Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:05, 9 October 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.

This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. See the description of the sanctions.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Cup of tea

Who knows what Bushnell was referring to when he used "which is far more than enough heat to boil water for tea." in his interview to describe Rossi's e-cat ? --POVbrigand (talk) 21:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

About half-way down this page Douglas Morrison asks for a cup of tea . "Morrison recalls that Pons, in a 1989 interview, had shown what he said was a small cold fusion boiler: "Simply put," Pons had explained, "in its current state it could provide boiling water for a cup of tea." Each year at the cold fusion conference Morrison politely asks, "Please, may I have a cup of tea?" Olorinish (talk) 12:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I also found it in "Warming up to cold fusion" by Sharon Weinberger. Morrison used to say it at the CF-conferences. She also mentions that Park used the phrase too. And I found that Richard Garwin was quoted saying it (in "Cold Panacea" by Charles Petit). Quite interesting that Bushnell uses just that same phrase.

Before we drift of: I think it would be interesting to explain to the reader how the phrase is used in relation with cold fusion and add some words to the Bushnell quote. IMHO it would make the whole story more interesting to read and at the same time it would give the reader some insight on the critics. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

POVbrigand, I collapsed this section as off-topic. I suggest you read WP:NOTFORUM, along with WP:OR and WP:NPOV. We are not going to put meaningless speculation about making tea in the E-Cat into the article (unless of course WP:RS do it first, which seems unlikely), so this discussion has no place here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The use of the phrase is interesting for the article. --POVbrigand (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

No it isn't, unless it is discussed in WP:RS as 'interesting'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The phrase has been used in connection with cold fusion numerous times, there's plenty of RS for that. The Bushnell quote is perfect RS. I do not need a secondary source to notice that several people in the CF-arena are using the same phrase. It is not conflicting with any policy to point the reader to the use of that phrase in connection with cold fusion. It is not a policy issue, it is a "I'd like that" vs. "I don't like it" argument. I recommend you avoid pulling policies out of your hat that are not relevant. --POVbrigand (talk) 07:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Unless you can find WP:RS that discusses this, it isn't going in the article, regardless of the results of your WP:OR. I recommend you read the policies concerned, rather than pulling trivial irrelevant nonsense out of a hat to suit your POV.

And as a personal opinion of my own, I cant help but see the irony in noting that those who think that the E-Cat is more than a figment of imagination are now concerned about its utility as a kettle, rather than as the Earth-shattering invention it is supposed to be. With no news of any significance, we end up dredging the sources for anything to keep up the momentum, though the E-Cat itself seems to have run out of steam ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are completely mistaken about what the policies say, you seem to be reading selectively to support your biased opinion that the E-Cat is not worth an article. My understanding is that you are constantly trying to cut the article down to a miserable piece by throwing policies around and then argue that there is no room for miserable pieces in WP. There is no policy whatsoever that describes what you are thinking. Except for my musing which I collapsed up here in this talk, there is no WP:OR in the fact that Pons, Bushnell, Park, Morrison and Garwin have all used the comparison with boiling water for tea, it is all perfectly RS. It is only WP:I_don't_like_it what you are stating here.

Ridicule is one of the best ways to solicit recognition for an otherwise insupportable view. Here in WP we are used to that defence and don't buy into it. :-) --POVbrigand (talk) 13:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

If you think my interpretation of policy is incorrect, I suggest you (a) indicate exactly what content you are proposing to add to the article, and then ask for input from others as to whether it is acceptable - if necessary, a WP:RfC might be the best option. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Another article

about the Energy Catalyzer. From Engineering & Technology :

http://eandt.theiet.org/news/2011/aug/rossi-reactor.cfm

--79.10.163.222 (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Out of date, trivial, and quite possibly sourced from our article. E & T seems to publish reader-submitted content, and isn't remotely WP:RS. We are interested in articles from reliable sources that contain useful information, not random articles that repeat things we've already seen. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a reliable source. Obviously Andy doesn't think so, because it is not in line with his personal view. The article is a up to date summary of the events so far. To state that it is "quite possibly sourced from our article" is absolutely nonsense. The author also publishes for other magazines like The Lancet. The story is yet another perfect proof of notability of the E-Cat story. --POVbrigand (talk) 13:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

If you think that this is a reliable source, I suggest that you raise it at WP:RS/N. Before you do though, perhaps you could tell us what this article contains that isn't already in our article? It is merely repeating other sources, as far as I can see. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Great idea, why don't you raise it at WP:RS/N if you think it isn't a reliable source ? You are the one contesting that it isn't a RS. There is no obligation for anyone to get formal proof of reliability before using a source. There may be or may not be something interesting in the article that is not yet mentioned in our WP-article, but in any case it is a perfect RS. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Why the hell would I want to raise it at RS/N? I'm not proposing to use it as a source for anything - there is no such thing as a 'reliable source' in the abstract. If you want to use it as a source, tell us what for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

For example, I could use it as RS for "According to Nobel prize winner and Cambridge emeritus physics professor Brian Josephson, an early supporter, the enormous output indicates the E-Cat must be generating energy from nuclear reactions, not chemical ones.". I could use is as RS for "Dennis Bushnell is a supporter of Rossi." . Or that E+K "have overseen trials, checking no secret cables or batteries were connected." and there isn't a thing you can do about it. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not interested in arguing about what you think you could use it for. If you want to use it as a source, you can either got to RS/N with a specific proposal, or simply add whatever it is you are proposing to the article - at which point I will have something concrete to discuss at RS/N. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, looking at the about page for the magazine, I can't see why it isn't an RS. It has editors, so we can assume they have a reputation for fact checking etc. One thing I noticed there which we don't mention is that it says there are many sceptics - isn't that something you wanted to get across in the article before Andy? SmartSE (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Those staff members have received a lot of low-quality low-reputation not-very-discriminating awards, which are a pet peeve of mine since I edited Telly Award. In the TABPI awards and probably the Magazine Design & Journalism Awards you have to pay to enter the competition, there are dozens of categories, and hundreds of gold silver and finalist awards in order to have lots of "winners". The PPA Awards and the BSME awards are awarded by associations to their own members. I don't see any independent award in that page. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

This page states that they accept submissions from outsiders, and this page states that "The magazine is editorially independent of the institution and the views expressed in it do not necessarily reflect those of its editors or publishers". On the other hand, you may be right, and perhaps my initial assessment was a little hasty - though my general point stands: it doesn't seem to contain anything new, and seems to be out of date (referring to the now-abandoned intention to build E-Cats in Greece). If one assumes that it is acceptable as WP:RS, it doesn't seem to be particularly useful. Regarding 'sceptics', I'd rather not resort to cherry-picking an article just for a single quote. If it was cited for anything else though, then presumably this, and the suggestion that "Some say Rossi has a murky past" might also be added. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Just because they accept submissions from readers doesn't make the whole thing unreliable - many RS publish articles written by freelancers etc. Second, the editorial independence bit is irrelevant - how does that make it unreliable? I think "cherry picking" that would be fine - that's exactly what we should be doing when we write articles. Not sure about the BLP implications of that quote though, it rings alarm bells in me to use such a weasely worded quote as a source of negative info. SmartSE (talk) 07:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure I've seen more definitive discussions of Rossi's 'murky past' before in other sources - though as you say, there may be BLP concerns with including this in the article, at least until we have better grounds.

On a more general point, I suspect that nothing much is going to happen before October (anyone know the date more precisely?), when the 'one megawatt heating plant' is delivered/demonstrated - or not. It may be sensible to leave any major revisions to the article until then. If the E-Cat fails to appear, or is shown not to do what is claimed, no doubt some of the sources already cited will have more to say, and if it does work, no doubt the mainstream media will take notice. Either way, we should have more useful content to go on. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

You mean, about the public demonstration scheduled in October? In a date between 24 and 31 of October 2011.

--79.24.133.153 (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Andy,

to be precise: just now I realise that we merely know when this test might start, but we do not know when this test will eventually end. And I have no clue about it.

--79.24.132.183 (talk) 11:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Rumor update -- according to Rossi's recent posts, the 1MW "independent test" is under way, and both Bologna and Uppsala have eCats. Stay tuned! Alanf777 (talk) 20:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Rossi cannot be a source for statements about 'independent tests' on his own device. Unless and until this is reported in mainstream sources, it is of no relevance to the article - and this isn't a forum for rumours. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It was a follow-up to the previous 6 posts, and specifically to your question: "anyone know the date more precisely?" That's why I didn't put it in the article, or propose putting it in the article. Alanf777 (talk) 22:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, I could have worded that better - my apologies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

(No offense taken) Anyway, Rossi has retracted his own rumour on the 1MW -- due to a "misunderstanding" (he doesn't re-post the question when he answers "Yes" or "No" , so he probably got his wires crossed.) -- so it's back to "End October". His "Yes" to ecats at Bologna and Upssala were in the same post, so that's suspect, too. Alanf777 (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Rumor refreshed : the B & U research eCats are specifically confirmed. Alanf777 (talk) 23:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Rossi mentioned in a Dutch science program -- http://www.wetenschap24.nl/programmas/labyrint/labyrint-tv/2011/september/21-09-Zon.html (Science 24) -- per a comment at PESN "cold fusion starts at about 19:55m and Rossi's e-Cat is spoken about from 20:20" -- I haven't got it to play yet, but a google-translate their page says "Now an Italian engineer claims to have invented a small device that already is capable of 'cold' fusion. It looks promising, but he is on thin ice. He will not be the first to be accused of fraud in the world of fusion." Just add it as another media-mention ? Alanf777 (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Does it add anything not in the previous media exposure? I think the eminent professor has managed to successfully garner significant media following, as there seems to be no shortage of media exposure as was shown by the section that was recently refactored. What we are lacking is significant credible scientific material. Cheers 19:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Not really (adding anything) ... anyway, it seems that some of the excreta will hit the expeller on or around Oct 6 .. so there should be some progress (in Bologna, at the 25kW level) one way or another. Alanf777 (talk) 19:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

skeptical warning tag

Is there an appropriate skeptical warning tag for this article? It appears to have been written largely by Free Energy believers trying to be objective.

Without having dug deeper into this particular story, the subject of this article appears to have many of the hallmarks of a Free energy suppression conspiracy-theorist nonsense story. Someone is claiming a revolutionary new technology providing relatively free energy, with demonstrations to local media/local university scientists, no larger-scale tests in objective circumstances, commercial agreements that are always just on the verge of being finalized ("This will be delivered in October!", which strongly echoes Steorn), and research rejected by scientific journals and subsequently self-published.

I believe this warrants far more skepticism than the article currently gives. At the very least, it needs a line in the lead clarifying that this kind of claimed discovery (which never pans out) is almost ubiquitous in pseudoscience world.

This is obviously not encyclopedic, but a personal note, just to urge a bit of caution: the article cites an interview in which NASA Langley's chief scientist Dennis Bushnell expresses enthusiasm for this technology, talking about it as an endorsement by NASA. This should be taken with a grain of salt. I attended a lecture by Mr. Bushnell, and he frequently made all kinds of wild claims far outside his field (he has a master's degree in aerospace engineering, focusing on airflow over wings). In particular, he talked about how the phenomenon of quantum entanglement heralds the coming of faster-than-light communication. This is patently ridiculous—a central result in that field is that no such communication is possible. I asked him about his claim afterward, and it turned out he had only a passing familiarity with the subject, and that his idea of a faster-than-light telephone was based on little more than speculative pop-science articles. I'm not suggesting any of this be included in the article—I don't mean to get all ad hominem. I just thought it was funny that the first context in which I saw his name (after that lecture ten years ago) was in an article espousing what sounds like free energy pseudoscience. So I repeat that story only to warn that enthusiasm by Mr. Bushnell does not necessarily signal a legitimate phenomenon. --MillingMachine (talk) 12:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

To be 100% fair, I report here the paragraph added at the beginning of the article by MillingMachine:

There have been several demonstrations of the device to limited audiences at the University of Bologna, and public enthusiasm for the technology from Bologna physics professor Giuseppe Levi. It has also received coverage from Swedish skeptics magazine Ny Teknik, with representatives of the magazine attending the test and reporting that they believed the process represented a nuclear reaction. The research by Rossi was rejected for publication by peer-reviewed journals, and subsequently self-published in a journal created by the authors. The online publication New Energy Times published enthusiastic coverage of the Rossi group's research in early 2011, but later in the year published a 200-page issue devoted entirely to the Energy Catalyzer, concluding that the Rossi group's claims had no scientific support. The editor speculated that the discovery may be fraudulent. Peter Ekström, lecturer at the Department of Nuclear Physics at Lund University in Sweden, concluded, "I am convinced that the whole story is one big scam, and that it will be revealed in less than one year." According to Rossi et. al., commercial application of the device will begin in October of 2011.

Does the article REALLY need such a repetition?--79.24.134.66 (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, per Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Lead section, I'd say that it does: "The lead is as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects". The article devotes a great deal of room to the demonstrations, and per WP:NPOV we need to note the widespread scepticism about the device. I think that maybe the wording needs refinement, but it is an improvement on the vague assertion of claims that our current lede consists of. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep, articles are supposed to repeat the most relevant points twice. Once in the lead in a summarized way. And again in the body, with details, full context, sources, etc, along all the minor points that didn't get mentioned in the lead.

The usual advice is "write all the body first, then write the lead as a summary of what you wrote in the body". --Enric Naval (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the current lead section is not very good, but the proposed addition from MillingMachine doesn't really improve it. For me there are buzz words in the proposal that I think don't work in a lead, like "public enthusiasm", "they believed", "fraudulent", "big scam". It will be very difficult to come to an agreement for a lead section. I think that before we can start to work towards a really good lead, we should first come to a common understanding of the meaning of the WP-policy Misplaced Pages:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_just_any_synthesis, because without synthesis there cannot be a summary (that we jointly created). If we want to create a lead from putting together referenced lines it will never express what we want to say.

I do know MillingMachine's background, but to start a talk-section with the wording "Free Energy believers trying to be objective" really doesn't reflect a lot of objectivism and doesn't convince me he has profound knowledge of cold fusion / LENR history and its current developments. --POVbrigand (talk) 07:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If you want to be picky, suggesting that there have been any "current developments" in cold fusion etc might not be seen as objective either - there have been claims, but as usual, nothing has been published in the type of sources Misplaced Pages would require for such ground-breaking scientific discoveries - so yes, we can only report the comments of those witnessing the demonstrations as beliefs (they can hardly be seen as anything else, given the circumstances), and both the NET and Ekström's comments are from sources that evidently are familiar with 'cold fusion' and/or the efforts of promoters to hype this questionable 'science'. If someone with no significant scientific background and a somewhat murky past announces that he has solved the world's energy problems, but refuses to disclose how in sufficient detail for experimental replication, one is fully entitled to think 'scam' - and recent events regarding Defkalion etc have done little to counter this. As long as the air of secrecy and distrust remains around the project, 'objectivity' (and Misplaced Pages policy) requires scepticism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

you say: "nothing has been published in the type of sources Misplaced Pages would require for such ground-breaking scientific discoveries" - are you inventing new WP-rules again ?

I did my best to try and understand the point you are making and I am not sure if I found one, but it is interesting that you see NET (= New Energy Times, ie Steven B. Krivit) as a "source which is familiar with the efforts of promoters to hype this questionable science." That is so beautifully formulated, you should win a prize for that ! --POVbrigand (talk) 08:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

And regarding Krivit and Bushnell read this interesting bit, posted on Krivit's blog: Nasa advances evaluation of Piantelli's LENR research --POVbrigand (talk) 08:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If this is of relevance to any Misplaced Pages article, it isn't this one - it doesn't concern Rossi's E-Cat. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Why didn't you read the blog/article first before commenting ? It mentions Rossi. It mentions Piantelli's scientific Ni-H work, which was published in peer-reviewed papers, and which is related to what Rossi is doing. I thought that was clear enough for anybody. And it also mentions NASA's interest in this Ni-H LENR experiments, which is also relevant for our article's topic. --POVbrigand (talk) 07:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It mentions in passing a visit by "representatives from an investment group and NASA" to Rossi's showroom - indicating nothing of real consequence. As yet, we only have Rossi's word that his E-Cat is a Ni-H LENR device - and at least some of the anomalous results (e.g. isotopes in the post-demonstration 'catalyzer' material, lack of detectable gamma radiation etc) suggest that it isn't. We don't need more speculation, we need hard evidence from reliable sources actually stating that NASA has expressed a specific interest in studying the E-Cat for themselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

POVbrigand—Thanks for your comments on the reversion! Since you asked about my background, it's in physics, with a particular interest in energy and how humans use it. I was linked to an article on the energy catalyzer by a friend who knew of my interest in the subject, so I came to Misplaced Pages to see what information was available about it. I was surprised to see that the article lead contained no discussion of evaluations to determine whether the Energy Catalyzer represented a real technology. I was sure that experts must have weighed in, since the project has gotten a fair bit of press at this point. Other than the use of "claimed" and "Rossi asserted", there's nothing in the lead which speaks to the possibility—raised in numerous citable sources—that the Energy Catalyzer does not work. I think a failure to include this seriously hurts the article, and that someone who read the lead would come away with a mistaken impression that this is a new breakthrough technology whose workings are a bit uncertain but which nobody has suggested could have any problems.

