Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:20, 17 April 2011

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Physics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative views Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Andrea Rossi engineer?

Esowatch states article, that Rossi has a "engineering degree" (ChemE) from Kensington University inc., which seems to be a Hawaii based company and unaccredited school. This company operated from Glendale in California (Kensington University, 520 E Broadway Suite 400, Glendale, CA 91205) and was shut down by the law. ("LA-Times": Kensington University Faces Closure Hearing. April 23, 1996): citation: Kensington University has no classrooms, laboratories or dorms. Its students don't play football, join fraternities or linger dreamily on a quadrangle. In fact, the entire campus is housed in a small Glendale office building. Recruiting from across the nation, the school runs a program in which students studying entirely at home can earn anything from a bachelor's degree to a doctorate--all without ever attending a single class or even meeting their instructors face to face.. See also: List_of_unaccredited_institutions_of_higher_education.94.134.49.17 (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Changed to "Mr." instead of "engineer" --Lundq (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed per wp:Naming conventions (people).LeadSongDog come howl! 19:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Learning has nothing to do with meeting someone or going inside a particular building. Major Universities (e.g., MIT) have Online degree programs.

New comment on Rossi's title: I have re-inserted the title Engineer of Andrea Rossi. His main title is from Università degli Studi di Milano. I have an original document obtained from this university confirming that the title is Dottore Magistrale in Filosofia, dated December 10, 1975 (I don't know if I should submit this document somewhere). As a journalist I have interviewed Rossi and he says that the title from Kensington University is an honorary title he gained because of an earlier patent regarding bio fuel. He claims he knows no more about this university.--Matslewan (talk) 09:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not appropriate for us to apply what is usually a professional title associated with a licensed profession to someone who received it as an honour from what seems to be a degree mill. The Dottore Magistrale in Filosofia may be relevant, but without knowing what field it is in it is ambiguous. (Is it like an M.Phil. or Ph.D., which can be in any subject, or does it have special meaning?) Absent any clearly-awarded engineering degree from a suitably accredited institution or a professional engineering qualification, it is not appropriate to call someone an 'engineer'. Italy – and most jurisdictions, really – regulate the use of the term 'engineer'; does Rossi have any of the qualifications listed in our Professional Engineer article? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

There are multiple issues here. Does he have a legal license to practice? Does he have a substantive degree from a credible granting institution? Is the degree relevant to the matter being discussed? But ultimately we still don't use honorifics or titles in describing someone per wp:HONORIFIC. If it was pertinent in a discussion of general relativity, we would state "While Albert Einstein held xx chair as a professor of physics at Princeton University he ..." without calling him "Professor Albert Einstein". Not that I'm implying any semblance of parallel. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

To answer my own question, it looks like he doesn't have any real formal qualifications in engineering (or in any science). Based on his self-published biographical sketch, his only degrees are from Kensington University (shut down as a diploma mill) and the University of Milan (which actually was a straight-up philosophy degree, albeit in the philosophy of science). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Should 12KW fusion source produce enough gamma radiation

Regarding the 12KW demonstration, the article writes, "This result conflicts with current theoretical and experimental knowledge of nuclear fusion ... " yet it does not cite or show the math as to how much gamma radiation a 12KW fusion source would produce. Does anyone here have any idea how low 12KW is in terms of nuclear fusion radiation? If it's truth & logic we seek, then those sections of the article should be deleted or show the math. It would be interesting to see what the predicted gamma radiation should be from a 12KW nuclear *fusion* source. Lets please stick to facts on WikiPedia.

Actually, in Misplaced Pages we should stick to reliable sources. If there are no reliable sources for "This result conflicts with ....", then it should be deleted or a reliable source should be provided.--Nowa (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Branching ratios are known to be very different in low energy reactions so you can't really predict. Most of the energy comes in the form of heat, but small amounts of nuclear products have been detected. Edmund Storms has an informative lecture on YouTube which will probably give details. --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Footnote 5, cited twice in that paragraph, refers directly to the report by Mauro Villa describing how gamma radiation measurements were undertaken during the demonstration. It describes in detail what the anticipated gamma ray production should be, given the nominal energy output of the device and the inventors' proposed mechanism of operation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Good point. However, there is some concern that the Journal of Nuclear Physics, which published the Villa article, is not a reliable source --Nowa (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

While I agree that we certainly shouldn't treat the blog on equal footing with a proper peer-reviewed journal, I think it's not unreasonable to use it in this manner. The mechanism by which gamma rays should be produced is drawn from the inventors' own patent application; the Villa reference is being used solely because it contains the gamma ray measurements, and represents the only such measurements that took place during the January 14 press conference. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It isn't just that it's a blog. It's a self published source by the people making the claims. In other words, there is no fact checking implicit in the publication. Hence it should only be used to support assertions that "he wrote that ..." If in doubt, consult at wp:RSN.LeadSongDog come howl! 20:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

So it's a self-published claim that his own device doesn't work? Weird. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the argument to remove the sentence. There is at least one theory (Widom-Larsen) published in two reputable peer-reviewed journals that posits a mechanism in accordance with Standard Model physics for gamma ray suppression in low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR) and a US Patent for gamma-ray shielding was granted to Larsen's company based on that mechanism. W-L theory may or may not be correct and/or may not apply to the configuration of Rossi's device but until either W-L is refuted or further information about the internals of the Energy Catalyzer emerges, it seems to me that a blanket declaration that the lack of measured gamma rays conflicts with accepted nuclear science is an overstatement. Links to pdf's of papers and patent below.

"Ultra Low Momentum Neutron Catalyzed Nuclear Reactions on Metallic Hydride Surfaces," Eur. Phys. J. C (2006)

"A Primer for Electro-Weak Induced Low Energy Nuclear Reactions" Pramana (Indian Academy of Sciences) 2008

APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR. ABSORPTION OF INCIDENT GAMMA RADIATION ...

PDF of full patent image Frogwing (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

"is supposed..." or "was supposed to be inaugurated..."

I've noted that some of you have changed back and forth between "is" and "was" in the phrase "The plant which would supply heating for Defkalion's own purposes only, was supposed to be inaugurated in October 2011." Please explain your changing. As far as I know (I was the one who wrote the original piece based on my own interviews with Defkalion and Rossi) the plan for inauguration in October is still on track. --Matslewan (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Background on Andrea Rossi, Symeon Tsalikoglou, Defkalion

Andrea Rossi

Is there someone with a stronger background in the Italian language who can look at it:Petroldragon? It looks like this guy has had some serious legal issues in the past relating to a 'green' technology company. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

My Italian isn't up to much but I know he was cleared. --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

He's been cleared. The article on Petroldragon in Italian Misplaced Pages is quite comprehensive (you could maybe try using Google translate if you don't read Italian). If you want to hear Rossi's own version of the story it's here (in English): ingandrearossi.net. Note that the story is significant to understand his motives as an entrepreneur -- it is disputed whether he ever did something illegal, but it's clear that he was a pioneer within biofuel and from early years showed an interest in clean energy sources. --Matslewan (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

what is the source for the "clearance"? It's Rossis own webpage. 87.122.151.173 (talk) 13:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Symeon Tsalikoglou and Defkalion

I am unable to find any information at all about this individual. Since there are press releases circulating which claim Defkalion is making investments of up to 200 million euro, it seems odd that the company 'spokesperson' has no obvious previous track record. The company itself has a one-page website, and no further information; can anyone find any information about the company's legal status or any of its officers (president, CEO, vice presidents, board of directors)? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You're not the only one. I'm researching this and have some good indications that the company exists and is sane. Nothing yet that holds for further publication though.--Matslewan (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Article Categorization and Content

I'm very much bothered by the categorization of this article and the associated content. I'm interested in the raw data (news, successes/failures), not in theories about why the E Cat may or may not work. This article is way too tied up in issues best addressed in a discussion of the history of science, and is doing little to provide a focal point for determining the actual facts. I think the whole article as it is should be scrapped -- including its designation as of physical or pseudo-scientific interest, and that it should be restarted as a report upon ongoing current events. Some of the discussion addresses the real issues, but the article itself is a worthless rehash of oft stated positions. Sphere1952 (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

That is a characteristic problem of science by press release. When we have real publications to work from, we will all be happy to use them. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The article looks better today. A nice clean report of known facts. Sphere1952 (talk) 10:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

While I suppose that the formatting is pretty, I have to disagree that it is better as an encyclopedia article. The article is entirely supported by blog entries, half by an IT writer who for the most part is just repeating the inventor's assertions, and half from the inventor's self-published web site. The article is largely structured as yet another blog, with an entry for each spate of press releases (one section for each press conference, plus one for their nearly-invisible company). Right now, this is a dreadful article that grants undue weight to unreliable sources. We are presenting claims and assertions as 'known facts', and doing a disservice to our readers. I'm beginning to believe that proper secondary sources just don't exist for this topic right now, and that it isn't appropriate for Misplaced Pages to have an article on this at all right now. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

As I suppose that the it-writer is me, and also that my articles are called blog entries, I guess I have to respond. I'm a scientific journalist with more that ten years experience. I hold a Master of Science in Engineering Physiscs from the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology. I'm a staff writer since 2002 at Ny Teknik which is founded 1967 and has about 300,000 readers and a circulation of about 145,000. For further comments on my contribution see my talk page. I will soon provide more comments here.--Matslewan (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Missing info?

Perhaps I've overlooked it, but I can't find anything in any of the sources that shows the before and after mass for the whole system, just for the hydrogen tank. Did anyone else spot it somewhere? LeadSongDog come howl! 15:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not there. I have to say that on the whole this is engineering and experimentation, not quite science. People looking for some sort of final explanation are going to be disappointed. Either the Energy Catalyzer will prove to be exothermic or it will not. Explanations will either not be necessary or will have to be invented based upon the data. Right now this is a current event; which will have some sort of outcome. We shouldn't be in the business of predicting outcomes, but rather in the business of reporting known facts. Sphere1952 (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The device was never weighed before and after, even though this was the intention by Levi. The reason is that the precision scale that he brought had a range to 15 kg whereas the device had a weight of about 30 kg.--Matslewan (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

So the conclusion that it couldn't be chemical is based on the untested premise of insufficient fuel consumption, and it was untested because Levi forgot he could use a lever arm? Wow. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Painfully credulous reporting

This article has some pretty serious sourcing issues. If we're treating this as a scientific phenomenon rather than a political or business story, then we are essentially entirely lacking in reliable sources. The only formal independent evaluation of the claims is in the report on patentability, which found the claims implausible and unsupported by the evidence provided by the inventor.

The bulk of material that isn't in the self-published 'Journal' of Nuclear Physics blog comes from a Ny Teknik blogger, Mats Lewan. While I understand that every writer wants to cover interesting stories and dreams of being part of a big event as it happens, I am very concerned about the slant to his blog entries, and his apparent inexperience in reporting on (putative) scientific discoveries.

The latest Lewan blog post added as a source to the article illustrates the point. Lewan interviewed Sven Kullander, a professor emeritus from Uppsala University. The blog declares in bold print "Swedish physicists on the E-cat: “It’s a nuclear reaction”", followed later by "The used powder contains ten percent copper". What was actually said in the interview?

The samples analyzed were described as the raw nickel material used as 'fuel' for the EC, and a sample of fuel retrieved after about 2.5 months of continuous 'burning' in the EC. The raw material was predominantly nickel, as expected, while the output contained mostly nickel plus 10% copper and 11% iron(!). A naive reading of these data would suggest that Rossi's device does work as advertised, and it is somehow fusing nickel with hydrogen to produce energy without detectable ionizing radiation.

But what do the numbers really tell us? For that matter, what is Kullander really saying in his responses? First off, he notes that relative isotopic abundances of nickel and copper in the samples are exactly the same as in the naturally-occurring metals. (For nickel, that would be mostly nickel-58 and nickel-60, with about 3.6% nickel-62 and 0.9% nickel-64. For copper that's 69% copper-63 and 31% copper-65.) Kullander explicitly calls out that this is "somewhat strange". For those who don't speak 'scientist', that's code for this is very suspicious, but real scientists hate to make definitive pronouncements about things that might have happened in someone else's lab, and I'm too busy to deal with a lawsuit. Had fusion genuinely been occurring, then the 'used' nickel fuel should have been depleted of the Ni-62 and Ni-64 isotopes required to generate the observed Cu-63 and Cu-65. There is also no good reason why the probability of a nuclear process should coincidentally generate exactly the same ratio of elements observed in nature. (That doesn't mean it can't be a coincidence; it's just damn suspicious.)

It is also rather surprising that the mass fraction of copper in the output (10%) is greater than the combined mass fraction of fusible nickel isotopes (3.6+0.9=4.5%) in the input fuel. Either the sample of 'used' fuel is somehow not representative of the device's output, or there are some even-less-plausible-than-the-rest-of-this-stuff reactions involving (as Kullander notes) multiple hydrogen atoms fusing with each nickel nucleus.

The presence of iron is, meanwhile, just plain mysterious. Is it the result of gross contamination (throwing the relevance of the analysis further into doubt) or is it supposed to be from some even more exotic and implausible nuclear reaction?

While the mix of metals observed could have come from fusion, but could much more easily be produced by mixing together ordinary powdered nickel and copper. Lewan didn't know what he didn't know, and failed to ask the important followup questions. Worse, he headlined his pieces with bold (and bald) declarations that were inconsistent with the evidence presented.

I have similar reservations about the way that he has reported on the company, Defkalion Green Technologies, which purportedly will sell EC devices. Lewan boldly announces "Cold Fusion: Here's the Greek company building 1 MW...", but fails to investigation any of the claims or individuals involved. The only person or entities so far definitively linked with Defkalion are their mysterious 'spokesman' Symeon Tsalikoglou, and EON/Leonardo Corporation, a company Rossi recently sold.

Defkalion has made no public annoucements about any of its partners, company officers, board of directors, or sources of funding (if any), and Lewan has failed to ask about any of these points. Is Defkalion a real company, or just a front? The only online information I can locate about any Symeon Tsalikoglou is that someone by that name is (or was) Director of International Sales for Milotos Editions, a division of the Greek publishing company Troia Publishing. Is there anyone with a track record in the energy industry associated with Defkalion? Are there any energy companies involved that don't have intimate ties to the inventor(s)? Lewan's article talks about "partners" and "a consortium", but doesn't (can't?) name names.

For what it's worth, I don't think that Lewan is involved in any sort of deception himself; I consider it much more likely that he's just getting played. In any event, a blogger is not a good sole source for what would be – if true – this century's most stunning technological advance. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

(moved from interjection above, please don't insert your comments in other editors' signed remarks) OK, apologies.

Why are you referring to a reporter for a well-established technical newspaper as a 'blogger'? Do you not appreciate the difference between the two forms of literature? People can consult the W. article on Ny Teknik if they are unclear as to the importance of the publication that Lewan writes for. Brian Josephson (talk) 22:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

He is supposedly the IT editor at Ny Teknik, a weekly tech newspaper. Which says nothing about whether his words were subjected to independent fact checking. Most such papers in my experience are flush with stuff virtually straight from the press releases they get. But if in doubt there's always wp:RSN to consult. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Start at the Ny Teknik homepage and click on Bloggar. The second thumbnail is labelled IT-bloggen: Mats Lewan om idéer och utmaningar i en uppkopplad värld (roughly speaking, "IT blog: Mats Lewan on ideas an challenges in a connected world.") I identify Mats Lewan as a blogger because that's what he's identified as by Ny Teknik. Moreover, it looks a lot like Lewan is writing outside his regular area of expertise; aside from the deficiencies I've already noted, a look at his blog reveals that he generally writes about new consumer gadgets (smartphones and the like) and software applications, and he is called an IT blogger by Ny Teknik. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Painfully loose thinking by the Professor! Someone who works for a newspaper can perfectly well fulfil two different roles. If this is the case, you don't characterise that person by the lesser of the two (or, for that matter, confuse the two roles when discussing a specific contribution). --Brian Josephson (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Re the 'area of expertise' issue, the physics involved in the question of the amount of heat produced and whether it can be explained on conventional grounds is very elementary, school physics pretty well. --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll repreat my background. I'm a scientific journalist with more than ten years experience. I hold a Master of Science in Engineering Physiscs from the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology. I'm a staff writer since 2002 at Ny Teknik which is founded 1967 and has about 300,000 readers and a circulation of about 145,000. I used to be the It & Telecom editor at Ny Teknik, and as such I also made comments as blog posts on a blog integrated in the website Nyteknik.se, called It-bloggen. I still report a lot on the it-sector, but given my academic background I often get involved when we deal with complex scientific topics. However, we are about 20 journalists at the Ny Teknik newsroom, a couple of them with similar background as mine. We cover all kinds of technologies and discuss all news material on a daily basis. Our readers, mainly professional engineers, expect a very high accuracy. For further comments on my contribution see my talk page. --Matslewan (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matslewan (talk • contribs) 21:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Probably not usable, but this German discussion may shed some light on the people involved. Can someone assess?LeadSongDog come howl! 03:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Erk. Our article on Telepolis certainly seems to put it pretty far out on the fringe. The author, Haiko Lietz, has a history of being rather...sympathetic to the pro-cold-fusion perspective: , , . Unfortunately, the discussion doesn't seem to name any players not already identified, and as far as I can tell it just links back to the same soundbites and blog entries we've already seen. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. My German is pretty much limited to ordering frothy beverages. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. My German probably isn't in much better shape (I usually know what I'm ordering in a restaurant, and I can find the train station), but between that and Google Translate, I'm pretty sure that there isn't any new ground. That is the first time I've seen that article or that author, however. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

There is at least the report by the two scientists involved (one chairman of the energy committee of the Swedish Academy, and the other former chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society). But perhaps it should be made clear that the part about isotopes is not in that report. Brian Josephson (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Josephson, I know you're a cold fusion believer, but this particular horse isn't a good one to back. The only independent scientific tests for clear evidence of nuclear processes – tests for gamma emission, tests for neutron emission, and tests for changes in isotopic ratios in the fuel before and after 'burning' – have all come back negative. The only substantive independent 'news' coverage comes from an IT blogger; this story hasn't even been picked up by the useless editors of New Scientist (the ones who gave us the EmDrive). There is no independent coverage in the mainstream scientific press, peer-reviewed or otherwise. Realistically, this article shouldn't exist – and shouldn't be providing free publicity – until after there is either independent, peer-reviewed scientific reporting of the device and its mechanism (admittedly, unlikely) or until such time as a catalyzer is actually manufactured and sold to someone who can test it outside of Rossi's laboratory. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Prof. TenOfAllTrades, how are you planning to explain the observed temperature rise on conventional grounds? Numbers please, not faith! Re work previous to Rossi, an example is the work of Claytor, done at LANL (Los Alamos National Laboratory) of which you may or may not have heard, which detected definitive signatures of tritium. --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not my responsibility to prove that Rossi's device doesn't work; it's his responsibility to prove that it does. 10 kW of heat output is about 40 amps of electric resistance heating at 230 V Italian mains voltage, or less current at higher voltage; it's just not that much energy, to pretend that it can't come from non-nuclear processes is silly. Right now, it's much more plausible to conclude that the heat output and used fuel are erroneous or fraudulent than it is to conclude that nuclear fusion is going on in the absence of detectible ionizing radiation, neutrons, or the consumption of fusible nickel isotopes. I look forward to links to any of Claytor's peer-reviewed publications in reputable, non-cold-fusion focused journals, particularly if he has ever performed experiments that involve Rossi's device. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Response by Mats Lewan

As my contributions in this article have been questioned, I should like to describe my background, motivation and methods here.

First some facts:

• I hold a Master of Science degree in Engineering Physics from the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology (KTH).

• I've been a staff writer at Ny Teknik since 2002, and have been at the same publishing company since 1999.

Ny Teknik was founded with the current name in 1967 (but is older than that) and has about 300,000 readers, mostly professional engineers, and a circulation of about 146,000. We are about 20 journalists in the newsroom. Together we cover all kinds of technologies, with focus on innovation, and we discuss all news material on a daily basis. I have been the It & Telecom editor of Ny Teknik, and still report a lot on the it-industry (I have also worked at CBS Cnet News in 2009). Occasionally I write blog posts on the blog "It-bloggen" integrated at Ny Teknik's website. Because of my academic background, however, I often get involved when we deal with complex scientific topics, specifically regarding physics.

Our readers have very high expectations of accuracy in our reporting. Therefore everything that we present is thoroughly researched, although for obvious reasons not every part of the research is presented in our articles.

In the same way, in the interests of brevity not all of the material in my articles is included in my contributions to the Energy Catalyzer article in Misplaced Pages (you can find my complete coverage so far here: )

I have been told that there might be a conflict of interest when I do contributions citing my own articles. I see the point. Looking at the conflict of interest guidelines however, it doesn't seem that this is a genuine conflict of interest, as I'm not reporting on behalf of anyone. Citing one's own material in Misplaced Pages is permitted under certain circumstances.

The reason I started contributing, citing my own articles in Ny Teknik, was simply the lack of information from other sources. Until now, Ny Teknik has been the only major medium in the world to cover this topic with regularity and in-depth research. All other major media have chosen to remain silent.

Out of these two options, contributing or remaining silent, we have chosen the first one for a reason. In our opinion, and I mean the newspaper not just me, the experimental data presented, the competence of the scientists presenting this data, and the possible implications of this technology, lead to the conclusion that it is of high importance to report on this topic, including as much research as possible. In this way people have a chance to ask more questions and discuss aspects that should be researched further.

And we can see that people have lots of questions and grounds for discussion -- my articles often have hundreds of comments (in the Swedish versions). I also believe that Ny Teknik's coverage has answered more of the questions regarding the Energy Catalyzer than any other source so far. And of course, we're not finished.

Misplaced Pages, as a source that people turn to in order to become well informed, has the same choice that other media have: refer to existing reports, even if many questions still are unanswered, or to avoid them (you can of course amend my contributions any time you like).

A few words on my methods:

• I have focused on the experimental data presented. As for the theoretical aspect I haven't touched this part of the Misplaced Pages article, which I find comprehensive. A theoretical explanation of the effect is of course lacking, but I don't think that this is a reason for not reporting, given that the experimental data are so convincing, and given that the implications of this technology if it works, are huge. Kullander and Essén have also pointed out to me that the knowledge of physics in this area is weak from certain points of view, which is an important aspect.

• I have interviewed all persons involved several times. As I speak Italian fluently, interviews with Rossi, Levi and Focardi have been made in Italian.

• I have investigated all potential ways of fraud or misunderstanding that people have presented to me and that I have come up with myself, and found nothing.

• I have turned to the most qualified and, as I hoped, critical scientists I could find (Essén is a former chairman of the Skeptics Society and Kullander is chairman of the Energy Committee of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, the body that decides on the Nobel Prizes in physics and chemistry) to get their opinion.

• Through contacts with Rossi I succeeded in these scientists, basically chosen by me personally and thus independent, eventually getting access as observers to a test of the Energy Catalyzer in Bologna, free to investigate what they wanted, except for the inside of the reactor, and also to make analyses of the fuel powders. Their report went further than I expected.

• As for the Greek Company Defkalion Green Technologies, I have indications of proof that the company exists and is sane. I have more questions on this topic and continue to do research.

And in general terms - this is how far I have reached while others have been watching. I'm not finished, and if I find anything that would discredit this technology I will be the first to report it.--Matslewan (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

How many physicists did you consult about the Energy Catalyzer before you found ones willing to be interviewed? (For scientists who don't believe the claims, there's little reason to want to be interviewed—they risk being seen as wasting their time, they risk being quoted out of context or made to look silly, they risk drawing the unwanted attention and harrassment of cold fusion followers and conspiracy theorists, and they risk frivolous lawsuits and legal threats aimed at them or their institutions. It's far easier to say "That's interesting, but it needs further study". Unfortunately, this can badly skew the resulting story.)

In your initial(?) interview with Kullander and Essén (link), were you aware that their statements and conclusions may have been based on misunderstandings, unsupported statements, and errors of fact?

• Kullander states "But above all that they have heated a building and have done so for one year (according to Rossi)..." Is the "(according to Rossi)" a comment added afterwards by the editor of the transcript, and is Kullander therefore taking the statement at face value? Where is this building, and what do its heat and electric bills look like?
• Essén states "What I think is important in this context is that for the first time, so to speak, there is a device which is made in many units and which is being sold..." Really? How many units have been sold? To whom? I suspect that Essén was fooled by the stories about Defkalion. Essén repeats the claim that Rossi has sold devices elsewhere in the interview, citing it as evidence that Rossi is more credible than (for example) Randell Mills.

Throughout the interview, both come across as wanting very much to believe in Rossi's invention, and this interview took place well before their visit to Italy. They were on the record as expecting success before they witnessed the test in March.

I am also intrigued by Kullander's comment: "I have spoken with physics colleagues. Most are quite critical and do not believe in the experiment...". Similarly, Essén states that belief among his colleagues runs at "about 50-50". As I acknowledged above, it's difficult to find reputable physicists who want to risk associating their names and reputations with cold fusion in any way, but I find it a rather curious omission that you've never once reported the comments or opinions of any skeptical physicist – on or off the record – in any of your articles. With reporting on any scientific 'breakthrough' – or any news coverage, really – there's always a tendency towards confirmation bias, because the presence of a story is more publishable than the absence of one.

On the topic of Defkalion, what does "sane" mean? Have you identified any of their corporate officers or any non-Rossi-related sources of funding? Just about anyone can register a company and create a webpage; I have no doubt that it 'exists' in that sense, but that leaves an awful lot unsaid. On your talk page, I posted the following questions; I look foward to seeing – but don't really expect to see – good answers to any of them.

Truth be told, I'm just waiting now for the announcement from Rossi/Defkalion that production and sales of the Energy Catalyzer has been delayed due to unforeseen technical difficulties. At a guess, the announcement will push back expected delivery of the first units to the first quarter of 2012 from the original October 2011 announcement. I expect that this delay will be accompanied by the annoucement of one or more additional public demonstrations. No 'used' fuel samples will be made available for isotopic analysis by independent laboratories ever again. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear TenOfAllTrades,

Thanks again for your questions. First a general comment – I can’t see that any of them is in conflict with my main message: Ny Teknik has chosen to report on this technology for a reason, while all other major media have chosen to remain silent, and I still believe that our coverage has answered more questions on the Energy Catalyzer than any other source.

Now for some answers:

• Essén and Kullander. I found Essén first. I turned to him because I knew he was both a physicist and a skeptic. Then, when I found out that he didn’t immediately turn down the technology, I tried to find a more critical physicist. I asked a couple of scientists who represented a more critical stand point, and they finally recommended Prof Kullander. When he arrived at our discussion I knew nothing about his opinion, but I expected him to be negative.

Before the discussion I asked Essén and Kullander to send me a couple of questions that I could forward to Rossi. This led to a couple of emails between them with answers and more questions.

Kullander later told me he was initially quite skeptical but that he got more satisfactory answers than he expected.

• And yes, I understood that some of their conclusions may have been based on possibly errors of fact. As an example, the “(according to Rossi)” that you mention was put in by me, editing the interview.

I also thought specifically of the expression Essén used, that the device was “being sold”. I knew this was not the case, and I supposed he knew it to – I considered it to be an error in choice of words, but as I don’t change people’s quotes I let it be. The meaning was quite clear to me: In comparison with other claims of questioned technologies/products, the difference was partly in there supposedly being a customer and a date for inauguration of a heating plant.

• Now when it comes to the skeptical physicists their arguments all boil down to two things, which I made clear in my very first articles – the Coulomb barrier and the lack of high energy gammas. Kullander and Essén also addressed this in their discussion, and they considered both of them to be difficult to explain.

These two arguments are well known and have never changed -- no news to be reported. And I have never hidden them. (Actually I now note that the issue with the Coulomb barrier is missing in the Misplaced Pages article. Maybe someone should add it under 'Evaluation of the device'?)

However, I would like to repeat that I have focused on the experimental data in my reporting, and have been clear with the fact that a theoretical explanation is lacking.

Lately the initial results of the first independent isotope analysis of (what is claimed to be) the fuel powder has also created discussion, and I have reported on this problem. (Maybe we should add also this to the article?)

• In a Swedish article, not translated, I invited our readers to come up with possible explanations of how the excess energy could be explained in ways different from the claimed nuclear reaction. It boiled down to two chemical reactions, which now according to Levi, Kullander and Essén is out of the question, based on the experimental data.

Still these three scientists want more data and better data. I have also reported that.

• Defkalion. My latest confirmed information is that the company is registered but that it will take another couple of weeks until it has to declare a board, CEO etc publicly. I have a name of the CEO that I am investigating. I have reported on the link between the company and University of Bologna (Prof Christos Stremmenos). And I repeat: I have more questions and continue to do research (not a very unusual situation for journalism).

I hope this helps answering your questions. Feel free to ask more – as I said before, you’re not alone ;-)--Matslewan (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me put the question this way—why do the only interviews that you've published involve people who believe in the Energy Catalyzer? Has there ever been a quotation in any of your stories from any physicist who does not endorse the conclusion that Rossi has built a fusion device? When you say that "skeptical physicists'" arguments "all boil down to two things", is that your opinion, or the statement of one of the "believers", or does it come from somewhere else? Your summary is missing at least two points (and I would be surprised if a working nuclear physicist couldn't come up with more): the absence of changes in the isotope ratios of nickel and of copper from their natural abundances, and the absence of radioactive copper-61 in the spent fuel (if we accept Rossi's assertion that low-mass nickel isotopes are being sequentially fused with several protons). Your articles focus on the evidence which might have a positive interpretation, while glossing over and minimizing the evidence and (overwhelming established and experimentally-tested) theoretical framework that argues against the Energy Catalyzer. As I noted above, it's difficult to find mainstream physicists who wish to put their reputations on the line for no benefit, but perhaps you could try Ludwik Kowalski; he's the first physicist I came across while skimming Rossi's blog.

In the 'spent' fuel, have you asked anyone (perhaps Jean Pettersson, who performed the isotopic analysis) if the material is distinguishable in any way from, for example, a mixture of commercially-available natural nickel, copper, and iron powders? Have you asked Rossi to explain the isotope ratio in his spent fuel?

When Essén repeatedly and erroneously stated in the interview that the many units of the Catalyzer had been manufactured and were being sold, did you ever correct that impression or ask any followup questions? Or did you not know that he was mistaken at the time? Were you concerned that it would detract from his credibility as a 'skeptic' if you drew attention to the fact that he was mistaken about basic background information? As well, Essén compared Rossi's claims to those of Randell Mills. In the interview, Essén stated that he found Rossi's claims more plausible in part because (he believed that) Rossi had manufactured and sold reactors, while Mills had not. I note that Blacklight Power – Randell Mills' company – has also issued press releases claiming that they have licensing agreements with four other named companies (that's more information than Rossi/Defkalion has provided), and funding from two more. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Too much fuss Professor, that's my view -- gets in the way of the job of supplying interested readers with information. Have you nothing better to do with your time? -- Brian Josephson (talk) 08:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi again Ten, and thanks – questions are good for my work.

Why do the interviews I’ve published involve people who believe in the Energy Catalyzer, and not physicist who does not endorse the conclusion that Rossi has built a fusion device?

Let’s take this step by step.

• First. Neither Kullander nor Essén nor Levi say they believe it’s a fusion device. Kullander and Essén say that the only alternative they can see as the source of energy is a nuclear reaction.

• Second. I have interviewed Rossi, Focardi, Levi, Essén and Kullander in that order. That Rossi and Focardi were positive was no big surprise. As for the others I really didn’t know their opinion before interviewing them, and I would have published whatever conclusion or opinion they had.

• Third. Check the chronology. I said I didn’t expect any positive conclusion from the discussion between Essén and Kullander, at least not from Kullander. Once I had their conclusions, the next step was trying to get an independent physicist to go to Bologna as an observer. At this point it was not that easy to establish a new contact and get him or her connected with Rossi for a trip to Bologna. I was happy enough to be able to have Kullander and Essén going (did you see any other journalist aim for this as part of their research on the energy catalyzer in these months?). Anyhow – I would have published whatever conclusion they had made in their Travel Report. And at this point, a quote from any other person who was not there, whatever his or her opinion, would not add much as far as I can see, given that the story here were the experimental data.

• Fourth. There’s not much sense with a quote explaining why something is impossible if you cannot even come up with a hypothesis on how the measured excess heat should be explained. Note that these explanations have moved from wireless energy, batteries and various chemical reactions as the experimental data have become clearer and narrowed the space for alternative explanations. At this point the explanations focus on badly performed calorimetry. It’s true that the methods have not been the most precise and they can be improved, which is also being planned for as far as I know. But meanwhile it’s worth noting that the measured excess heat is more than a factor ten larger than the input power. This gives a margin for errors greater than 50 percent (and we’re now talking of kilowatts!).

• Fifth. You know, I’m a journalist. I’m looking for news. Let’s say a blinking space-craft from a remote galaxy reportedly dropped down in Central Park one day. Then I wouldn’t actually look for quotes from people saying: “well, I and my family have been living here for many years, and my ancestors generations before me, and no one has ever seen any space-craft land in Central Park. It’s really unlikely”. That’s not the news. That’s the consensus that has always been there, for ages. What I’m interested in is a Fairly Well Documented Testimony by Highly Qualified People. Then of course the consensus part also has to be reported. I did that. But a quote... well, again I don’t see the point.

• Sixth. It’s not difficult to find physicists who declare publicly that “this is not possible, period”. And I can assure you that I have seen several documents and read hundreds of comments on my articles (the last one now has over 900 comments), and I don’t invent this: there are really two arguments when it comes to physics – the Coulomb barrier and lacking high energy gammas. Plus now, as a consequence of the last article, the discussion on Cu-63 and Cu-65. Now, the isotope discussion is new, because the result of the analysis is new. I have not yet done a follow up on this (I work also with other news...) but I will. And this could very well be the right time for the quotes you are looking for. And yes, I will also ask Rossi about it. Meanwhile, new and more detailed analyses are being made.

• Concluding. Sure, looking back I could have put in a quote or two from people who are convinced this is a scam. But following the path I have described here you can also see that it was never my plan to exclude such information – I just happened to discover that the people I turned to kept surprising me, and kept being surprised themselves. In the end I cannot see that the result is that bad. A few days ago I received an email from a news editor of a very well known scientific journal. After having explained less than a third of what I have told you, I got this conclusion from him: “Impressive reporting job too!”.

• Ah, and I checked with Essén. It was a slip of the tongue as I thought. He had understood very well that the device was not being sold physically, and he intended that Rossi had signed an agreement with Defkalion. As for his comparison with Randall Mills’ Black Light Power I won’t discuss Esséns evaluations here. If I had been aware of the agreements you mention at the time of my interview I would have asked him for a comment. However, I note that the first agreement was signed more than two years ago and there are still no official plans for production. I suppose I’ll have to have a look at BLP though. Maybe there are things to discover.--Matslewan (talk) 09:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• If one accepts that there really is a "nuclear reaction" occurring, then "cold fusion" is an accurate description of the phenomenon. The reaction is alleged to occur at or near room temperature ("cold") and involves the combination of lighter nuclei into heavier ones ("fusion"). Calling it something else is a distinction of semantics and marketing, not science. In the interview I linked, you use the term "cold fusion" twice – including as the first two words of the article title – and in the interview Kullander implicitly endorses it as a description of what is happening in Rossi's device.
• Yes, I realize that it's more exciting to only report positive new things about a cold fusion claim, but it's also scientifically and journalistically sloppy. (Consider a journalist reporting a controversial claim made by a politician. For the purposes of this hypothetical case, let's say that Mona Sahlin agrees with the claim while Fredrik Reinfeldt disagrees. Is it appropriate for a journalist to seek comment only from Sahlin, as long as he accurately reports what she has to say about Reinfeldt's opinion? That's what you're doing with your stories. You've only interviewed scientists on one side. Kullander and Essén have mentioned that there are a large number of scientists who have doubts about Rossi's claims, but then Essén casually dismisses the criticism with "It is a bit oversimplified, I think.") One risks crossing the line from journalism to advocacy.
• Additional scientists you might consult include Peter Ekström from Lund University, and Kjell Aleklett, from Uppsala. (Aleklett is a close colleague of Kullander, so I am sure he would be very polite in his criticism, but since his office is next door he'd be very convenient to visit.)
• The excess energy can be explained as error or fraud. I know that as a journalist you are hesitant to print that sort of thing, but it's a much more plausible explanation than Rossi's wholesale rewriting of phsyics coupled with his self-contradictory physical evidence (lack of gammas, problems with isotope ratios, etc.). Scientists are generally better at detecting honest errors than deliberate fraud; we're used to assuming good faith on the part of our colleagues.
• Having 'official plans for production' is meaningless. Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but the only openly-confirmed customer for the Energy Catalyzer is Defkalion, and they haven't built a single unit in their factory. (Indeed, we know very little about their factory; see my unanswered questions about Defkalion above. Have they even started construction/renovation of their assembly line?) Further, you reported last month that the planned 1 MW device for the Defkalion site is being paid for by Rossi out of his own funds, and that Defkalion won't be paying anything until delivery of a completed, working reactor. It seems to me that the only person who has publicly acknowledged paying real money for Rossi's device is Rossi himself—have I missed something?
• I originally let this slip by, but I have to ask you—your original response noted that "Until now, Ny Teknik has been the only major medium in the world to cover this topic with regularity and in-depth research. All other major media have chosen to remain silent." Why do you think that might be? In journalism, being the first one to cover a story is a major coup. Being the only one to cover a story – even months later – is cause for reflection. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Ten.

I will reflect, as I have done for several months. Future will tell whether I was wrong reporting on this, while others didn't dare.

However, you'll have to study the difference between nuclear reactions and the concept cold fusion. It's not about semantics only. I'm using the term because it helps people put it into context, but Kullander and Essén have explicitly underlined that they wouldn't necessarily call it fusion. I'm in contact with both Ekström and Aleklett. Ekström, by the way, added to this document ] (see the last paragraph) that he, after my explanation of my motives and methods as here, apologizes for what he said about my reporting and now considers that I have done "an excellent journalistic work". Ekström and Aleklett are possible sources in follow-ups by me. Ah, and I don't think Reinfeldt or Sahlin ever had any experimental data. I wish they had! And please, if you have any credible explanation of how error or fraud could explain the experimental data on excess heat, please let me know! I still haven't seen anything viable.--Matslewan (talk) 07:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Finally, at this point I don't believe I have anything more to add for now. I hope the Misplaced Pages community will evaluate my contributions and amend them if needed. I still believe there should be a line on the Coulomb barrier and on the recent analysis of the fuel powder. Now, I've got some work to do and will keep this discussion in mind during my research and reporting. Thanks, and stay tuned.--Matslewan (talk) 09:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that you're joking about my analogy, instead of responding to the criticism. Do let us know when you find out if Rossi has ever sold a catalyzer to anyone besides himself. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

If Ten and others feel material covering the other side is inadequately covered, then may I suggest, with all due respect, that they do the relevant investigatory and editing work themselves, rather than expecting others to do it for them?

Perhaps my own experience throws light on why Ny Teknik is about the only source covering this. I have contacted a number of media suggesting they cover this. Some just produced excuses, but with two where I already have good contacts (the Daily Mail and the Times Higher) the science editors showed interest but said they would need approval from above, and evidently this approval was not given. The problem is that once a person has made up their mind about something it is not easy to persuade them to change. Here is a lecture on this Pathological Disbelief as I call it. -- Brian Josephson (talk) 10:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Which Kullander?

The section on the 29 May 2011 test refers to 'Swedish physicists'. I looked up Kullander in w'pedia and got the information that SK was a biologist. I queried this with Mats Lewan and he told me there are 2 people of the same name. The person concerned actually is a physicist, and has a w'pedia page but only in Swedish.

I tried amending the link but ran into problems as there is no English page to refer to -- the instructions appear to suggest that I should call the page sv:Sven Kullander, and that gets you the right page in the search box, but appears not to work as a wiki link (the name seems to disappear). So instead I treated it as an external link, which works. This is inelegant and it would be nice if someone could figure out the right way to do it.

I did eventually figure it out myself -- there has to be a colon before the sv as well as after it. But this is now irrelevant (see below) --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I also think there needs to be a disambiguation page, which I may try to do myself but will give up if it proves to be time consuming. Brian Josephson (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I've had a go, hopefully not too much deviant from the guidelines. If you go to Sven Kullander now, you'll see a disambiguation suggestion at the top, with a link to a page making it clear that one is a physicist and the other a biologist. Brian Josephson (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

There is now an English page for Kullander and the links, both from this page and the disambiguation page, now go there. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Refinprove tag

TenOfAllTrades (talk · contribs) have repeatedly inserted a refinprove template without specifying in what way more sources is needed. The article looks rather well sourced already (19 sources as of writing). More sources would be nice, but the template seems a bit excessive. // Liftarn (talk)

Yes indeed, especially in the light of Mats Lewan's clarification of his role as a science writer at Ny Teknik, which suggests his articles provide a very good source. Can the template then be lifted? --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

In the light of the new information I've now removed the disputed template --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

the lack of reliable sources was the main reason why the article in the german Misplaced Pages was deleted. 87.122.151.173 (talk) 13:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

If one discounts the primary and self-published sources that "19 sources" drops substantially. There's little left except the Ny Teknik sources. I'd suggest the {{more sources}} tag might be sufficient, but it redirects to {{refimprove}} anyhow. The question that bothers me is why would any editor object to asking fellow editors to find additional reliable sources upon which to build the article? LeadSongDog come howl! 14:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, but It's a similar situation to what one has whenever there is a new discovery which for whatever reason is hard to duplicate. Say for example the Higgs was discovered by a group. There would only be a single publication, by the team that had the resource needed for the discovery, and maybe some articles reviewing the result. The primary source, with clarifying commentary, ought to be enough for a Misplaced Pages entry. Now in this case there is more than one primary source (the 2 expts.), and good commentary. The 'objection' people have is because your proposal carries the suggestion that there is a significant problem with how the article is, but it is pretty well as good as it can be given what is available at this time. More sources might be a good thing, but for sociological reasons that don't need spelling out there are few of these, and saying they are needed seems to me inappropriate. As the situation develops, more will naturally be added. I'd say also that asking editors to find new sources is redundant, as people will do that anyway. If for example some article about this were to come out in Nature or Science I'm sure people would add the reference, whether favourable or not. The tag is not needed. -- Brian Josephson (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to add that there are of course plenty of comments on the web, but in general these are not quite up to the standard needed, e.g. are basically opinion, or by an organisation (no names mentioned) that may be less objective or carry less credibility than Ny Teknik. -- Brian Josephson (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Without intending any disrespect to Mats Lewan and Ny Teknik, wp:RS would call for us to be leery of relying on New Scientist or Scientific American for something like this. The greater the astonishment, the more we must demand quality of sourcing. If in fact Rossi's device does work, it will certainly get published in a first-tier peer-reviewed journal such as Nature or Phys Rev. Until then most physicists will continue to regard this with the suspicion that it is some form of slight of hand. Remember, wp:NODEADLINE and wp:NOTNEWS. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

And per one of Misplaced Pages's core policies, "exceptional claims require exceptional sources." The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 22:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Patent issue

PhGustav claims that the failure to get a patent undermines credibility of the device; I beg to differ.

The w'pedia article cites the following reasons for this failure: 'the description of the device was based on "general statements and speculations.", and "numerous deficiencies in both the description and in the evidence provided to support its feasibility'. But since that date evidence has come into existence that supports its feasibility, i.e. the range of demonstrations and observations referenced in the article. The claim is no longer speculation, if it ever was thus.

And while inadequate description may well be a barrier to getting a patent, credibility does not depend in this: the credibility of this device stems from the observations of heat generation that have been made by scientists.

Patent applications may fail because something manifestly does not work, but that was not the issue here -- the patent examiner never went along to do measurements the way the scientists have done. Please do not regard the results of a patent application as having the same status and significance as scientific testing. -- Brian Josephson (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

There has been no scientific testing of the device. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I will be glad to accord scientific testing more weight than the patentability report as soon as some takes place. (Actually, I exaggerate slightly. The only independent scientific tests conducted completely using equipment and personnel not under Rossi's control – tests for gamma radiation and neutron emission, and isotopic analysis of spent fuel – have given results which contradict Rossi's claims. Why is it that a device that's claimed to have run for months without problems can't be demonstrated for more than a few hours at a time?) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Re Ten's comment above, I see no objection to this point about the lack of completely independent tests being included in the text in an appropriate manner; it is quite germane. But re his last sentence: (a) 18 hours is rather more than 'a few hours', and (b) I don't see longer demonstrations, in a form that people would consider convincing, as being all that practical, but people are free to submit proposals if they can think of good ones. But it may be best simply to wait and see how the 1MW plan pans out.

I am prepared to have the patent issue referred to in the 'lede' if this is done in a way that does not give it priority over scientific testing, and will put something up in a while, and hope this can resolve our disagreements. -- Brian Josephson (talk) 06:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

"Patent applications may fail because something manifestly does not work". Actually, I don't think that a patent examiner is supposed to take into account whether something will work or not - merely the validity of the application. The rejection seems to be based more on the vagueness of the application. But yes, scientific testing would be interesting - or more likely, uninteresting, as it demonstrates once again that people who attempt to sell miraculous hardware which supposedly works according to unproven cutting-edge science (or beyond), before it has been properly and independently assessed, are usually fooling themselves, even if they aren't trying to fool others. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I allowed mention of the patent failure to remain, as I said I would, and just added balancing comment referring to the experiments, content which seems to me to be well suited to the preamble section. PhGustav has seen fit to delete the extra, with no explanation either with the edit or on this talk page. The addition asserts that the expts. have increased credibility, a statement that I do not think anyone can reasonably object to, unless they are under the illusion that patents matter more than experiment. PhGustav appears to have done his deletion purely because the facts are not to his liking. Wkipedia is not the place for such behaviour. -- Brian Josephson (talk) 08:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the claim again. It's not fully supported by the sources, and the sources are not particularly good to begin with. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not the place to 'balance' verifiable facts with doubtful claims. And neither is it the place for a single editor to 'allow' or 'disallow' content. The policy regarding extraordinary/fringe science is well established, and until the scientific community recognises the validity of this device, we won't. End of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

See next section for response. -- Brian Josephson (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Just one thing on the last point though: what physics qualifications do the people who have been blithely deleting my entry have? It would be most interesting to know that. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Mu. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally, my highest-level qualification is in the social sciences, rather than in physics, but since all the evidence suggests that this 'phenomenon' is either a hoax, or the product of self-deception, I'd argue that makes me well qualified to comment. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

A nice way of disputing anything you don't like. The situation demands proper evaluation, not airy fairy universals. Your field confirms my suspicion that my critics were not qualified to judge. Any advance on social sciences? Roll up! -- Brian Josephson (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

This isn't about 'your critics', this is about Misplaced Pages policy on fringe theories. Either comply with them, or argue for them to be changed (but not here). AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice one, Andy, but the fact is that you are the person making the judgement as to whether the guidelines apply to that reference or not, and the fact is that you (and the others) just ain't qualified to make that judgement. If you can show, logically and with the rigour that a journal would accept, that the evidence demonstrates that it is a hoax or self-deception, please do so -- people will be hanging on your every word to learn of your analysis. -- Brian Josephson (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. It isn't necessary to disprove every crackpot theory that gets put up on Misplaced Pages, and you know it. It if for those who wish to include content to demonstrate their relevance, reliability etc. Incidentally, I don't believe for one minute that you are qualified to make judgements on the suitability of contributors, given your obvious bias against anyone who disagrees with you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Even assuming this is a physical phenomenon, when there is no peer-reviewed paper and no independent reproduction, and there are about 1500 red flags, is, at best, over-eager. My scientific qualifications are easy to ascertain for anyone who is really interested. However, WP:CIV does not really support "mine is bigger than yours" shouting matches. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Response to attacks on my edit

Section begun by Brian Josephson (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I added to the preliminary section material that I thought essential to correct a faulty impression that might be caused by too much emphasis being placed on that fact that a patent had not been granted. The fact that this does not signify that much has been dealt with in another section and I will not go over that again. The issue here is the repeated deletion of this added material, on the basis of it being inadequately sourced. I pointed out that surely a study involving the chairman of a board set up by a National Academy should be considered an acceptable source. The response, and I quote, was there are no 'established experts' on this topic - it isn't established science. This is a naive reaction, but it will take a little time to explain why this is so.

The primary claim made in the majority of research into this area is that of energy generation in excess of what can be explained in conventional non-nuclear terms. If this specific claim is correct (and it is a matter of experiment, which I shall come to), then either a nuclear process is involved or some process of a kind not yet understood by science. This would be of much interest scientifically, and also for practical application if the energy generated was sufficient.

What is issue in the claim is thus (in effect) energy measurement, and this is established science, in fact just the first law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy). Assuming this law holds, if one measures the amount of energy going into the system and the energy coming out, the difference must be the change in energy content of the system. Whatever is inside the system, whether known or unknown to the experimenters, that will apply. Furthermore, there is a maximum amount of energy that can be generated or stored in non-nuclear mechanisms, and if the difference between input and output energies is significantly different from this then one would justified in saying something unusual in terms of energy is happening.

This conclusion all depends on the measurements being accurate, of course. In this case, the energies involved are so large that ordinary errors are not a significant issue. But there could be something overlooked which might affect the conclusion. All that can be said is that critics, some of whom are familiar with the way heat measurements can be flawed, have been examining the experiment and have not come up with anything. In the first experiment calculations suggested that a hidden internal energy source might have been involved, and this doubt was settled by doing the experiment for a much longer period of time, so that the total energy involved was too great to be explained in conventional terms. The suggestion that Levi might have been in on some plot was dispelled by picking scientists who were previously involved to check the experiment out. They were allowed to examine everything except the innards of the energy device and found nothing untoward.

I submit therefore that the claim 'it isn't established science', while true in as far as the mechanism is involved, is not true as far as the claim of energy in excess of conventional explanations is concerned -- this is very well established science, namely conservation of energy and calorimetry.

I see, however, that there is cause for misunderstanding my recent addition. When I wrote of claims being rendered more credible by the experiments what I had in mind is what the experimenters have given as their conclusion, i.e. the production of energy in amounts in excess of what could be understood in conventional terms. I therefore propose to rewrite my addition thus: Since that time, however, there has been a demonstration of the device, and careful scientific investigations, which have considerably increased the credibility of the key claim, viz. that the energy produced by the catalyzer is in excess of what can be understood in chemical or any conventional terms. I look forward to the critics accepting this reworded form. -- Brian Josephson (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Addition of this material would violate not just one but several key Misplaced Pages policies. Those policies include but are not limited to the prohibition of material based on your own interpretation of what has happened, along with the requirement that extraordinary claims be backed by extraordinary sources (e.g., not self-published or popular media). The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Would you change your mind if say Nature were to publish something reasonably favourable on the subject? -- Brian Josephson (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

By the way, the readership of Ny Teknik is mainly professional engineers. Not 'popular media', by a long stretch. -- Brian Josephson (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, I accept your point that the credibility assertion is just a personal point of view and should be excluded. It could be replaced by something more objective, including mention of the role of Kullander and his chairmanship of the RSA energy committee. This would allow readers to judge credibility themselves. Would you have anything against that way of proceeding? I believe I have disposed of the issue of whether anyone can be an expert in this area by noting that the basic claim involves the traditional subject of calorimetry, and w'pedia guide lines do allow statements by experts to be used as references. What say you? -- Brian Josephson (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Your assertion that the claim relates to "the traditional subject of calorimetry" is not only WP:OR, but utter hogwash. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Please don't display your complete ignorance of science any more than you have to. You probably don't even know what the term means. -- Brian Josephson (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference Jan_2011_press was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Cite error: The named reference levireport was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. Cite error: The named reference Nyteknik_3Apr2011_report was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class physics articles
• Low-importance physics articles
• Start-Class physics articles of Low-importance
• Start-Class Skepticism articles
• Unknown-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• Start-Class Alternative views articles
• Low-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles