventor and the general buzzing of the cold fusion/fringe science communities (including the protestations of the Josephsons, Stormses, and the like). The discovery.com source, for example, is a good one that should drive the organization and full-extent of the available topics on which to write. Remove technical detail that hasn't been subject to peer-review or independent verification. Generally, make the article a few paragraphs according to the prominence afforded by WP:FRINGE#Independent sources. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 18:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Article from Foxnews

Article from Foxnews about the event of 28 October 2011:

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/11/02/andrea-rossi-italian-cold-fusion-plant/

--79.6.145.208 (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Is For News a reliable source for anything? They have been called "the most biased news source in the western world". // Liftarn (talk)

Lede: do not perform drastic change without discussing it before

An editor is trying to make drastic changes to the lede, and I thing that these changes should be discussed here due to their imponrtance.--79.6.145.208 (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

They are not drastic changes. The old version was too verbose and didn't actually get around to saying what the thing was until the second sentence, and that sentence did a lot of beating around the bush. Also, it's not necessary to cite that Rossi is an inventor, given that this thing is, after all, an invention. Mangoe (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok.--79.6.145.208 (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Some of the removed material is under discussion in Talk:Energy_Catalyzer#WP:OR_in_lede. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

New Energy Times

This article should not be using the unreliable New Energy Times as a source. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The only reason I used that particular article is that it is the only source I could find that actually said anything meaningful about the device, including photographs. I don't know that I would accept that it is unreliable as a witness to that. Mangoe (talk) 20:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

NET is totally unreliable. It is not "third party," it is hardly "published," and it lacks a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Hipocrite (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Where do you get that it is not third party in this instance? Mangoe (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Steven Krivet is one of the main critics of the E-Cat. That's why 79.6.145.208, who owns a large percentage interest in the e-cat likes the fact that I think the NET is unreliable. Hipocrite (talk) 21:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I do agree. NET is totally unreliable.--79.6.145.208 (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Also totally unreliable - Ny Teknik, Aleklett.wordpress.com, all of the self-published technical papers. What % interest in the E-cat do you have? Hipocrite (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

How is Ny Teknik "totally unreliable" as Sweden's leading technology and IT newspaper with a weekly circulation >100,000 I would be fairly sure it is reliable. SmartSE (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Note that it is a primary source and not a secondary source of information. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ny Teknik is not a third party with respect to the Energy Catalyzer, as it's basically running parts of the tests. The circulation is so high because it's distributed to all members of The Swedish Association of Graduate Engineers, not because anyone actually wants to subscribe to it. What's REALLY problematic, and why I totally disregard Ny Teknik, however, is [7]. Hipocrite (talk) 21:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

And what aboout Focus, that was present along Ny Teknik and wrote a series of articles about the E-Cat? Are they all part of a conspiracy together with Ny Teknik? --79.6.145.208 (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidlines lists this for Fringe theories: "Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles." we should be adherring to this but the article doesn't. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem, really, is that no source for this is really actually reliable. The guy behind the Forbes article, for example, is unqualified. Mangoe (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Unreliable sources should never be used. If it's unreliable it should not be used. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

In that case all sources are unreliable they all have one time or another made mistakes large or small and made corrections, retractions or editorialized when they shouldn't. There is not an encyclopedia on earth that does not contain errors, nor books, monographs, magazines; there are no reporters especially op/ed writers, no copy editors that are perfectly reliable as you seem to expect, as we are all fallible humans prone to error. Please read the WP:Primary and such again to understand the policy is loose enough to all the use of these sources if the editor is careful in their use. Zedshort (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

In that case it is a matter concerning Forbes, not a matter concerning us.--79.6.145.208 (talk) 21:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The reason some editors are chasing the PRIMARY issue is that they would like to have some sources declared illegal. Next step they will probably argue is that the secondary sources are based on "illegal" unreliable primary sources and therefore they themselves are unreliable too. In the end they will simply argue that the whole thing doesn't exist other than in the minds of Rossi and "his blind believing followers". There is no end to the ways of applying WP-policy if you are in this discussion to make a point. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Patents

It is all well sourced:

Patents
An application in 2008 to patent the device internationally had received an unfavorable preliminary report on patentability at the World Intellectual Property Organization

International Preliminary Report on Patentability. Wipo.int. Retrieved on 2011-07-10.

from the European Patent Office, noting that the description of the device was based on "general statements and speculations" and citing "numerous deficiencies in both the description and in the evidence provided to support its feasibility" as well as incompatibilities with current scientific theories.

However, on 6 April 2011 an application was approved by the Italian Patent and Trademark Office, which issued a patent for the invention, valid only in Italy.

The patent granted 6 April, 2011, by the Ufficio Italiano Brevetti e Marchi.

Ny Teknik: Patent granted for the energy catalyzer

International, European, and U.S. patent applications are still pending.

--79.6.145.208 (talk) 21:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Patents are primary sources. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Are_patents_reliable_sources.3F IRWolfie- 21:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

We are simply saying the there is a patent: it not used as source for the claim WITHIN the patent!!!--79.6.145.208 (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

And as above "Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in the articles" as per WP:FRINGE. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok: so the Italian Patents and Trademarks Office is not an independent source according to you?--79.6.145.208 (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

As the guidelines clearly state patents and patent applications are primary sources. This makes the website of the Italian Patents and Trademarks Office a primary source. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so why do not erase all the references concerning the patents? If you notice they all come from websites of patent's offices around the world.--79.6.145.208 (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a fringe article and thus WP:FRINGE applies. There are secondary sources in the first section. If we remove the primary sources the section would probably still be kept because of the secondary sources; there may be an argument to trim it down though of any additional non-secondary statements. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

*sigh* Well, the Ny Teknik source does discuss the italian patents. I suppose that it's not enough? We could tweak the wording to avoid that leading "However,". --Enric Naval (talk) 22:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to quarrel on it, I have added a secondary source: http://daily.wired.it/news/scienza/2011/10/14/e-cat-generatore-fusione-fredda-14959.html?page=1 --Insilvis (talk) 00:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Note that NyTeknik is a primary source. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Ny Teknik is a RELIABLE source

It is reliable, so stop arguing aganst the reliability of Ny Teknik.--79.6.145.208 (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's not a third party - it's far, far too involved - see the Wikipedia editing history of the lead author. Hipocrite (talk) 21:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a primary source. it's reliability is immaterial; it is still a primary source. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Rather than edit war over it, why not take it to WP:RSN? If things continue as they are at the moment, we'll be heading to full protection pretty soon. SmartSE (talk) 22:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

NyTeknik is directly involved with the Energy Catalyzer and the events surronding it, that makes them primary; it's clear cut. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ny Teknik is reliable until provent it is non reliable. You must ask about its reliability. Until then, it is reliable.--79.6.145.208 (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

As I have specifically said; I am saying it is a primary source, not whether it is unreliable or not. It must be treated as per WP:FRINGE since it is primary. "Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in the articles". IRWolfie- (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It is independent source until otherwise proven. And we cannot establish it here.--79.6.145.208 (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

What sort of nonsense is this? They were -at- the demonstrations, they were involved directly with the events, therefore they are primary. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

In case of any language barrier I suggest Primary_sources is checked so you understand the unrelatedness in this case of primary sources and reliable sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

What sort of nonsense is this? They were at the demonstrations, they were involved directly with the events, therefore they are making they usual work as jounalists which consist in reporting events.

--79.6.145.208 (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, they were involved directly. As per WP:PRIMARY "Primary sources are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event". In contrast to secondary sources: "Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, generally at least one step removed from an event." IRWolfie- (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

A reporter is not directly involved in an event. The experimenters are directly involved and the reporters only listen to what the experimenters have to say and report that material as secondary sources. Your interpretation of primary source in this case is wrong. In addition WP policy says that primary sources may be used in the article but the writers must use care in their use. Please read the WP:Primary again. Zedshort (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The NyTeknik reporters were actually -performing- the measurements themselves and not simply listening to the experimenters. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

So all the journalists who witness an event must not be cited on Wikipedia, right?--79.6.145.208 (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

In that case Ny Tekink is a secondary source concerning patents, or not?--79.6.145.208 (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Rhetorical gotchyas like the above are not tolerated in polite society. Hipocrite (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Question --> answer.

Question --> Answer.

This is the way of proceeding in every single discussion.--79.6.145.208 (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

You should take it to WP:RSN yourself. It's clear that Hipocrite doesn't want to because of the likelihood of it being declared not a primary source. Silverseren^C 00:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I've brought it over. Wikipedia:RSN#NyTeknik_and_Energy_Catalyzer IRWolfie- (talk) 10:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Patent offices are reliable sources or not?

If they are reliable sources then we keep the references to their webisites, if they are not reliable sources then we delete all the references to they website.
--79.6.145.208 (talk) 22:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Stop starting multiple sections on the same topic; patent applications and related information from patent offices are primary sources, the issue is not about reliability but that it is a primary source. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

If we can then we keep the references to their webisites, if we cannot then we delete all the references to their websites.
--79.6.145.208 (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to quarrel on it, I have added a secondary source: http://daily.wired.it/news/scienza/2011/10/14/e-cat-generatore-fusione-fredda-14959.html?page=1 --Insilvis (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Patents count as a primary source, and you can use them as a reference. However they may not make an independent or reliable source for the claims they contain. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:Fringe specifically warns about using primary sources in fringe articles. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The issue of primary sources in "fringe articles" is mainly a concern about self-published research. That is of concern here as well, but a patent application does at least have something resembling a review by a patent examiner and represents a "government" publication. Not quite a scientific journal with editors and reviewers, but I would put it a notch above a news report written by a journalist on a science beat. A published patent from a government records office certainly should be considered an acceptable and reliable source, at least in terms of noting details claimed in the patent itself. It all is context to how the reference is being used in regards to the citation. --Robert Horning (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The guidelines are clear that a patent is a primary source. Fringe guidelines are clear that if something is not discussed in independent sources it should not be in the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

While patent applications are primary documents, they still can support some statements. An application for a patent on my antigravity machine could be cited to say that I applied for such a patent. Similarly, the examiners smackdown rejection can be cited to say why it wasn't considered patentable. Neither can be cited to say that I invented antigravity. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

In a non-fringe article relying on primary sources is acceptable, but paragraphs should not be in a fringe article consisting entirely of primary and other non-independent sources. I think independent sources have been dug up so it is now acceptable to talk about the patents in the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem here is that you are mixing two very different policies based upon completely different philosophies and then claiming that they are one and the same, for what I am arguing is an attempt to push a point of view into the article. I repeat, the reason why "Fringe" articles have a problem is that they are largely self-published. Heck, I'd call that the very definition of "fringe science". A patent application is not self-published, at least within the generally used term. It would be subject to the issues of primary sources in general, and on that I'd agree. Declaring something a "fringe" or "non-fringe" article as if there are completely separate Wikipedias each with their own set of policies is absurd, and indeed one of the arguments being used against such policies in the first place. Besides, WP:FRINGE is a guideline only... something to help in terms of interpreting basic policies but not to shut down debate and declare edits as bad faith. --Robert Horning (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

What IRWolfie is (indirectly) saying is that primary sources should not be relied on in isolation to establish wp:Notability of a subject. That is absolutely correct, whether the subject is fringe or not. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Rather, on fringe topics primary sources should not be used to establish due weight for a paragraph/section, we should be relying on secondary sources. More correctly independent sources, because some secondary sources can also be non-independent. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Cold fusion link is inappropriate

Gentlemen: The internal link "Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction" redirects to Cold fusion, a process which is described as occurring at room temperature. The Energy Catalyzer does not operate at room temperature. If you were to touch an Energy Catalyzer while it is operating you would get third-degree burns. I therefore believe that the link to cold fusion/LENR is inappropriate.

The lead should be revised to read: The Energy Catalyzer (sometimes shortened to E-Cat) is a device invented by Andrea Rossi, with support from physicist Sergio Focardi. AnnaBennett (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

From what I've read, 'cold fusion' is intended to mean 'relatively cold'. The point is that it supposedly occurs in conditions where normal 'hot' fusion would be impossible. Of course, Rossi says LENR is different to cold fusion, and how he actually defines it is anyone's guess. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Andy, I have read (but don't remember exactly where) that if the nickel in the Energy Catalyzer melts then the alleged "hydrogen + nickel = copper" process stops. If the lattice of solid nickel is that important then perhaps it would be better to describe the operation of an Energy Catalyzer as a possible example of a Lattice-Assisted Nuclear Reaction (LANR).

Dr. George H. Miley recently reported that he had replicated the work of James Patterson and he compared Patterson's device to Rossi's Energy Catalyzer. See slide number 23 at http://ecatsite.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/dr-george-miley-replicates-patterson-names-rossi/. Miley uses the term LENR but since he is dealing with solid materials the LANR description seems more appropriate. AnnaBennett (talk) 01:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you are straying well into WP:OR territory there - Rossi calls it LENR, and we are citing it for what he said, not for what it 'is'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that LENR is a euphemism for cold fusion since that term has such a sad history. And as said above it's cold relative to the sun. Bhny (talk) 01:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Andy, I found this quote in an article by Sterling Allan, who attended the October 28th test of the E-Cat: "...if the temperatures inside of the reactor cores rise too high, the nickel powder just melts, and the nuclear reactions cease." http://pesn.com/2011/11/02/9501944_Fox_News_E-Cat_Article_Needs_Work/ AnnaBennett (talk) 08:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The CF detractor camp doesn't believe neither of it for them it is all FRINGE. The researchers of the field call the field of study "Condensed Matter Nuclear Science", the observed effect "LENR" (or CANR, or LANR) and the traditional name is "cold fusion". Read this for more explanation. For me it is perfectly ok to have this LENR topic link to the Cold Fusion article. --POVbrigand (talk) 08:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

@Bhny. "normal" hot fusion happens at millions of degrees. One of the cells made by F&P exploded, and F&P believed that it had been caused by runaway cold fusion because "only fusion could have released so much energy". So, cold fusion cells should also be to reach critical temperatures. But they are nowhere near hot fusion temperatures. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't clear but yes that's what I meant, it is cold relative to fusion like the sun (which is millions of degrees), so we agree Bhny (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This should be fixed on cold fusion. Talk:Cold_fusion#e-cat_not_room_temperature

The LENR article was deleted for being a fork of cold fusion, there might be some residual inconsistencies in the text. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Article from Falls Church News-Press

Article from Falls Church News-Press concerning the event of 28 October 2011 and the E-Cat in general:

http://www.fcnp.com/commentary/national/10419-the-peak-oil-crisis-cold-fusion-redux.html

--79.20.141.224 (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you proposing any specific changes to the article? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Given that it seems to have been sourced from our article, that would be hard to justify. Not that any attention seems to be taken to sourcing when it comes to this advert for Rossi's magic teapot 'article'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It would be conducive to making this article's discussion page more civilised if you could refrain from adding and then striking out a phrase containing "magic teapot" within your comments. If you can't refrain from WP:POV... then please just refrain... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmccc (talk • contribs) 20:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

There's the apparent circular reference, and also, this is not a science journal or even a major newspaper which has a science reporter. It's just a town paper whose reporter surely didn't witness any of this, or for that matter shows any evidence of having talked with anyone knowledgeable. Mangoe (talk) 20:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Articles from msnbc.com / CBS News

Article from msnbc.com about the E-Cat:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45153076/ns/technology_and_science-science/#.TrLv5PTz2So

--79.20.141.224 (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Same article on CBS News:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57318762/cold-fusion-debate-heats-up-after-latest-demo/

( also here http://m.cbsnews.com/fullstory.rbml?feed_id=4&catid=57318762&videofeed=40 )

--79.20.141.224 (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a thought...

I know that Italy has a reputation for somewhat uneven application of laws (though I'll not suggest that this reputation is necessarily deserved), but it occurs to me that even there one would presumably need planning permission for a nuclear power plant - particularly if one proposed to discharge cooling water into the drains, as Rossi seems to suggest he has done. Have any sources (even unreliable ones, which might at least give us a clue where to look for better ones) actually mentioned this? Do we know what the legal position is, and whether Rossi has actually taken any steps to ensure compliance? Has he been in contact with the IAEA regarding plans to export his device - one would think that they might take an interest... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

According to Rossi, "Domenico Fioravanti is a NATO Colonel-Engineer". If NATO is the "undisclosed buyer" then they are likely to tell the IAEA to "Stay out of our way or we will do to you what we recently did to Libya." AnnaBennett (talk) 02:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Just mentioning a source for the first part of that: [8]. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, that infallible 'reliable source', Rossi himself. I notice he has taken to wearing a tinfoil hat: "Probably you did not understand that there is a war against us". Yup. lead by general scepticism, and major incredulity, who both outrank his mystery 'colonel'. Why would NATO need E-Cats anyway, they've cornered the market in oil? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Cornered or not, oil is still expensive. NATO's strategic planners probably expect the Greeks to vote "No" in January and for the international exchange value of the Eruo to collapse soon thereafter. If that happens, they will want to be able to install sea-worthy Energy Catalyzers in their naval fleets. AnnaBennett (talk) 06:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculously speculative, and of no significance to an article intended to be based on published reliable sources. I should clearly have never asked the first question. Consider this topic closed. Next time, I'll keep my ideas to myself... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Amen. Responding to AndyTheGrump, my intent was not to privide a source supporting what Rossi had said, but rather to provide a source supporting an assertion that Rossi had said what he was asserted to have siad. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds as if AndyTheGrump wants to have it both ways. On the one hand he is certain that it does not work but on the other hand wants to call it a nuclear reactor. Zedshort (talk) 01:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. If Rossi believes it is a nuclear reactor, he should be attempting to conform with any applicable laws regarding such devices. Is he? In the unlikely event that it is, and he isn't, he could possibly end up receiving his Nobel prize in jail. Most embarrassing... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure of where you are going here. I know several people who have Fusor reactors, something that indisputably is producing nuclear reactions that can be measured and is acknowledged as valid by almost any physicist who has looked at the concept, and there isn't any threat of them going to prison or even being investigated by federal agents for operating the reactor. One of them was built within a few miles of where I'm writing this reply by an undergraduate physics student who just wanted to say he had reactor. The only danger is to have some stupid law enforcement agent who doesn't know the law to over react and confiscate something like this as if it was a bomb or something else real stupid simply because they also don't understand the technology. This is about like people who don't mind outlawing DHMO because of how dangerous that chemical is. Perhaps Rossi is going to be convicted for dumping DHMO down sewers as a discharge of toxic chemicals. The logic is about the same as being proposed here for what might be happening if Rossi is convicted for operating his equipment. --Robert Horning (talk) 11:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

There was mention Defkalion (former Greek customer) did have to follow the laws for Nuclear Reactors. One of the things involved in that is no visitors and no press! If you can source it it would be an interesting thing to add to the controversy. 84.107.153.57 (talk) 00:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Do **NOT** Delete

but improve; Please. Thanks. --Wda (talk) 00:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

To participate in the discussion on the possible deletion of the article, you need to post comments etc here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy Catalyzer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Copper isotope ratios

Dr. Rainer W. Kühne has written, "The nickel included 30% of copper, where the ratio of the copper isotopes was Cu-63 / Cu-65 = 1.6, whereas the natural ratio of the isotopes is Cu-63 / Cu-65 = 2.2" ( http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/257667 ). Kühne's report differs from that of Peter Ekström, who wrote, "The detection of 10% of copper isotopes[2] in the residue from the E-Cat is difficult to understand, especially since only stable copper isotopes (63Cu and 65Cu) are detected. The isotope ratios of the stable copper isotopes in the residue are the same as that of natural copper" ( http://www.fysik.org/WebSite/fragelada/resurser/cold_fusion.pdf ).

Who is right: Kühne or Ekström? Should the article be revised to cite Kühne's article? AnnaBennett (talk) 14:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Kühne didn't perform the isotope ratio measurements himself. He's simply repeating what Rossi claimed. The only independent test of the isotopic composition of the 'burned' nickel is in Ekström's report. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Ekström's paper cites a NyTeknik article ( http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3144772.ece ), which includes the following: "Förutsatt att koppar inte är ett av additiven som använts som katalysator kan kopparisotoperna 63 och 65 bara ha bildats vid processen. Deras förekomst är alltså ett bevis på att kärnreaktioner ägt rum i processen, kommenterar Sven Kullander (se utförligare redogörelse nedan)". I cannot read that language but it does not appear to state an isotope ratio.

Rough translation: "If it is assumed that copper is not one of the additives that have been used as catalyzer, the copper isotopes 63 and 65 can only have been formed by the process. Their existence is thus an evidence/proof that nuclear reactions have taken place in the process, comments Sven Kullander (see more detailed account below)".

English version of the article: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3144827.ece

“Provided that copper is not one of the additives used as catalyst, the copper isotopes 63 and 65 can only have been formed during the process. Their presence is therefore a proof that nuclear reactions took place in the process,” Kullander said (see further details below).

--79.20.141.224 (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the isotope ratio is extremely important. The non-natural ratio stated by Kühne supports Rossi's assertion that transmutations do occur in the E-Cat while it is operating. Furthermore, the large amounts of copper and iron production is similar to data published by Dr. Miley (see slide 18; http://ecatsite.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/dr-george-miley-replicates-patterson-names-rossi/ ). AnnaBennett (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The only source for the non-natural isotope ratio claim is Rossi himself; Kühne makes this clear in the article that you linked (my emphasis added): "Rossi says that after the experiment he examined the nickel via secondary ion mass spectroscopy. The nickel included 30% of copper, where the ratio of the copper isotopes was Cu-63 / Cu-65 = 1.6...". It would be an important, significant, and very suggestive result if it could be confirmed independently. Unfortunately, Kühne is only repeating Rossi's claim; he's not confirming the data.

The English version of the Ny Teknik article you're looking at is available here. Both the Swedish and English versions have a Q&A section at the bottom which mentions the copper isotope ratio. Even Kullander, a believer, acknowledges that it's "..somewhat strange that the isotopic composition doesn’t differ from the natural." Rossi has refused to provide any additional samples to any outside scientist to repeat the measurement of isotope ratios. This is all old news; you may want to review the archives of this talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I never got a clear picture of what we should do with the isotope issue in our article. There are claims from Rossi and there is an independent analysis of a sample provided by Rossi. As far as I understand the independent analysis is contradicting what Rossi claims. There are some shreds of information mainly from Rossi's blog that he refines the nickel before using it, maybe changing isotope ratios, all completely unreliable sources. But the isotope analysis is currently the only scientific work done on this device, it was independently performed, but dependent on Rossi for sourcing the sample. If Rossi is trying to pretend something, why didn't he spike the sample he provided, so it would be supportive of his claims ? --POVbrigand (talk) 09:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Demonstrations section clean up

I think we can easily get consensus about the clean up of the demonstrations section.

Currently the demonstrations section is a large text of very detailed information. The section grew as new demonstrations were performed and the relevant and interesting data was added.

Now is a good time to sift through that large text and cut out all the stuff that won't have an encyclopedic relevance in the long run.

For those editors that don't like the idea of cutting out data, please keep in mind that the data is not lost, but is available at Ny Teknik website.

So what do you think about it ? --POVbrigand (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a fairly large number of independent sources are popping up, where I presume (hope) that the editors/reporters are doing something a bit more than regurgitating content from this wiki page and the Ny Teknik site. In terms of what to write up for at least the October demonstration/sale, I think there could be something of substance written by now and a whole bunch of sources I would suggest to throw out as well. Certainly there is room for discussion on this matter. --Robert Horning (talk) 22:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The content I would like to cut out of the "demonstrations" section is the measurement data that was sourced by Ny Teknik (kW. hours. mL/s). Most of that has no encyclopedic relevance in the long run and clutters the demonstration section. --POVbrigand (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Please unlock

I don't know why the article is locked but if there is so much wrong with it it seems a nice idea to let people edit it. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 02:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Anyone with an account and edit it, register for an account. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

This is not a valid excuse to lock the article. 84.107.153.57 (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

We don't need 'excuses' to do anything. That Wikipedia allows unregistered contributions is a matter of choice, and if an article is subject to the level of troublesome edits by unregistered contributors that this one has been, it is entirely reasonable to restrict access. Nobody (other than someone who is specifically blocked for breaches of policy) is prevented from registering. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Conventional explanations. Open questions..

Wikipedia is not a forum
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am against deletion, because this event has rised major public interest, -also in press- and because deletion might support conspiracy theories about censoring of Wikipedia. This event is rather unique and remarkable. If it is not deleted, there must be a section for serious conventional explanations added. Because I am not native english spoken I will not write it. Content could be like this: The previous demos can be explained by this: 1) Mr. Rossi uses a wireless secret switch to activate the heater when nobody watches the input power. This explains exccess energy. 2) Mr. Rossi has a vacuum pump (might be a water jet pump) inside the wall or behind it, where the steam oulet hose is inserted. Most water is sucked out instead vaporized and this also explains dry steam and boiling in the remaining volume. 3) Instead the lead shielding Mr. Rossi might use a biphase thermal storage material to surpress quick temperature variations. The 1MW demo is most suspicious, because no observer made remarks about extraordinary heat at the radiators behind the pressboard fence. The area inside was about 25 square meters. 470 kW is enough to heat a cathedral with a footprint of some 100 squaremeters. Hot flimmering air like this above a tin roof in summer should have been there. Why was the temperature 1-2 metres above the pressboard jail not measured? 470 kW is roughly equivalent to an air stream of 4 cubic metres per second, heated from 20 centigrade to 100 centigrade. 470 kW is equivalent to 300 litres of dry saturated steam per second at air pressure. Releasing the steam into the sky at the end of the demo could have given more evidency This would have been an impressive scenario and worldwide attention and sensational videos published would have been sure. Peter Heckert (talk) 14:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)Peter Heckert

Prematurely-closed AfD now reopened

Since nobody else seems to have taken the trouble to point this out, per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy Catalyzer, the prematurely-closed AfD has now been reopened. Of course, this foul-up more or less guarantees that there will be a review of any closing decision, and most likely a whole new AfD discussion in a few weeks. Farcical... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I was confused for a few minutes when I saw people were making changes to the discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't even know where to begin on this "issue" in terms of AfD. I thought its closure was spot on, as was the rationale. If anything, it should have been re-opened with a new AfD or at least explaining why it was re-opened, but I suppose the Admin noticeboard explains that issue in sufficient detail. I am not sure if any new information is going to be added or if there is any way consensus can be achieved in the next couple of days to be something different based upon actual policy. At least other admins are looking at this mess, even though it looks like this discussion is going to spill over into other parts of Wikipedia now and make an even larger mess. --Robert Horning (talk) 12:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Closed again. Interesting. Tmccc (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Miley's claim is not ridiculous

Andy, Castaflor added an "external link to scientific consortium that studies and has developed cold fusion devices". IRWolfie deleted that external link on the ground that, "There doesn't seem to be any relevance or link to the Energy Catalyzer". I improved Castaflor's external link to show how it is relevant to Rossi and his E-Cat and to thereby satisfy IRWolfie's objections. You removed my revised external link on the ground that Dr. Miley's claim is "ridiculous" and that there is "no scientific proof for 'cold fusion'." I am going to revise and repost the external link to include a link to Dr. Miley's impeccable credentials and his publications in the field of cold fusion. Please review Dr. Miley's credentials and publications before you decide that he is making a ridiculous claim. His e-mail address is posted on that page. Please take the time to correspond with Dr. Miley before you again assert that his claim is ridiculous. Thank you. AnnaBennett (talk) 01:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia editors do not engage in e-mail dialogues with scientists to establish credibility - that would constitute original research. If you wan't to claim that Dr. Miley has achieved successful cold fusion, provide us with a source from a reliable mainstream peer-reviewed science journal to back it up. If you restore the link, I will remove it again, as contravening Wikipedia policies. I suggest you wait for others to comment before doing so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Anna that there is a clear connection between the e-cat device and cold fusion whether proved or not in the court of the mainstream physics community. If it violates Wikipedia policies please state them and we can discuss and/or perhaps there is an administrator we can bring in on this. Zedshort (talk) 01:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

What you 'agree with' is beside the point. We aren't going to include a claim that Miley has achieved cold fusion in the article (even in a description of an external link, which is what we are discussing) without the necessary source - which must, per policy (and common sense) be mainstream, and recognised. We don't need an administrator for this - it is down to those wishing to include content to provide evidence that it merits inclusion - and none has been given. While we are discussing this, a question for you both - if you think Miley's claim is valid, why aren't you arguing for it to be included in our cold fusion article, rather than in obscure link here? Shouldn't such a significant breakthrough be reported in the relevant place? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

What I agree with is not beside the point and I take umbrage at you high handed tone. If this happens again I will complain. I hate to do that but you apparently don't learn fast enough that your behavior is over the top and inappropriate and bullying. A link to a source that supports the article is appropriate. It need not be a tertiary nor even a secondary source and can be a primary source. The entire article should lean as best it can be made to do so toward the tertiary but particular references need not meet your individual standards. In a nut shell no one here owns this article. I guess it is time I learn to work the ropes and to bring someone else in on this. Zedshort (talk) 03:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Wikipedia works according to policies arrived at by consensus, not by intimidation. We aren't going to include ridiculous claims of achieving cold fusion in this article, without appropriate sourcing. You are welcome to 'bring in' whoever you like, though I'd recommend you read WP:BOOMERANG first. And I note that you haven't explained why you aren't attempting to add this supposed proof of cold fusion to the relevant article. Why not? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I get the idea and have no worries for myself. I suspect you have a long, long record of disruptive behavior. Zedshort (talk) 04:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I suspect you won't be here long enough to get one. Now answer my question. Why aren't you attempting to add this supposed proof of cold fusion to the relevant article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Note that this falls under the general principle of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," which not only is good sense but also is explicitly stated as Wikipedia policy (yes, occasionally "good sense" and "Wikipedia policy" overlap). It's not a case of picking on cold fusion unfairly; we'd require the same evidence if someone claimed to have detected the Higgs boson. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe the existence of an article on the Higgs boson, a speculative particle, would only support the existence of an article on a thing that does in fact exist physically and has shown to produce net heat out in abundance but is controversial only as the physics of its operation is not fully understood. Does the gigantic mass and expense of the collider justify the article on something that may not exist? Or is it the number of priests/physicists that are employed and the massive amount of money spread about? Zedshort (talk) 04:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Why aren't you attempting to add the supposed proof of cold fusion to the relevant article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump is correct in that the article content should be taken from a reliable source. Unfortunately, his way of pointing this out is confrontational. If a source or content doesn't meet the WP rules, that's all that needs to be said. There's is no need to use phrases and terms that are designed to annoy the person being corresponded with. Use of WP:BOOMERANG of course applies to you too, Andy! If Anna wants to use this content, then perhaps she can try to get one of the existing sources to interview Dr. Miley. Tmccc (talk) 08:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

An interview with Miley does not justify an external link to this fringe consortium. AndyTheGrump is justified in his comments. Discussing an editors comments especially when you are inferring some sort of tone appears to go against WP:AGF. WP:BOOMERANG does not apply at all since this is not a noticeboard. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Paul Burns is a reliable source

Andy, in reply to your question, I believe that Paul Burns is a "reliable source". I added his name to the the reference about nickel melting and stopping E-Cat fusion reactions. AnnaBennett (talk) 19:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I have repeated Andy's removal of your insertion. Indepedent eCat News isn't exactly a recognized scholarly source—nor even a mainstream news outlet, nor even a reputable science blog. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

From what I can see, Burns isn't a source for much of this at all - where does he mention Fukushima? This looks like WP:SYNTHESIS to me. Please read the new section below, and the linked policies, before attempting to introduce any more questionable material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades, please explain to me why Paul Burns is an "Extremely poor source" when he quoted and linked to a statement that Andrea Rossi made on his own blog? AnnaBennett (talk) 19:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump makes a good point; your edit for some reason includes some bizarre synthesis, dragging in mention of Fukushima. The 'reliablity' of the person Paul Burns is a non-issue here. I don't know who he is, or why his opinion would be important or valuable, but in any case it's an irrelevant question since you're just using his blog to include more primary material from Rossi's blog. In any event, there are those who might quibble with the notion that a hydrogen-fuelled device that fails by generating molten metal is "intrinsically safe". TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion

A reminder to all contributors. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion, editing in this topic area requires particular care. Specifically, it states that "Encyclopedias are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with current mainstream scientific thought". As noted at the top of this page, the article and its editors are subject to Wikipedia:General sanctions - I advise all contributors to bear this in mind. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Note that the closing statement to the AfD has now been amended to remind contributors of this issue: [9]] AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The First Line Needs Work

The first line has two references that seem either useless or misleading.

The Energy Catalyzer (sometimes shortened to E-Cat) is a supposed Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) thermal power source[1][2] built by inventor Andrea Rossi,[3][4][5]

The first reference leads to "World Intellectual Organization" and the second to an article that rebuts the devices usefulness. I understand the article should be written in a neutral manner but every sentence need not contain a counter argument or caveat. I doubt the usefulness of the first and feel the second should be about the invention, perhaps an article about Rossi's discovery of a net heat output from another experiment he was conducting would be more appropriate. The present second reference should be used later.Zedshort (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Sergio Focardi previous work

Focardi (et al. of which Piantelli) has done a lot of work on Ni-H excess energy system in the past 20 years. This should be mentioned in the article --POVbrigand (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

This can only be relevant if stated to be by reliable sources - i.e. sources actually stating that the E-Cat is said to work according to the principles described in Focardi et al. One also needs to be very careful not to imply that Focardi's work is accepted by mainstream science, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion requirements. Note that 'published in a peer-reviewed journal' doesn't necessarily mean 'accepted as valid'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Link not related to quote =

Link 36 does not support the line to which it is attached better to find a link that supports the quote.

In a later conversation, a few months after the test, Essén stated "I want to wait for more facts. The facts I know add up to make this interesting and worth pursuing, but I am still very uncertain about this."[36]

The purpose of a link here should be to reference the quote not provide a rebuttal in an effort to provide a balanced view. Zedshort (talk) 03:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Another meaningless link

The reference should be to one that supports the quote in this line not to some article that rebuts the quote as if in some backhanded way of providing a balanced view.

In a later conversation, a few months after the test, Essén stated "I want to wait for more facts. The facts I know add up to make this interesting and worth pursuing, but I am still very uncertain about this."[36]

Provide a link to the quote not a counter argument. Zedshort (talk) 03:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Quotes from Hagelstein

I found some quotes from Peter L. Hagelstein from last April in this article:

"They've been keeping the technical details under wraps because they aren't patent protected, so it's hard to tell what they're doing from the photos and written descriptions. There is essentially no information that's useful to ascertain whether they've done it."

"There are a lot of other researchers who've been exploring technologies that are related and they've reported similar results," Hagelstein said. "[Rossi and Focardi] reported an immediate power gain of a factor of 10 and a long-term one of 20. There are other researchers who have reported the same power gain, so it's not out of line with the cutting-edge state of the art in the field."

For those who don't know, Hagelstein is the principal investigator of the "Energy Production and Conversion Group" of Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Research Laboratory of Electronics.

I would like to use these quotations if there are no objections. --POVbrigand (talk) 10:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You want to use 'lifeslittlemysteries.com' as a source? Note the previous sentence: "Without seeing the guts of Rossi's and Focardi's machine, [Hagelstein] has no idea if it actually works". Whatever, the article is months old, and only tells us that someone who doesn't know how (or if) the E-Cat works thinks it might. Basically, another 'endorsement' from a believer. So yes, I object on the basis that it is old, poorly sourced, and contains no useful information. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Please explain why you outright dismiss lifeslittlemysteries.com as source. The media outlet is part of TechMediaNetwork and it has an editorial team and staff writers, fully within WP-policy. --POVbrigand (talk) 13:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't dismiss it outright - I just queried whether it was a particularly appropriate source. In any case, you've not responded to my other comments. Why should we quote Hagelstein as saying he doesn't know whether the E-Cat works? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Glad we can agree that this article is RS. Now let's see what other editors think about the quotations. --POVbrigand (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Times ago the section concerning the "Evaluation of the device" was requested to be expanded: provided that there is not copyright infringement, these quotes seem to be acceptable as expansion of that section IMHO.

--79.10.132.29 (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hagelstein has not evaluated the device. He makes clear he doesn't have the information to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Secondary sources never will have evaluated the device themselves, for by doing so they would be primary sources. --POVbrigand (talk) 22:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

True, but irrelevant - Hagelstein has said nothing of any significance on the E-Cat beyond that (a) he doesn't know if it works, and (b) he thinks that it might. He is no sort of 'source' at all for anything relevant to the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Where in this quote do you read that he thinks that it might work ? :"There are a lot of other researchers who've been exploring technologies that are related and they've reported similar results," Hagelstein said. "[Rossi and Focardi] reported an immediate power gain of a factor of 10 and a long-term one of 20. There are other researchers who have reported the same power gain, so it's not out of line with the cutting-edge state of the art in the field."

Your argument on relevance and significance is .. irrelevant. To me this sounds like WP:I_just_don't_like_it. --POVbrigand (talk) 07:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

"it's not out of line with the cutting-edge state of the art" sounds to me like 'it might work', coming from a cold-fusion believer, but whatever. What is it I'm supposed to 'like'? What content are you actually proposing to add to the article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I tried to explain that when I wrote :"I would like to use these quotations if there are no objections.". Maybe you didn't understand so I'll rephrase. "I would like to add these quotations if there are no objections." --POVbrigand (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

What is the point in quoting Hagelstein for "essentially no information" on the E-Cat? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

He is an expert in the field, that is why it is good to add his quotes. See also the points 79.10 makes. --POVbrigand (talk) 17:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Whether he is 'an expert in the field' is clearly dependent on 'the field' (cold fusion/LENR) actually being found scientifically credible, which is at the moment rather questionable. But no, I can see no point in adding quotes from someone who states that he knows nothing about the article subject - the E-Cat. This looks like another attempt to bring 'credibility by association', rather than to include anything that actually informs the reader about the device. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Your arguments boil down to WP:I_just_don't_like_it. It is clear that you will object to any addition to this article. The only goal you have here is to obstruct, hinder and filibuster and you would like to see this whole article deleted. Completely against the spirit of wikipedia. --POVbrigand (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Rather, it appears that yours come down to wp:IDHT. You asked "if there are no objections". Andy objected, and further has repeatedly said why, yet you persist. Is it perhaps that you really intended "whether or not there are objections"? Haggelstein is willing to be considered as a CF researcher, per his own website. Other such might agree, though that would need sourcing. Rossi isn't calling the eCat a CF device. Unless you have an excellently RS that supports asserting the eCat is a CF device, there's no reason to assume it is, particularly in the face of the overwhelming predominance of informed opinion that CF (in the sense discussed by P&F) doesn't really exist. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

outdent - It appears to me that you don't know what WP:IDHT is all about. As far as I understand IDHT is for editors that refuse to accept the consensus long after it has been reached by the community. Your use here to discredit me is laughable.

Hagelstein is one of the CF researchers that was asked to prepare the DOE 2004 presentation. I think we don't need any "website" to safely assume that he is indeed an expert on the subject regardless of what the standing of this subject in mainstream science has.

The rest of your comment puzzles me even more.

There is no predominance of informed opinion that CF doens't really exist. There is a predominance of ignorant opinion that CF was debunked in the early 1990s and that nothing has happened since then.

But let's remind ourselves that Wikipedia is not about truth  :"Truth is not the criterion for inclusion of any idea or statement in a Wikipedia article, even if it is on a scientific topic (see Wikipedia:Science). The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."

Now if I understand you correctly you say: Hagelstein may or may not be an expert on CF and the Rossi device is not a CF device. And with that you try to convince us that Hagelstein's quotes on the Rossi device are meaningless. Sorry, but if your comment truly reflects your knowledge about this subject then I suggest you read a few sources first. I don't say that you should believe CF claims afterward, but at least our discussion would be more efficient. --POVbrigand (talk) 22:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no "knowledge about this subject". It is pseudoscience until we have actual real science published via WP:RS. Your POV pushing will have a limit. No data, no sources, no science == Not published in Wikipedia. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unclear. with "knowledge about this subject" I meant CF/LENR in general and how Ni-H excess heat systems fall into that category, regardless of how one calls it. And that Hagelstein is an expert in that field.

I agree with you that there are no scientific grade RS about Rossi's device. But several non scientific grade RS (ie. news stories) report about Rossi's device so we can write this WP-article. Your view "No data, no sources, no science == Not published in Wikipedia. " is not in line with wikipedia, please do not advocate misinformation.

I think you possibly meant it differently than I understood, I agree with you that this article should not pretend to be a science article and should in no way present the ecat as scientifically proven. --POVbrigand (talk) 07:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The first quote from Hagelstein very much expresses the skeptical view: "There is essentially no information that's useful to ascertain whether they've done it." Isn't that what we are all saying ?

If you are really concerned about the bias of this article, then this quotation will actually help you with keeping the pole straight. I can't see why that first quote should not be added to the article.

My proposal: I will add the first quote, but not use the second quote, just to keep the peace. You see, I am a reasonable editor. All agree win-win ? --POVbrigand (talk) 07:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Why bother? Granted, it's almost harmless, but it is neither very informative nor accurate. Hagelstein could have qualified his statement, e.g. "...no information I've seen that's useful..." to be accurate, though that would still be uninformative. He might just as well have said "There is essentially no information that's useful to ascertain whether Godzilla is presently frozen in an Antarctic glacier." It is a non-statement. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, but that would be an interesting quote the use in an article about Godzilla or melting glaciers if coming from a Godzilla expert :-) I think the quote tells us about the quality of the experiments and I do not think it is non-statement. But for now I'll just let it be, it's not that important. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

New quotes from Hagelstein from Natalie Wolchover's article in CBSnews. :

"There is not sufficient reliable information available about the E-cat for a rational opinion to be made yet, in my view," Hagelstein told Life's Little Mysteries, a sister site to LiveScience. But because of these consistencies, "I am of the view that Rossi's claims probably should be taken seriously until such time as we have sufficient information that provides confirmation or refutation."

"Are physicists generally, and DoE in particular, so sure that excess power in such experiments is impossible that the very large number of experimental results which show an excess heat effect clearly should continue to be ignored?"

I think we could use the first one. --POVbrigand (talk) 10:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Article from the Daily Mail

Article from the Daily Mail, similar to the one from Foxnews:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2057611/Italian-scientist-Andrea-Rossi-claims-achieved-cold-fusion.html

--79.20.141.224 (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

For past comments on the Daily Mail, see WP:RS/N archives. Definitely not reliable for science. (See for example their endless 'X causes cancer' articles...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)