Given the history surrounding the culture of Free Energy/Perpetual Motion/Water-Fueled Cars/etc, and the internet subculture which tirelessly promotes such breakthroughs even when they don't pan out over and over (YouTube is flooded with videos of claimed permanent magnet motors and kinematic perpetual motion machines, each with hundreds of thousands of views), I worry that this article has been structured largely by unsupervised and misguided enthusiasts—the five "demonstrations and investigations", for example, include what would more properly be thought of as basic internal tests. In the development of most technologies, countless such tests would be a constant component of the R&D process long before anything was claimed publicly. Framing these as the article does gives the impression that this technology has been subject to more rigorous public testing and review than it appears to have been.

I'm happy to concede that while I tried to follow the Misplaced Pages manual appropriately, I might just be too biased, and so I'll leave it to others whether to include any version of my paragraph in the article (or add a different one). I don't know a lot about editing works on here, but if there's some kind of community of Misplaced Pages editors with physics or engineering expertise, I think it would be a good idea to call their attention to this article, and request a review of the overall tone and the how accurately it reflects the available sources.

Thanks for sharing your feedback on my edits! I'll reread the WP:NPOV guidelines and try to improve my future contributions. --MillingMachine (talk) 15:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

MillingMachine, thank you for the feedback too. I would appreciate if you would contribute to the article, because I now think you are a perfect neutral "voice". I can agree with all of what you say here and I do not object to the lead section also stating a skeptical view. Most of the time the simplest wording is the best, so we can just add something like "the whole thing should be taken with a lot of skepticism because ...." the part after because is the most difficult.

The current state of the article is not because "this article has been structured largely by unsupervised and misguided enthusiasts". It is because a reasonable article is impossible to make, because each and any attempt at writing a well readable piece is torpedoed. And we are stuck in some sort of "trench warfare" were each side keeps the other side at bay and only perfect referenced hard facts are allowed into the article. And most of the hard facts about the issue are already in the article, nothing more can be added. We cannot work on style or on improving the readability, because everyone will cry WP:SYNTH or WP:OR or WP:WEIGHT and revert for any far fetched WP-rule interpretation they can think of and threaten sanctions (see section below). It is a madhouse. it is a perfect example why WP doesn't work. The sorry state of this article reflects that what can be done within the limitation of the WP system, believe me I have tried.

There will be yet another demonstration on october 6. This time it will be a completely different setup which the two swedish scientists Essen and Kullander have more or less proposed. So it will produce a lot more scientifically relevant measurement data. A lot of real scientists have been invited. So let's see if some of the skepticism will be eased next Friday when the report will be available. Maybe then we can start to improve the article a bit.

Since February this year I have done a lot of reading about cold fusion and LENR. My current position is that LENR is a real effect and that it is probably not even new science, but just something that hasn't been fully understood yet. The huge energy gain that Rossi claims is not yet proven, but one should not disbelieve the whole LENR field just because there are so many clearly misguided minds claiming all sorts of things on youtube.

So again, please contribute, we can all need your help. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

General Sanctions Tag on discussion page

This discussion page carries a prominent banner stating "This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. See the description of the sanctions." when you click the link it takes you to a section of a page about Abd-William_M._Connolley/Proposed_decision that just says "1) The cold fusion article, and parts of any other articles that are substantially about cold fusion, are subject to discretionary sanctions." which links to to http://en.wikipedia.org/Cold_fusion, which does not carry the general sanctions banner in the article or on its discussion page. additionally the reference is about discretionary sanctions, not general sanctions So I see a banner about an incorrect level of sanction who's only reference is an entirely different article (cold fusion), and which cold fusion article is not required to carry the sanctions banner. It seemed like a slam dunk obvious removal of the banner from this discussion page. I apologise for not discussing it first. Does anyone have reason/justification to keep the banner here? If so then does it also need to be added to the cold fusion article? Thanks! DavesPlanet (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The sanctions imposed on "Cold fusion and related articles" are clearly referred to on the Misplaced Pages:General sanctions page - they are the second item in the 'Active sanctions' section. As for whether the Cold fusion article talk page should carry the banner or not, that is a discussion best resolved elsewhere. The fact is, however, that (a) this article clearly falls within the cold fusion sanctions remit, and (b) there has been a lot of input from people who may be unaware of Misplaced Pages policy - it seems only fair to make the situation clear. I can't see any good grounds for not having the banner, under the circumstances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Official website?

http://www.ecat.com/

Is it the official website or is it a joke?
--79.16.128.169 (talk) 05:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

No idea - but whatever it is, it isn't relevant to our article unless someone can provide evidence from a WP:RS that it is 'official'. Come to that, it probably wouldn't be relevant even if it was. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Lead section

The lead section is blatantly one-sided. It trots out the inventors' claims, but mentions not at all the very great scepticism about this contraption. My edit to address this has been reverted, one time with the absurd suggestion that my edit, rather than the article, was "not adhering to NPOV". I am not too fussed about the exact wording; please feel free to tweak it. However, some mention of the other position must be made in the lead. 86.177.105.245 (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The lede should summarise material from elsewhere in the article, so your edit isn't really acceptable. I agree though about the lack of balance in the lede: we discussed this earlier (see 'skeptical warning tag', above), and frankly, I can't see anything wrong with restoring MillingMachine's proposed text, or something similar. Only one contributor made any objections, and those seem to be based more on beliefs regarding the validity of the device, rather than on Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines. Unless anyone raises substantive objections, I'll maybe tweak MM's wording slightly, and then restore it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I've added a reworded second paragraph. Can I ask the any comments regarding this take due consideration of Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Lead section - The previous lede clearly didn't conform to this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I can mostly agreed with it, but I also agree to the comments from 79.6.146.208 (see below). So some tweeking remains to be done. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Lead section: New Energy Times lacks enough credibility

New Energy Times is Steven Krivit's site. He proclaim himself to be a journalist because he publishes on his website, ie New Energy Times!
IMHO it is impossible to compare what popular science magazines, like Ny Teknik (about 150000 copies sold each week) and Focus (about 500000 copies sold each month), write about the E-Cat to what a self published source, like New Energy Times, states. Especially in the lede, because ubi maior minor cessat.
--79.6.146.208 (talk) 03:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

If this article only used sources from the mainstream media, there would be nothing in it. The pro E-Cat faction seem willing enough to use obscure websites when it suits them (including NET, if I remember correctly), so we can hardly ignore them when they don't. Still, if you want to raise the sources used in this article at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, go ahead - but I'd recommend reading WP:BOOMERANG first. The more non-POV eyes we have on this article the better, as far as I'm concerned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The concept I want to express is this: if you do not have Ny Teknik (about 150000 copies sold each week) and Focus (about 500000 copies sold each month) then you can imagine to use other sources in the lede, like New Energy Times. But if you have Ny Teknik and Focus then you should use Ny Teknik and Focus, not New Energy Times because ubi maior minor cessat.

It is the "specific weight" of the sources which is simply uncomparable.

--79.6.146.208 (talk) 03:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Lead section: Ny Teknik remains both "rational sceptic" and very positive on the E-Cat

So why does the lede assume that Ny Teknik is "less favourable" than prevously on the Energy Catalyzer?
--79.6.146.208 (talk) 03:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It isn't necessary to start a new section with every reply- but in answer to your question, we aren't 'assuming' anything - we are reporting what the sources say: why do you think Ny Teknik is publishing comments like this: "Many physicists are very skeptical. Partly because fusion of nuclei, which with their positive charges repel each other (the Coulomb barrier), requires hundreds of millions of degrees according to current knowledge, and partly because fusion should produce very high levels of gamma radiation". Or this "Among the most critical is Peter Ekström, lecturer at the Department of Nuclear Physics at Lund University in Sweden. After a thorough discussion he concludes: ‘I am convinced that the whole story is one big scam, and that it will be revealed in less than one year’". . Still, if you don't think that Ny Teknik is a reliable source, perhaps we should exclude their comments - though the article will be even more badly-sourced without them, especially after we remove all the other 'information loops'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok: so, where is the report of Ny Teknik which is LESS FAVOURABLE than the previous report of Ny Teknik?

Ny Teknik remains both "rational sceptic" and very positive on the E-Cat. Instead, you wrote the lede assuming that Ny Teknik has worsened its disposition while the time has been passing, and this is purely untrue.

--79.6.146.208 (talk) 04:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

"...it is not as easy as before to rule out alternative sources of energy inside the E-cat, especially from a relatively short test as the one we undertook".

"The energy calculation of the test was not entirely obvious. See our detailed report here.

"Ny Teknik's conclusions disclose no hard scientific evidence..."

In a kind of worst-case scenario, one could conclude that the developed power output in self-sustained mode was at least of the order of 3.5 kilowatts. At most, it may have been close to eight kilowatts". (Rossi claims this version of the E-Cat is capable of producing 27 KW)

All from Ny Teknik's reporting of the demonstration they saw in September. Compare this with a report they published in February, where Rossi's E-Cat was supposedly producing 10 KW, allegedly produced an available energy equivalent to 517 kg of oil per gram of nickel, and led Ny Teknik to speculate on Rossi winning a Nobel prize. The detailed report they produced on the September test in clearly acknowledges that it was not possible to rule out "alternative energy sources inside the E-cat", and that there was insufficient testing to make any definitive scientific conclusions.

This may very well all become irrelevant of course - Rossi is now claiming to have the E-Cat in production, at which point proper scientific testing will become possible. If it does what Rossi claims, the sceptics (including me) will all look foolish. And if it doesn't, no doubt Rossi will have an excuse, but I very much doubt that Ny Teknik or anyone else will give it much credibility. This article has been based on speculative claims and dubious 'science' for long enough now - it needs hard evidence. This is an online encyclopedia, not a cold fusion enthusiasts blog. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The Oct 6 test is over, and NON-rs sources report it was successful. (3.5kW for 4 hours, self-sustaining). Nyteknik apparently has priority for the official report. All rumours, of course .... Alanf777 (talk) 22:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Very very soon the reports should be published. NON-rs sources report that each of the 52 modules (of the 1MW plan) contains 3 E-Cat cores: yesterday only one of the 3 cores within the 27kW module was on, and the test was performed only on this sole core. I am looking forward to read an official report very soon....--79.11.2.146 (talk) 10:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Lead section: where are the "other sources" which "published less favourable reports"?

Until now I found only this one: http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-08-controversial-energy-generating-lacking-credibility-video.html however Physorg states in its article that its claims are from New Energy Times, so it is an information loop.
Hence there is only one source which "published less favourable reports" and this source is Steven Krivit's New Energy Times.
--79.6.146.208 (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Please do not start a new section with every comment you make - it disrupts the logical flow of discussions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Usually I do not do it, but this time I did it because these are independent aspects (although from a single part of text). Now the lede assumes that there would be "other sources" which "published less favourable reports", beyond Steven Krivit's New Energy Times. I tried to discover these "other sources" which "published less favourable reports", but I was unable to find them.

--79.6.146.208 (talk) 06:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Fresh article from Wired

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-10/06/e-cat-cold-fusion
ps
many happy people in Bologna today...
--79.16.137.106 (talk) 12:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

More publicity, no substance. 13:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

clear substance: "Darpa, the Pentagon's advanced science wing, has also been involved in this field. Budget documents reveal a longstanding interest in low energy nuclear reactions, and the plan for 2012 includes the line "Establish scalability and scaling parameters in excess heat generation processes in collaboration with the Italian Department of Energy." --POVbrigand (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

And you have links to DARPA and Italian DoE for those? 15:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a general article about cold fusion/LENR research - unless it specifically concerns Rossi's E-Cat, what Darpa is up to is of no relevance to this article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The whole Wired article is about Rossi and the article states that Darpa has also been involved in that field. So what is your problem, what WP-policy are you refering too ? Wired.co.uk has published an article in which it is mentioned that Darpa has been involved. Thus "Darpa is involved" is perfectly WP:RS by a secondary source, no need to provide the primary source. But if you are curious you could always do the google search for the primary source yourself. It's easy if you try. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The Wired article states that "Darpa... has also been involved in this field". It says nothing whatsoever about Darpa being directly involved with the E-Cat. In any case, the article contains nothing of any real substance that is new. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Andy, I do agree somewhat with you, there isn't really much new info in the article. At least not the kind of info that _you_ are looking for. But I fully disagree with Khukri when he 1) dismisses the article with "no substance" and then 2) requests primary sources. --POVbrigand (talk) 16:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

As is your right to disagree, but up until now all we have is "X said this" & "Y said that" and none of the commentary carries any certainty or proof. Therefore I feel quite justified and until you can find sources that show otherwise, to call such articles publicity pieces with no substance. There is nothing wrong with the source itself, just it contains nothing apart from the usual "Someone called Rossi says he has cold fusion and someone else thinks it a hoax, and someone else thinks he might be on to something and it's going to save the world". We already have enough of those articles, one more adds nothing we don't already know. Up until now the only thing we do know is successful, is that Rossi knows how to garner publicity without adding anything of substance. I look forward to having to adjust my position. 16:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It does not add very much that we didn't already know. The rest of your feelings for the article (and the whole Rossi situation) is really just your personal feelings and has nothing to do with the evaluation if the Wired article is WP:RS. I think we are just arguing over the semantics of the word "substance". --POVbrigand (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually no. What Khukri writes is based around Misplaced Pages policy and practice. As long as Rossi is making unverified claims of a major scientific advance, we are obliged, per WP:FRINGE to treat such claims with suspicion. Wired is not a recognised peer-reviewed scientific journal, any more than say Ny Teknik, or the New Energy Times is - so none of them are WP:RS for anything beyond reports of 'claims' regarding the E-Cat. Misplaced Pages isn't going to suggest that the E-Cat technology is valid until it is verified by mainstream science. We can report the claims, but reporting that the same claims are being republished elsewhere is largely superfluous. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You are stating obvious things, what is your point ? The Wired article is a perfect WP:RS for that what is written in it. Feel free to be as suspicious as you like, but don't start dismissing articles for personal reasons, thanks --POVbrigand (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Test of 7 July 2011

Stremmenos reports:
http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/10/test-e-cat-7-luglio-2011.html
(Of course, tomorrow Ny Teknik and Focus will publish independent reports concerning the test of today)
--79.16.137.106 (talk) 14:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

We base our articles on published reliable sources, not blogs. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, you stated in an edit comment "Revert removal of 'Ny Teknik' comments - you can't argue that they are a credible source on the talk page, and dismiss them here" and now you state the opposite. Have you noticed that your evaluation of the reliability of a source depends on what they state about the subject ? When they support the anti-rossi view you gladly accept them as perfectly reliable, but when they support the pro-rossi view the same sources suddenly become unreliable. Great work Andy --POVbrigand (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't suddenly become unreliable, please read WP:SPS nothing new in this position. 21:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Articles about the 6 October 2011 test

Article from Ny Tekink (at last!!!)

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece
--79.11.2.146 (talk) 11:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Full report from Ny Teknik: http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962.ece/BINARY/Test+of+E-cat+October+6+%28pdf%29

--79.11.2.146 (talk) 11:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Yup - more of the same vague results, based on questionable 'science', and full of "supposedly"s and "according to Rossi"s. It tells us nothing that we didn't know before. How about this for a classic quote: "Digital bathroom scale used for weighing the E-cat. It was calibrated by two persons knowing their weight". The simple fact is that Ny Teknik journalists aren't qualified to run scientific tests - not that this was a 'test' anyway - it was another 'demonstration' - of yet another version of the E-Cat. I think the only significant content of the Ny Teknik report is the statement that the E-Cat container that Rossi was supposed to be sending to the US had been held back because, as Rossi stated, he "had a preliminary agreement with a very important party in the U.S., but when we received the final draft, it included conditions that our lawyers said that we should not accept". No surprise there... AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Yup - nothing. I also noticed the "Digital bathroom scale used for weighing the E-cat. It was calibrated by two persons knowing their weight." which just doesn't sound very scientific to me. The only positive news in this report is the 3.5h of self sustained operation. The disappointing news is 1) a device for making frequencies which we never heard of before 2) 1MW container not shipped due to non acceptable contract. Now let's see if what tone Focus.it will use in their article. --POVbrigand (talk) 12:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

In fairness to the author his opening line of the conclusion is telling for the scientific nature of this test "The accuracy of the measurements during this test must be considered fairly low." and the bathroom scales quote is certainly going to close alot of the previously open minded scientific audience. I think we should just have a hiatus on the speculation sources, until we see someone who actually has seen in the box, can say definitively how/if it works, otherwise we will have an article on purely the media aspect of the e-cat and not from a scientific viewpoint. Cheers 12:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

My comment: it is a small step for a cat, but a giant leap for mankind!--79.11.2.146 (talk) 12:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Ever heard of the expression don't leap before you look? 13:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I hate to say I told you so, but I called it on April 12:

"...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."

My major mistake was in not guessing the delay would be 'indefinite'. Some vague contractual dispute is a good way to string along the gullible for years. By the way, whatever did happen to that factory in Xanthi we heard about?

The article also still has the same problem I highlighted on May 6:

"The current article has at least four sections (and counting) that cover the public and private demonstrations that Rossi has orchestrated. This style of coverage may be appropriate to a dedicated blog, but for Misplaced Pages's purposes it's probably time for a bit of editing. We should strive to produce a concise summary of the demonstrations. Briefly, all purport to show excess heat production; there has been no demonstration of ionizing radiation or neutron production; despite Rossi's claims that he has operated devices for years in his factory, there has never been a demonstration of a device that works for more than a few hours; and Rossi has not released either detailed plans or a device to any independent researcher for testing, so no other independent group has been able to replicate his experiment....It's misleading for us to create a new section in the article every time Rossi repeats the same dog and pony show; the April tests in Bologna appear to have lasted less than three hours, and Lewan's article doesn't report that any scientists were even present."

"there has been no demonstration of ionizing radiation or neutron production" -- The mechanism is unknown, so the lack of any particular "evidence" is inconclusive at best, and misleading at worst. All that is needed is a reliable (and RS-reported) measurement of significant anomalous heat, through centuries-old calorimetry, even if it cannot cannot be explained by, or is contradictory to, any known mechanism. (see this year's Physics Nobel prize) Alanf777 (talk) 18:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source that states that the mechanism is unknown? All we have is Rossi's entirely unverified claims, and a complete lack of objective tests to rule out fraudulent use of entirely known mechanisms. As always, it is for those making claims to provide verifiable evidence, rather than for others to disprove them. Rossi refuses to do this - and as long as he continues to do this, reporting every 'demonstration' as if it was somehow more significant than the last is giving them undue weight. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Since the internals of the reactor have not been revealed (reported, I think in every source),the mechanism is unknown. If opened, it could be determined to be previously known (eg chemicals) or currently unknown (LENR). Real or Fake? http://evworld.com/blogs/index.cfm?authorid=12&blogid=972&archive=1 ? (June 2011)

As far as I can tell from all the reports, Rossi has selected the type of experiment (steam or water or heat-exchanger), power level and duration, and has forbidden ONLY the use of gamma-ray spectrographs. The observers have been free to bring whatever external electrical and calorimetric equipment they want. The failure to do so is theirs, not Rossi's. Alanf777 (talk) 21:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't a bog standard neutron chamber suffice? 21:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

All of the details from the demonstrations should be removed, and the header should be expanded to maybe state the notable people who were present for the demonstrations until such time as there is new information or the system is indepentantly tested. Listing that he demonstrated a heating element without verifiable sources of how or what it contains, falls foul of WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE and taken from WP:REDFLAG "Any exceptional claim requires high-quality sources" as of now the only decent sources are that he has garnered media attention, for this and this only is the e-cat notable. 19:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

79.11's breathless creation of multiple talk page sections every time there's an online mention of the device is a related problem. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Yup. The article needs some serious pruning - it gives far too much weight to inconclusive 'demonstrations' and speculations about science sourced to nothing more than Rossi's claims about what is supposedly going on. As for the '79.11' IP, I generally assume, unless given evidence to the contrary, that such anon contributors are quite possibly posting on Rossi's behalf, given the endless hype from such sources. "A giant leap for mankind" - yeah, back to where we were six months ago, only with more blather and excuses from Rossi. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Uh??? If I remember right, I did just four new sections concerning online mentions of the Energy Catalyzer in the last two months: the first for a website named "ecat", the second for the article of Wired of yesterday, the third for the report of Stremmenos, the fourth for the article of Ny Teknik of today.
--79.11.2.146 (talk)

Post Scriptum
Just to be precise, I wrote this phrase: "it is a small step for a cat, but a giant leap for mankind"
with a smiley spirit AND NOT with a sort of "hype" intention whatsoever.
--79.11.2.146 (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The current separate mentioning of each demonstration does provide the reader with detailed info of what happened when, but I agree that the sheer number of demonstrations might give a false impression that there are no more doubts about the device. So instead of adding yet another demonstration, I think we should try to rewrite the section. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

As far as we know, no other tests will be performed before the end of the month, when the 1MW plan is supposed to be inaugurated (I wrote "supposed" because we do not know if it will be inaugurated or not). IMHO it should be more logical if we write about the last test first, and then decide how to manage the "test" section.

Or not?

--79.11.2.146 (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I see that POVbrigand has started by summarising the demonstrations (not 'tests' - that would imply more rigour than is evident). I think we can cut the remainder down to a single paragraph - we don't need all the dates, durations etc for each one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree test section needs a re-write and as you say more aptly titled demonstrations to be more neutrally worded, as of now all we have is conjecture. I've reverted the last addition of the tests for a more neutral wording. How can the Pettersson be convinced it works without knowing how it's generating heat. As of now we still have nothing but heresay that is LENR or cold fusion or even teeny weeny monkeys running very fass on a incy treadmill. Up till now it's a glorified teapot, or a Russell's teapot at that, something taken on faith. I say re-write the article to show it's something that has gained minor media attention with zero basis in science. 14:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec) As far as we know, Rossi has forbidden any testing of his device; what he's doing are simply demonstrations. (He seems to have gone sour on independent testing after mass spec analysis of 'burned' fuel and ionizing radiation measurements around the 'operating' device both failed to show any evidence supporting his claims.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Slowly, don't start deleting just yet, wait for a few days. I want to be sure that no interesting link is lost. @Khukri, I do not agree with your understanding of OR. Your personal reasoning about what Pettersson has said is the only OR I can see. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

He hasn't been shown inside the e-cat and until it is released how the e-cat works, he is taking it on faith. If you don't know how something works how can you be convinced, that's not OR that's logic. Misplaced Pages doesn't wait a few days just in case, it reflects actuality with what can be shown through sourcing, not what might happen WP:CRYSTALBALL. 15:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

A quote is a quote. The quote is perfectly WP:RS. WP:OR is about what WP-editors construct themselves, not what professors are quoted as saying. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

No problems with that at all so long as the quote is taken in context that someone showed him a teapot. 15:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of what the professor said, we can't state that "an E-cat ran in a completely stable self sustained mode for over three hours". We know nothing about 'stability', or that it was actually 'self-sustained' - all we know is that claims are being made to that effect, by Rossi, and by persons not in a position to know if it is true. And concerning deletions, 'not losing interesting links' is a poor reason to retain unnecessary content - they can be found from the article history easily enough (and there is nothing to stop anyone copying the text to their own PC or whatever). AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

What "we know" is of course completely irrelevant since that would be WP:OR on our side. Either that's a statement found in WP:RS or it's not. Troed (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

What do you think about the temperature data?

http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284968.ece/BINARY/Temp+data+Ecat_6_10_11+%28xls%29

--79.11.2.146 (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not for us to think anything of the data, that is left to others. 15:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. In any case Ny Teknik state themselves that the measurements are poor - and without proper controlled independent scientific tests, they are almost meaningless. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a spreadsheet full of numbers, and I bite my tongue about further analysis because – for the nth time – Misplaced Pages is not a blog for the discussion of this device, and you should stop treating it as one. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I tried to make a quick calculation based on the data, and this is the result I obtain: 9.2405 kW*h used 26.52864 kW*h produced.

Of course, if the data are worthless then it is meaningless that the E-Cat seems to work well.

I would like to know the list of the people present to the demonstration of yesterday, just to understand how much academics were there.

--79.11.2.146 (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I also would like to know who was present, Essen & Kullander ? Scientists from USA and China, who ? --POVbrigand (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I do hope that at least someone of the media, that were present there, will make that list public: it would be foolish (and for me unconceivable) if nobody will do it!--79.11.2.146 (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Article from Il Sole 24 Ore (in Italian)

(Sub-section in order to avoid 3000 threads over the same argument)

http://www.radio24.ilsole24ore.com/main.php?articolo=ecat-fusione-fedda-bologna-andrea-rossi

Written by scientific journalist Maurizio Melis who was present at the event.--79.11.2.146 (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

You're still not quite getting the 'this is not a blog' point. Telling us that yet another news article exists isn't helpful. Telling us what it says that's both novel and reliable (if anything) and which is relevant to our should be incorporated into the article would be helpful. As far as I can tell, technical details are addressed simply by reference to Mats Lewan's Ny Teknik article.

Once again, the creation of another thread (or sub-thread) doesn't address my concerns with your approach, 79.11—how does your posting of the above link lead to an improvement of Misplaced Pages's encyclopedia article on this topic? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok TenOfAllTrades: I can do it.

SUMMARY OF THE ARTICLE OF MAURIZIO MELIS:

1) Melis tells us that Swedish and American representatives of the industrial world were present, but they refused to reveal which corporations they work for

2) Melis tells us that representatives from the Universities of Uppsala and Bologna were present. The University of Bologna ordered its representatives not to talk with the press

3) Melis states that this time, although margins of error were still present, the measurements were more solid compared to the the ones taken during the previous tests thanks to the new setting for the experiment

4) In particular, the uncertainties concerning the measurement of the produced energy were eliminated (before there was the problem of the quality of the steam. This problem was completely eliminated by using a secondary circuit)

5) however, critical points remain, because the test was not performed in neutral field. Melis hopes that soon university tests will be performed in order to eliminate the problem
--79.11.2.146 (talk) 17:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Rework demonstration section

we will rework the demonstration section. I have started with a proposal at the top of the section. Please let us work on getting that wrap up bit finished first. We should take a few day to do it properly, we don't have to do a rush job. Every editor will have his her own view on what should be in the wrap up and we should honor those different views. The goal is to write a wrap up with little technical detail, some quotations, and a general cautious tone. All agree ? --POVbrigand (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry POVbrigade I didn't comment earlier, I think your header neatly sums up the situation and referring to my last post in the section above, I think the notable people could be added to the header, and any other pertinant information included in the header, and the details for each demonstration removed. Please take into account my last post above for reasoning why it should be removed before replying about not deleting anything. 19:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Oct 6th test - please report what the sources say

I have removed this section entirely for now, as it was making claims that weren't backed up by the sources. Please place any proposed new version on this talk page for discussion first. Note that we should not be stating that 'X' or 'Y' happened during the demonstrations, only that it was reported by 'Z' that 'X' or 'Y' happened. Per WP:FRINGE, any reporting of 'science' not in accord with scientific consensus should not be stated as factual. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Andy always favours deleting the whole freaking section or page or entire WP for the sake of WP:FRINGE. I disagree. It does not show of any willingness to cooperate to come to NPOV. The demand to first present any proposal on the talk page is nowhere stated in any policy. WP:BOLD ! --POVbrigand (talk) 14:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE is policy - it isn't negotiable. Further to my earlier comments, I would point out that the Ny Texnik detailed report on the test is a primary source, and as such needs to be used with care - indeed, given NY Tekniks involvement with making measurements during the demonstration, their entire reporting may well be considered as primary - articles should not be using solely primary sources in this way, as we rely on secondary sources to assess reliability, notability, weight etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Andy, I am willing to talk about deleting some content. Please explain what claims weren't backed up by the sources. Deleting the whole section will just create angry editors, or is that what you're after ? --POVbrigand (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the deleted section:

On October 6th 2011 an E-cat was demonstrated running for over eight hours, for the first five hours the input power was up to 3kW, after which the power was reduced to 115W. The power output was estimated to be between two and three kilowatts. Possible uncertainties concerning the quality of the steam were overcome by injecting the steam from the Energy Catalyzer into a heat exchanger, where a flow of water was heated. Generally, the results of this experiment must be considered inconclusive, as the accuracy of measurements was reportedly fairly low. However, although accuracy was moderate and the measurement set up could have been more advanced, results was clear, mainly because the Energy Catalyzer ran for over three hours with a very low input of electricity. Roland Pettersson, retired Associate Professor from the University of Uppsala, who witnessed it said "I'm convinced that this works, but there is still room for more measurements".

For a start, where does the 'over eight hours' come from? In any case, it is making assertions as fact, which is unacceptable - we can report what sources claim, but we cannot possibly state that 'results were clear' - the sources in any case don't even say that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The source does precisely say that: "results were clear", see Line four (just below):

--79.10.161.74 (talk) 15:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

That is known as 'cherry picking' - you use an isolated phrase, rather than the general tone of the sources, to give a misleading impression. And I've still seen no explanation for where the 'eight hours' came from. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The test/demonstration was eight hour long. Source: http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962.ece/BINARY/Test+of+E-cat+October+6+%28pdf%29

The test/demonstration started at 11:12 (time of continental Europe) and ended at 19:58 (time of continental Europe), so to be precise it was more than eight hour long and almost nine hour long.

I want to specify that the E-Cat produced energy also BEFORE the beginning of self-sustained mode.

NOTE: I hope that Focus will describe all the passages very well, because personally I had difficulties to reconstruct the test/demonstration by reading the measurements and the sheet with the data log of Ny Teknik.--79.10.161.74 (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

That is a primary source - your interpretation of it is original research - the document doesn't state what you assert in any case.

And just to clarify - can you state for the record whether you have any connection with Rossi, or with the E-Cat? Per WP:COI, if you do, you should let this be known. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

What??? THIS IS NOT original research!

I simply reported the precise time when the test/demonstration began and finished as reported here: http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962.ece/BINARY/Test+of+E-cat+October+6+%28pdf%29

In any case I am waiting to read the article(s) of Focus because I want to understand more about it.

Concerning the second question:

I told you that I have NO CONNECTION WHATSOVER WITH ROSSI OR ANY OTHER PERSON INVOLVED WITH THE ENERGY CATALYZER.

And because I am Italian mothertongue my English is bad, but I can read information about the E-Cat quickly: this simply because 90% of the information concerning the E-Cat are written in Italian.--79.10.161.74 (talk) 16:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Andy,
it impossible: I carefully checked each line, and although I am not 100% satisfied with the result I am 100% sure that the paragraph is almost correct.
Hence, I report the whole paragraph below here and we can analyse each line:

Line one

On October 6th 2011 an E-cat was demonstrated running for over eight hours, for the first five hours the input power was up to 3kW, after which the power was reduced to 115W. The power output was estimated to be between two and three kilowatts.

I put that line in, because I wanted to clarify that the test consisted of a longer period than just 3 hours "self-sustained" mode. We have no reason to doubt that the demonstration started as Lewan reported at 11:00 and the input power was up to 3kW. At the start the power was lower and at the end it had a duty cycle of 50%. The power was permanently lowered at 16:00 (= after 5 hours) with only 115W remaining until the end of the demonstration, which according to Lewan happened at 19:00 when the hydrogen pressure was lowered --POVbrigand (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Line two

Possible uncertainties concerning the quality of the steam were overcome

REF(http://www.radio24.ilsole24ore.com/main.php?articolo=ecat-fusione-fedda-bologna-andrea-rossi "Questa incertezza si può considerare superata con l’esperimento di ieri." TRANSLATION: "This uncertainty can be considered overcome by means of the experiment of yesterday.")ENDofREF)

by injecting the steam from the Energy Catalyzer into a heat exchanger, where a flow of water was heated.

REF(http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece "The important new element in the test was that it was possible to bypass the controversial energy calculation, based on vaporization, by injecting the steam from the energy catalyzer into a heat exchanger, where a flow of water was heated." )ENDofREF

• COMMENT: The text inserted here on Misplaced Pages was 100% stuck to the sources--79.10.161.74 (talk) 15:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Line three

Generally, the results of this experiment must be considered inconclusive, as the accuracy of measurements was reportedly fairly low.

REF(http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962.ece/BINARY/Test+of+E-cat+October+6+%28pdf%29 )ENDofREF

Line four

However, although accuracy was moderate and the measurement set up could have been more advanced, results was clear, mainly because the Energy Catalyzer ran for over three hours with a very low input (115W) of electricity.

REF(http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece "Although accuracy was moderate and the measurement set up could have been more advanced, results was clear, mainly because the E-cat ran for over three hours in self sustained mode.")ENDofREF

• COMMENT: The text inserted here on Misplaced Pages was 100% stuck to the source.--79.10.161.74 (talk) 15:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I have deleted that line. I think it is more or less already mentioned. The "results was clear" might give a bit too optimistic view. If the results really would have been clear, then there wouldn't be such a dispute ongoing now. --POVbrigand (talk) 18:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Line five

Roland Pettersson, retired Associate Professor from the University of Uppsala, who witnessed it said "I'm convinced that this works, but there is still room for more measurements".
REF(http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece Ny Teknik: New test of the E-cat enhances proof of heat)ENDofREF

• COMMENT: The text inserted here on Misplaced Pages was 100% stuck to the source.--79.10.161.74 (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Please read my comments regarding the use of sources AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

And further to that, I'd recommend reading Misplaced Pages:Copyright violations - I think your phrasing is far too close to the original in places. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

If you think that rewriting would be better then I can rewrite the phrases. I did not do it just because I wanted to be the more stuck to the sources as I could in order to avoid possible misunderstanding or disputes or objections from other users.

--79.10.161.74 (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

79.10, don't you understand that that is what Andy is after. He'll delete for WP:FRINGE, delete for complaint about sources. Delete with complaints about copyright. Then you go rewrite those bits, he'll delete for WP:OR. It is clear to me what he is trying to achieve. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Guys,

I will do what you will tell me to do: if I have to report the phrase I will report the phrase, if I have to rewrite the phrase for possible copyright infringment (but just for one or two single phrases?) then I will rewrite the phrase, if I have not to write anything because the source is not reliable then I will not write the phrase.

Just decide the modus operandi, and I will follow it.

Maybe we can add: "Ny Teknik states...", for example.--79.10.161.74 (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

IMHO there was also another relevant thing that Maurizio Melis wrote in his article:
"misure indipendenti, effettuate da alcuni dei presenti, per quanto imprecise, hanno di fatto confermato le letture di Rossi"
TRANSLATION:
"independent measurements, as far as unaccurate could be, taken by some of the participating people, do in fact have confirmed the reading made by Rossi."

So it would be possible to assume that other sources, beyond Ny Teknik, are able to publish independent measurements concerning the event.
If the assumption is right then other sources, like Focus for example, should have taken measurements and hence it is reasonable to suppose they will publish these measurements.
In the end, we should have at least three sources: Mats Lewan of Ny Teknik, Maurizio Melis of Il Sole 24 Ore, and Raymond Zreick of Focus.
Therefore, let's wait Focus and then compare the sources in order to skim off possible "misprints".
--79.10.161.74 (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

You have repeatedly been asked not to start a new section with each comment - this is supposed to be a discussion, not a blog. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I adjust it.--79.10.161.74 (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Given POVbrigand's refusal to discuss content here before reverting, I have reported the matter: see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:POVbrigand_reported_by_User:AndyTheGrump_.28Result:_.29. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE

It is not fringe that demonstrations of the device took place. Is it not fringe that Nyteknik reported on those demonstrations. It is not fringe that other media outlets have mentioned this device and its "maker".

To me this whole WP:FRINGE waving is nothing more than attempts at intimidation.

Why don't you read WP:WikiProject_Alternative_Views first.

Everything should be reliably sourced and a general healthy skeptic tone should be maintained. But trying to delete whole sections or the whole freaking page is not in line with WP policies. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

See WP:NPA. If you think I am trying to 'intimidate you' then report me for it - but read WP:BOOMERANG first... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

PEACE&LOVEonWIKIPEDIA ! ! ! Please, do not stalk each other like...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzzjgBAaWZw

--79.10.161.74 (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

New Energy Times

The new energy times does not look like a reliable source, why are we using it? IRWolfie- (talk) 20:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the short answer is that we shouldn't - along with a lot of other material we use for references. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted as well that Il Nuovo Cimento is also a cold fusion journal (see the cold fusion article). IRWolfie- (talk) 20:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

of course you can delete the new energy times references, be my guest. Most of the other material however is all perfectly WP:RS so there is no need to delete that.

The idea that Il Nuovo Cimento is also a cold fusion journal is laughable. You have no clue what you're talking about.--POVbrigand (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

@IRWolfie- I have seen the cold fusion article quite extensively for the last several months as you can easily notice from the history pages. Have you ever done any further reading on what cold fusion / LENR is about or are you a pseudo skeptic ? --POVbrigand (talk) 20:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

How is that relevant? We are looking at this article with respect to the guidelines, an unproven claim is not notable, no matter how many times the teapot is demonstrated. We only have Rossi's word that this is linked to cold fusion/LENR with ZERO reliable sources that it is. 20:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

yes, we only have Rossi's word. Nobody has verified that the device actually does what Rossi claims. Isn't that exactly what I have written in the header of the demonstrations section ? --POVbrigand (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

And then you made assertions that X, Y and Z had occurred, rather than saying that they were claimed to have occurred. In any case, the sourcing is inadequate - we cannot use a primary source like Ny Teknik in the way it was being used. Or if you disagree, raise the matter at WP:RS/N. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Nyteknik is not a primary source. You have a problem so you raise it at WP:RS/N. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Ny Teknik is a primary source when reporting their own tests - fact. If it is misused in the way it has been, I will delete it. It is for those wishing to use a source to provide evidence that it is suitable - I don't have to raise anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

What test was Nyteknik's own test ? I though it were all demonstrations ?--POVbrigand (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

IMHO there was also another relevant thing that Maurizio Melis wrote in his article:
"misure indipendenti, effettuate da alcuni dei presenti, per quanto imprecise, hanno di fatto confermato le letture di Rossi"
TRANSLATION:
"independent measurements, as far as unaccurate could be, taken by some of the participating people, do in fact have confirmed the reading made by Rossi."

So it would be possible to assume that other sources, beyond Ny Teknik, are able to publish independent measurements concerning the event.
If the assumption is right then other sources, like Focus for example, should have taken measurements and hence it is reasonable to suppose they will publish these measurements.
In the end, we should have at least three sources: Mats Lewan of Ny Teknik, Maurizio Melis of Il Sole 24 Ore, and Raymond Zreick of Focus.
Therefore, let's wait Focus and then compare the sources in order to skim off possible "misprints".--79.16.137.6 (talk) 05:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletions

User:IRWolfie- deleted two sections.

The Media coverage section was discussed some time ago .

The October Demonstration deletion appears to me a blatant attempt to bypass 3RR as can be concluded from the edit comment.

I do not think the article benefits from these deletions. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Given your refusal to address the issues raised with the material, and your persistent breaches of WP:CIVIL, I don't see how what you think is relevant. Articles are supposed to conform to policy and guidelines - which this one clearly doesn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that I have already worked on the issues raised with the material. I do not know where I have persistently breach civility. I understand that you don't think that what I say is relevant, which doesn't mean you are right about it. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

As we're talking about deletions I've moved my last nights comments here;

• All of the details from the demonstrations should be removed, and the header should be expanded to maybe state the notable people who were present for the demonstrations until such time as there is new information or the system is indepentantly tested. Listing that he demonstrated a heating element without verifiable sources of how or what it contains, falls foul of WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE and taken from WP:REDFLAG "Any exceptional claim requires high-quality sources" as of now the only decent sources are that he has garnered media attention, for this and this only is the e-cat notable. 19:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Until we have something reliably sourced that says that this is LENR or cold fusion, this article should be treated with the weight it deserves. 20:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

A reliable source that says there is unexplainable anomalous heat will be of sufficient note. (see my previous comments) Alanf777 (talk) 02:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The only 'reliable source' that would be able to make any authoritative statements about 'anomalous heat' would be one capable of confirming the anomaly - which is to say a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal, reporting on a controlled test under conditions capable of ruling out 'non-anomalous' heat sources. As yet, there has been nothing remotely approaching this: "The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness." (Laplace, apparently - though others have said much the same thing. WP:FRINGE is based on the same principle, and see also WP:REDFLAG in particular). AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

NY Teknik and primary sourcing

I think we have a serious problem regarding the use we are putting material from Ny Teknik to in the article: in as much as it is writing about tests it conducts itself, it is clearly a primary source - and as such it should not be used as the sole cited source for statements. Indeed, given that the detailed reports are not only primary, but written on a 'scientific' topic, while describing tests carried out by unqualified persons, and totally lacking any peer review, I suggest that they arguably should not be used at all. Ny Teknik is now just too closely involved with the E-Cat to be seen as an independent third-party source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not think we have a serious problem --POVbrigand (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The article is full of lots of original research and primary sourcing from dubious/fringe sources like Ny Teknik (it's an technology magazine!), the new energy and the cold fusion publishing journal Il Nuovo Cimento (it seems to be peer reviewed in the sense that it is reviewed by other cold fusion believers). 20:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

what is your problem with Il Nuovo Cimento ? --POVbrigand (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I report here what I have already wrote before:
IMHO there was also another relevant thing that Maurizio Melis wrote in his article:
"misure indipendenti, effettuate da alcuni dei presenti, per quanto imprecise, hanno di fatto confermato le letture di Rossi"
TRANSLATION:
"independent measurements, as far as unaccurate could be, taken by some of the participating people, do in fact have confirmed the reading made by Rossi."

So it would be possible to assume that other sources, beyond Ny Teknik, are able to publish independent measurements concerning the event.
If the assumption is right then other sources, like Focus for example, should have taken measurements and hence it is reasonable to suppose they will publish these measurements.
In the end, we should have at least three sources: Mats Lewan of Ny Teknik, Maurizio Melis of Il Sole 24 Ore, and Raymond Zreick of Focus.
Therefore, let's wait Focus and then compare the sources in order to skim off possible "misprints".--79.16.137.6 (talk) 05:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Three primary sources publishing their own 'results' from the same demonstration doesn't alter the fact that they are primary sources - none of which is qualified to make any assertions regarding the science involved. The 'measurements' are meaningless in any case unless it is known what it is that is actually being measured - and as long as Rossi refuses to reveal such details necessary for independent verification to take place, they will remain so. This isn't a blog, and we don't need to detail every showing of whatever version of the teapot Rossi comes up with next. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Section "Attempts at theoretical explanation"

The sections to the article and the following physics explanation were based on an unpublished/non-peer reviewed article, it's not a credible source to use. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Strictly speaking you are right. So we'll just have to paste it back in whenever it does get published. Please note that the underlying theoretical work from Kim is published in peer reviewed journals: European Physical Journal, Naturwissenschaften, Japanese Journal of Applied Physics to name a few --POVbrigand (talk) 21:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

This was extensively discussed in talk at the time. He is a reputable scientist (Fellow APS), at a reputable university (Perdue) - and published (as an official University document) a preview of an invited talk (by definition not peer reviewed) at a reputable conference. I propose re-undoing it (as-was) and updating it when the proceedings are published.

In any case, we have an informal agreement here to propose changes in talk rather than jumping and and doing stuff. Alanf777 (talk) 02:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Do we? Per normal Misplaced Pages guidelines, this is encouraged when there is debate - though some contributors seem to think that they are immune to such considerations. In any case, the article is now fully protected, so nothing can be changed without agreement - and until we can agree about the fundamental issues regarding sourcing, there is little hope of that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Andy, please stop accusing me of being unwilling to debate ! Your statements about my unwillingness are totally false. I do not disagree to debate. I only disagree with the mode of debate you are proposing. To me it looks like 1) you delete a whole section, 2) you demand proposals are first discussed on the talk page. Whereas my way forward is: 1) discuss the section on the talk page, 2) delete parts that are not ok. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

As I already wrote, IMHO there was also another relevant thing that Maurizio Melis wrote in his article:
"misure indipendenti, effettuate da alcuni dei presenti, per quanto imprecise, hanno di fatto confermato le letture di Rossi"
TRANSLATION:
"independent measurements, as far as unaccurate could be, taken by some of the participating people, do in fact have confirmed the reading made by Rossi."

So it would be possible to assume that other sources, beyond Ny Teknik, are able to publish independent measurements concerning the event.
If the assumption is right then other sources, like Focus for example, should have taken measurements and hence it is reasonable to suppose they will publish these measurements.
In the end, we should have at least three sources: Mats Lewan of Ny Teknik, Maurizio Melis of Il Sole 24 Ore, and Raymon Zreick of Focus.
Therefore, let's wait Focus and then compare the sources in order to skim off possible "misprints". --79.16.137.6 (talk) 04:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

'Commercial plans'

I think that this section will need a new title - with the Defkalion agreement falling through, and now the U.S. deal apparently doing the same, there seems to be no sourced evidence for any remaining 'commercial plans' at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Andy,

AmpEnergo does exist.

About the OTHER US PARTNER of which Ny Teknik discusses: we are talking about a partner whose name has never been revealed.

--79.16.137.6 (talk) 03:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Can I ask how you know this? Nothing in the sources we have been shown says anything of the kind. In any case, until it is published in independent reliable sources, it is irrelevant to the article. As of now, there appear to be no 'commercial plans' that we know of. The section title is misleading. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Il Nuovo Cimento is the most well respected Italian scientific journal since 1855

Published by the Italian Physical Society. Fermi wrote on it, Majorana wrote on it, hence please STOP writing deceptive humbugs about IL NUOVO CIMENTO.
--79.16.137.6 (talk) 04:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

What source do you have that it is currently the most respected italian journal? IRWolfie- (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The most respected Italian SCIENTIFIC journal: IT IS THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE ITALIAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY.

The Italian Physical Society is the Italian equivalent of the German Physical Society (for example) and both are parts of the European Physical Society, hence Il Nuovo Cimento is also part of the European Physical Journal.

We are talking about SCIENCE not fashon or Italian cuisine.

--79.10.132.219 (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

And we are talking about Misplaced Pages guidelines, such grand statements need to be backed up with sources. 16:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages guidelines state that facts should be verifiable. What 79.10 stated about Il Nuovo Cimento is verifiable. If you don't believe it, why don't you convince yourself of the verifiability yourself ? You really disappoint me --POVbrigand (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Why I'm not the one making the statement, IRWolfie asked for sources, none were given. I have no position on the journal, I just added emphasis that Misplaced Pages is run by verifiable sources. If an editor wants me or others to take something into consideration, bring the sources, not just hand waving and insisting it's true. Whether I disappoint you or not is something I'm not interested in, all I care about is that this article, is verifiable based on reliable source or not original research and doesn't fall foul of WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE and WP:REDFLAG which at this time it clearly does. 16:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's work together instead of edit warring

There is really no need for this escalation.

This is my assessment:

1) There is a dispute about the RS of Nyteknik.

1.1) POVbrigand's view: Nyteknik is perfect RS most of the time, but there is no need to copy/paste the whole Nyteknik info.

2) There is disagreement about the mode of editing: deletion of whole sections vs. deletion of bad parts

2.1) POVbrigand's view: I object to rigorous deleting of whole sections. I object to waiving policies around to give a deletion credibility. Many reasons for deletion are not to the point.

3) There is a general misunderstanding on what this article should offer to the WP-readership.

3.1) POVbrigand's view: this article should offer the reader an overview what is going on with this rossi e-cat thing, it should not try to convince the reader that the device actually does what Rossi claims, because it is still not proven. Rossi gave demonstrations and demonstration are not scientific proof. I share the view with Khukri that "it might well be a tea pot". But that doesn't mean the demonstrations didn't happen and it doesn't mean quotations from scientists around the world didn't happen. On the other hand the article should not try to convince the reader that the whole thing is a scam.

@Andy, you said "I see that POVbrigand has started by summarising the demonstrations (not 'tests' - that would imply more rigour than is evident). I think we can cut the remainder down to a single paragraph - we don't need all the dates, durations etc for each one.". At that point of time we were cooperating quite good. Why are we in this dispute right now, it is a waste of time.

I think there is no huge problem to get back to cooperating to improve the article. --POVbrigand (talk) 10:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The point for me is how are the demonstrations notable? If we have unverified claims of cold fusion, until this is verified we are implying notability through these demonstrations even though no-one except rossi knows what is being demonstrated. The moment it becomes verified then hell yes it's notable, but until then they shouldn't be included at all. 11:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I quote AndyTheGrump:

The only 'reliable source' that would be able to make any authoritative statements about 'anomalous heat' would be one capable of confirming the anomaly - which is to say a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal, reporting on a controlled test under conditions capable of ruling out 'non-anomalous' heat sources. As yet, there has been nothing remotely approaching this: "The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness." (Laplace, apparently - though others have said much the same thing. WP:FRINGE is based on the same principle, and see also WP:REDFLAG in particular). AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I think nobody can disagree with this statement of AndyTheGrump. Said that, IMHO what must be established is this:
if we have AT LEAST THREE INDEPENDENT SOURCES
(Mats Lewan of Ny Teknik, Maurizio Melis of Il Sole 24 Ore, Raymond Zreick of Focus)
then is it possible to compare them and see what can be kept and what can be removed concerning the demo of 6 October 2011?
--79.10.132.219 (talk) 11:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are quoting me there. I said nothing about 'three independent sources' - I said that for claims about anomalous heat to be verified, the E-Cat would have to be properly tested, and the results published in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal. The tests have not taken place, and the results have not been published in any such journal. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

@Khukri, as I initiated here, I am all for it. I have already written a wrap up proposal. I have already changed the separate sections for January to April to one section. My proposal is to step by step prune the January to April section.

The Nyteknik is a reliable source for the demonstrations, the fact that they took place and who was there. Nyteknik is not a source for describing what might be the underlying mechanism (LENR or not LENR). It is verifiable that heat was produced, it is not verifiable how this heat was produced (LENR or not LENR). It is verifiable that demonstrations were given, it is not verifiable that Rossi claims are true it is not verifiable that Rossi claims are false. It is verifiable that Rossi claims something, it is not verifiable that his claims have been verified. It is verifiable that his claims have not been verified. It is verifiable that some observers have made quotes about the device, it is not verifiable if these observers are right or wrong (LENR or not LENR). --POVbrigand (talk) 13:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Ny Tekink is a primary source regarding anything it measures during the demonstrations - this is an incontestable fact. It is not verifiable that any heat produced by the E-Cat was in any way related to anything Rossi claims. The 'demonstrations' tell us nothing beyond the fact that some people believe that Rossi's magic teapot works - we don't need to summarise anything beyond the raw fact that demonstrations have occurred, and some people think there is something to it. There is nothing new whatsoever to report regarding the Oct 6th tests beyond the fact that more people take Rossi's claims seriously. The rest is bad 'science', and hype. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your view that we should not use the measurement data from Nyteknik, but currently nothing at all is written in the article about the October 6 demonstration due to the section being completely deleted. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump wrote:

"I said nothing about 'three independent sources' - I said that for claims about anomalous heat to be verified, the E-Cat would have to be properly tested, and the results published in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal. The tests have not taken place, and the results have not been published in any such journal."

And I 100% agree with you, AndyTheGrump. Established that, is it possible to write about the demo of 6 October 2011?

And, by the way, in the lede it is so written:
"Ny Teknik and the New Energy Times, together with other sources, have since published less favourable reports".
Now, is it true or is it untrue that Ny Teknik has since published less favourable reports?
In my opinion this is untrue, as you can clearly understand by the title of the last article of Ny Teknik:
"New test of the E-cat enhances proof of heat".
Ergo, how can "enhances proof of heat" be considered as pejorative?
--79.10.132.219 (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Ny Teknik is in no position to make such a claim. For inclusion in Misplaced Pages, controversial scientific claims need to be sourced to reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals. This is policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

1. http://www.radio24.ilsole24ore.com/main.php?articolo=ecat-fusione-fedda-bologna-andrea-rossi "Questa incertezza si può considerare superata con l’esperimento di ieri." TRANSLATION: "This uncertainty can be considered overcome by means of the experiment of yesterday."
2. http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece "The important new element in the test was that it was possible to bypass the controversial energy calculation, based on vaporization, by injecting the steam from the energy catalyzer into a heat exchanger, where a flow of water was heated."
3. http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962.ece/BINARY/Test+of+E-cat+October+6+%28pdf%29
4. http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece "Although accuracy was moderate and the measurement set up could have been more advanced, results was clear, mainly because the E-cat ran for over three hours in self sustained mode."
5. Ny Teknik: New test of the E-cat enhances proof of heat

• 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
• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions