Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:55, 21 December 2011

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Energy Catalyzer article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23Auto-archiving period: 10 days

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 October 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Physics Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-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.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Energy Catalyzer article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23Auto-archiving period: 10 days

'Official Leonardo website'

I've removed the link (recently added to 'External links') to this for now, as it seems to have been posted by Sterling Allan (of PESN), not Rossi. I think we need evidence from elsewhere that it is actually 'official', and that Allan is now running the Leonardo website - of course, if he is, it makes any statements from PESN even less 'independent' - and they were never 'reliable' by Misplaced Pages standards.

BTW, those interested in convoluted lawyerspeak may like to peruse the disclaimer prominantly displayed: "Cautionary Statement for Purposes of the "Safe Harbor" Provisions of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995... Any disclosure and analysis on this website may contain forward-looking information that involves risks and uncertainties... You can identify these statements by the fact that they do not relate strictly to historic or current facts and often use words such as "anticipate", "estimate", "expect", "believe," "will likely result," "outlook," "project" and other words and expressions of similar meaning. No assurance can be given that the results in any forward-looking statements will be achieved ...". I think they are trying to tell us something... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

This is standard boilerplate legalese for any investment in the U.S. It's reproduced word-for-word e.g., in this example from an enterprise far less bogusspeculative than the E-Cat. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The enom.com "whois" database indicates that Leonardo Corporation is the registrant of the domain name Leonardo-ECat.com —

Registrant:

Leonardo Corporation

Andrea Rossi

116 South River Road

Bedford, NH 03110 US

+1.6036687000

Fax +1.6036474325

info@leonardocorp1996.com

So please put the link back into the "External links" section of the article. AnnaBennett (talk) 05:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

done --POVbrigand (talk) 10:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It's typical to wait for some concensus before you force your changes through. I don think we should be listing fringe websites in the external links. (also note that the website seems to be managed by Sterling Allan from its whois response). IRWolfie- (talk) 10:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Unless it it clear that the deletion was moot. look up flat earth society and convince yourself that linking to the "official website" is no violation regardless of what your pov-pushing leads you to think. --POVbrigand (talk) 10:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Except that the flat earth society would link to the flat earth society. What you are adding a link to a company and this article is not about this company but about the Energy Catalyzer. The link also has not been verified in any way. The contact for the website is Sterling Allan not Rossi. Can you not wait for five minutes before re-inserting it without concensus? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

crystal clear: the registrar is leonardo corporation - andrea rossi . You are just fishing for some technicality to support you POV --POVbrigand (talk) 10:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Magical thinking noted. It goes well with the "don't trust the professors" paradigm. LOL 84.106.26.81 (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

(from Rossi's blog Journal of Nuclear Physics)

Andrea Rossi

November 12th, 2011 at 8:57 AM

WARNING: THE WEBSITE http://WWW.LEONARDO-ECAT.COM IS NOT OUR WEBSITE.

--79.10.163.46 (talk) 14:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

OK am removing link. I suggest it remains removed until such time as Leornardo Corp issues a press release launching it. Tmccc (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, so what just happened here? Sterling Allan set up an 'official' Leonardo website, someone linked to it, I queried its authenticity and removed it, but someone (using WP:OR) unilaterally decided it was genuine and restored the link, and now it turns out that Rossi is saying it isn't official? Can I suggest that we all learn some lessons from this. Firstly, there is no rush - accuracy is more important than immediacy in an encyclopaedia. Secondly, if you don't want to end up looking stupid, don't restore questionable items while there is still discussion going on, and finally, don't ever rely on non-RS sources just because they make claims you want to believe. This is policy. It is also common sense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Andy, Rossi's blog contains a question from A. Goumy, which reads,

A. Goumy

November 11th, 2011 at 10:46 PM

Dear Mr Rossi, Do you have comments about this new site: http://www.leonardo-ecat.com?

Best regards, A.G.

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=516&cpage=11#comments

Rossi responded to Goumy's question as follows:

Andrea Rossi

November 12th, 2011 at 6:23 AM

Goumy: It is a draft with many errors, needs many corrections. Please disregard it for at least three days.

A.R.

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=516&cpage=12#comments

So Rossi is aware of and has not disowned the new website "leonardo-ecat.com". AnnaBennett (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

See ]:

"WARNING: THE WEBSITE http://WWW.LEONARDO-ECAT.COM IS NOT OUR WEBSITE. IT HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED, IT IS A DRAFT OF A PROPOSAL WHOSE TEXT HAS TO BE CONTROLLED, APPROVED. WE ASKED TO THE INFORMATIC WHO PROPOSED IT TO PUT IT IMMEDIATELY OUT OF THE NET, BECAUSE IT CONTAINS SUBSTANTIAL ERRORS, WRONG NAMES IN WRONG PLACES :SPECIFICALLY, ALL THE NAMES PUT IN THE PAGE “BONA FIDE” ARE TOTALLY WRONG AND SUCH NAMES HAVE NOT TO BE PUT IN THAT POST.

WARM REGARDS,

ANDREA ROSSI

That looks like 'disowning' to me. In any case, until we have a clear reliable source stating for a fact that the website is genuine, this is all moot. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Andy,

I think the rush syndrome is attacking very enthusiastic people like Sterling Allan and this can potentially create a messy situation.

I suppose that Sterling Allan&co asked Rossi if they could create the official website of the E-Cat. Probably Rossi answered yes, and 5 minutes later Sterling Allan went online with that website without presenting the contents to Rossi BEFORE the website launch.

--79.10.163.46 (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

What exactly does more guesswork do to help here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

( found here: http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/11/ni-come-national-instrument.html )

From: Sterling Allan

To: Andrea Rossi

Cc: Hank Mills

Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 4:29 PM

Subject: Website is up

Hi Andrea,

Hank thinks the site is very amateurish looking and needs a lot of visual help. He's embarrassed that we launched today before getting it looking better.

But I told him that you and I wanted the 11.11.11 launch date on it. I also told him that I'm limited in that I use FrontPage to author websites. It's pretty old software. Works great for me, but isn't as modern looking.

When other talent comes along, we can do a remodel of the site.

But I think this is a good start.

Sterling

--79.10.163.46 (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Enough of this crap!

We are NOT going to add a link to the 'official' website until we have a proper reliable source which explicitly states that it is official, end of story. THIS IS POLICY. IT IS NON-NEGOTIABLE. Please stop wasting everyone's time with guesswork based on blogs and other meaningless sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Please stop shouting and being rude. 86.160.85.195 (talk) 12:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Please consult WP:NPA. Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

But surely accusing someone of accusing someone of accusing someone of making a personal attack is a personal attack too? Bhny (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I did accuse someone of accusing someone of making a personal attack. :> IRWolfie- (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Can we get back on topic? Anyway, the website in question has now withdrawn any claims to being 'official', so the issue is resolved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if you were saracstic. If not: "enough of this crap" and several all-caps words is, by any standard of Internet etiquette I know of, "shouting" and - at least arguably - "rude". I respect your dedication to keep WP clean of pseudoscience, but I can't help thinking that you lost perspective a bit. -- Minvogt (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

ECAT.com is the official web site

25.11 "Today, in a mutual agreement with Andrea Rossi and Leonardo Corporation, ECAT.com has been appointed the Official ECAT Website."

If they claim they have a mutual agreement and we haven't heard any contrary news since 25.11. We can regard this as reliable and use it in our article --POVbrigand (talk) 10:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I see no benefit to the reader in telling them what the website is. This article is about a device, not about a company. I removed any reference to ecat.com. Binksternet (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Luboš Motl's debunking

hi,

I didn't find any reference to motl's articles about e-cat:

• http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/08/andrea-rossi-and-cold-fusion.html
• http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/11/msnbc-vs-foxnews-on-cold-fusion.html

thought it could be of some use - MIRROR (talk) 09:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Sadly blogs, even those run by physicists, aren't considered reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

as there's already a lot of blogs and primary sources i didn't believed it could be a problem, especially if it allows to balance the undue weight - MIRROR (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

While tempting, it's not a good idea to try to 'balance' the use of bad (and badly used) sources – of which this article certainly already has plenty – with more bad sources. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

and even if it had been an proper RS article, there is nothing that he actually says apart from stating the debunkers belief "it can't work because of the coulomb barrier" which originated from the Fleischmann-Pons era. For the rest he is just describing Rossi and his device in not very scientific terms. It appears to me that he is trying to be funny for his audience, like an entertainer. Oh and I noted that this guy actually started his own WP-article. So he is not shy of self promotion.

Why doesn't he publish a peer reviewed paper with his debunking thoughts on Rossi's device. Maybe he should discuss this topic with other theoretical physicists like Heinrich Hora who actually invested time in it. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

« Why doesn't he publish a peer reviewed paper with his debunking thoughts on Rossi's device » why would anyone bother publish to debunk unpublished papers ? you talk nonsense - MIRROR (talk) 11:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You're right, that would be silly. And he has nothing new to report anyhow. --POVbrigand (talk) 12:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Bad sources by uninvolved people should be used in preference to bad sources by involved people. However, those two blog entries could not be used even if stipulated that Motl is an expert. (I was going to comment on his blog that there is noticeable fusion when compressing D₂ gas to 400 standard atmospheres (41,000 kPa); but the energy release is orders of magnitude less than energy cost of containment, but I can't find the reference.) At the present time, Randi's comments are much more specific. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Instead of "Lubos the entertainer"'s quacking you might want to read this critique . It looks like RS to me, but I'm not sure. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Binksternet Deletions / Goodbye, and thanks for all the fish

OK, so this guy has 20,000 edits in 4 1/2 years. 68000 / (4.5 * 365) = 41.4003044 edits per day.
I'm impressed by his use of the ctrl-a ctrl-x keys -- although he still needs to up his quota by 700,000 to get to the top of the list. Alanf777 (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I give up. You win. Flat Earth .. pat pat .. Flat earth .. pat pat Flat earth ... Alanf777 (talk) 19:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Yup. And come next winter, when you are basking in the warm glow from your E-Cat central heating, you'll have the consolation of knowing that you were right... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Heh heh... Nothing warms me more than a shot of Don Julio Añejo. Looking forward to the day when the E-Cat warms more than its backers' wallets. Binksternet (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Lulz at the confrontation; history's great these days, particularly here :) Tmccc (talk) 22:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, the demonstrations which do not result in any comment by known scientists are just marketing fluff. This article cannot be used as a marketing tool, listing all the various in-universe high-fives rather than limiting it to on-the-record comments from noted scientists. Binksternet (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

They were demostrations, but they were covered by the press. It is not like: "Rossi stated that", there were demonstrations with witnesses. And there is NO SCIENCE in the article at all, so such a statement is pointless.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Not everything 'the press' (actually two or three sources, generally) covers is of any long-term encyclopaedic significance. The 'demonstrations' were nothing but publicity stunts, and we aren't here to provide Rossi with free advertising for his science-free scientific discoveries. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Here, I have some spare and you seem to need them: """""""""""" --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

This opinion expressed by AndyTheGrump is a respectable opinion, but it a personal opinion which has nothing to do with the article.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. Discussions as to what goes into an article are very much to do with the article. (And BTW, your last edit summary seems only marginally more relevant than the previous one - you are supposed to use them to explain your edit, not to conduct negotiations). AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Editors might want to look at WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS. There, the guideline advises that the "enduring notability" of an event is a valuable metric we use in determining whether a news report is not to be listed in the encyclopedia. A cold fusion demonstration that was newsworthy at one time is typically not worthy of an encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The edit is this: should the word "test" be used for describing the alledged sale of the 1 MW plant on 28th october? I'd prefer the word "demonstration".--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Binksternet's edits and comments Bhny (talk) 21:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

If you delete it then it is impossible to follow a logic path. For example, the quotation of Mark Gibbs at the beginning of the article is referred to the alledged self-production of energy during the event of 28th Oct. So you have the quotation but you don't have what the quotation is reffered to!--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

There's no need to list individual demonstrations, just a sentence summarizing would be enough. I never did that because I knew it would get reverted by the believers. A product demonstration isn't a notable event Bhny (talk) 23:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Penn & Teller doesn't list every performance, right? LeadSongDog come howl! 23:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Awesome! Binksternet (talk) 15:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with this. While notability may not change with time I see no reason why due weight can't. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't look constructive at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Energy_Catalyzer&action=historysubmit&diff=463683782&oldid=463675205

Kindly explain how WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS justifies such deletions.

84.106.26.81 (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS is basically a short version of Misplaced Pages:Notability, it is not the actual guideline.84.106.26.81 (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

"most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion" seems clear, apart from it not being newsworthy to begin with. Bhny (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I have absolutely no problem with the way the demonstrations section currently is. Only the demonstrations for which a qualified observers can be quoted with something interesting is ... interesting. The rest has already become irrelevant history of the device. The info is still available online at Nyteknik, it's not lost. It is just not relevant anymore for wikipedia. --POVbrigand (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

'ScienceBlogs' article on the E-Cat

"The Physics of why the e-Cat's Cold Fusion Claims Collapse". See here: . As for whether this meets WP:RS standards, I'm not entirely sure as yet. Any thoughts? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It's written by two physicists so I don't see why not. As long as the criticisms are attributable that seems to meet the criteria for a fringe article. A criticism of the device is not going to be in the peer reviewed literature because it's not part of the scientific discourse.IRWolfie- (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't object to this being used carefully, but I am afraid we might be accused of having double standards. If a blog promoting the device would be used in the article, I bet that Andy here would be jumping all over it, probably lose his temper again, explaining why that is not allowed.

But together with this one I think we can use it to say that "the device has attracted notice from scientist bloggers / writers who explain why the device can not work according to accepted physics rules. " And link those two articles as evidence to our claim.

But then in all fairness we should also highlight that promotional websites have emerged and provide an example of those as evidence. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The blogger Ethan Siegel has previously produced a blog entry where he tried debunk by applying a fair share of ridicule at the expense of Rossi, but also comes to the conclusion that "cold fusion is, in principle possible" . Andy don't you see that Ethan Siegel is promoting cold fusion WP:REDFLAG, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, WP:OR, WP:ALLOFTHEM --POVbrigand (talk) 11:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

(Now, your last paragraph is just exaggeration)

Yup, but I have seen it happen before

Ethan Siegel really writes "cold fusion is, in principle possible". An WP-editor taking that POV will get insulted as POV-pusher, adherent of FRINGE. Ethan continues: "Now, this has never been observed at cold temperatures, but from a theoretical physics standpoint, it may be possible. (In other words, don't be so quick to dismiss the idea out of hand.)" emphasis mine. And that is what I have been saying all along and I earn ridicule for that. I just wanted to highlight that to Andy as he hadn't probably noticed Ethan's standpoint on this yet. --POVbrigand (talk) 13:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I think what you are highlighting most here is your willingness to quote a single phrase out of context to argue something the source in general doesn't support. Yes, Siegal states that cold fusion is possible (or as you note, he writes later " from a theoretical physics standpoint, it may be possible" - his emphasis), but he also explains why he thinks Rossi's claims are untenable: "... if you're going to make an extraordinary claim, like that you've discovered cold fusion, then you've got to provide extraordinary evidence, not this half-hearted, half-powered demonstration coupled with a long track record of swindles and lies". And of course, Siegel's later article shows conclusively why mainstream science has to reject Rossi's claims - because if Rossi's E-Cat were producing the amounts of energy claimed through the fusion of hydrogen and nickel into copper, he'd have died long ago of acute radiation sickness. We should quote sources to illustrate their arguments, not to suit our own viewpoint. And yes, I had noticed what Siegel wrote - though it is hardly contentious anyway. As far as I'm aware, mainstream science has never ruled out cold fusion in principle, but merely shown how implausible most claims to have achieved it are, and insisted that such claims be backed up with verifiable evidence. Siegel is thus entirely in accord with mainstream consensus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Rossi's device has not yet been scientifically proven. It has also not been proven that it is a scam, hoax or self deception. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

And? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The fact that Rossi is still alive can prove either that whatever is going on in his device is not fusion OR that mainstream view on fusion does not apply to environments on a metal lattice . We should emphasize the mainstream view, but there is no reason the deny the FRINGE view from being mentioned. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

No. The fact that Rossi is alive proves nothing unless reliable sources say it does. And what has the link you provide got to do with any of this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I say, let's just apply WP:FRINGE like it was intended to be applied. No "serious" journal is publishing a "serious" article (with detailed explanations about fusion). So, let's take the most serious mainstream sources among the available ones, and use them to explain why mainstream science is not believing Rossi, despite some positive reports. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we can add a description of why this is not possible with mainstream physics, but then in all fairness, we should also show that (for instance Kim) already proposes his Bose-Einstein_Condensate explanation as a possible theory. --POVbrigand (talk) 13:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

No we shouldn't. Unless a reliable source argues that Kim's proposal negates Siegel's arguments, it would be synthesis to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Then we have no consensus --POVbrigand (talk) 14:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

No consensus over what? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

No consensus over applying Misplaced Pages:PARITY#Parity_of_sources --POVbrigand (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Concensus doesn't mean everyone agrees; there is concensus that we apply parity of sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is consensus that parity of sources must be maintained. The blog was co-written by Dr. Peter Thieberger, Senior Physicist at Brookhaven National Laboratory; a reliable source. It was noticed by other blogs (such as The Wall Street Journal's) and discussion boards, and reprinted in the news magazine New Energy Times. The blog is worthy of this article about the E-Cat, and any other article about nickel-to-copper cold fusion schemes. Binksternet (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:PARITY#Parity_of_sources agues the case for including it- For example, the lack of peer-reviewed criticism of creation science should not be used as a justification for marginalizing or removing scientific criticism of creation science, since creation science itself is almost never published in peer-reviewed journals. Bhny (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. The source is good to use. Binksternet (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but parity doesn't work if you only allow it for the mainstream view but won't allow it for the fringe view. So if we use this source to illustrate the mainstream view (which I think is a good idea) we should also allow at least an acknowledgement that within the cold fusion camp fringe theories are being proposed by notable scientists --POVbrigand (talk) 16:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:PARITY: "The prominence of fringe views needs to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field; limiting that relative perspective to a restricted subset of specialists or only amongst the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative". Citing Kim for 'parity' is adding bias - his views are very much the minority amongst physicists. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

POVbrigand, once again you are pushing for artificial parity between very unequal ideas. This suggestion cannot be entertained on Misplaced Pages. Minor viewpoints are described but they will always be described as minor viewpoints. Binksternet (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you just misunderstand me. --POVbrigand (talk) 07:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe I understand you too well for comfort. Binksternet (talk) 15:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You believe you are without failures. --POVbrigand (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I have failed to reach you. Binksternet (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

And that is only the tip of the iceberg last one is for you :-) --POVbrigand (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Science blog article: is it a joke? Are we pondering on using blogs as references now? Anyway,we probably need more theoretical astrophysicists like him:
--Insilvis (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Have you actually read Misplaced Pages:PARITY#Parity_of_sources? And what exactly is the significance of the image you link to this discussion? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

P.S.

AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Since there appears to be argument about blogs being allowed, what about this: http://blog.thephoenix.com/BLOGS/talkingpolitics/archive/2011/12/08/romney-hot-for-cold-fusion.aspx

"I do believe in basic science. I believe in participating in space. I believe in analysis of new sources of energy. I believe in laboratories, looking at ways to conduct electricity with -- with cold fusion, if we can come up with it. It was the University of Utah that solved that. We somehow can’t figure out how to duplicate it."

62.30.137.128 (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Or this blog entry from an expert who, according to Mitre Corporation, has been an active participant in the field --POVbrigand (talk) 20:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages practice regarding blogs is normally to avoid using them but there can be exceptions. 'Blog' columns written by journalists in newspapers may be acceptable for example, if subject to normal editorial scrutiny. The point is, as always, that possibly-questionable sources need to be assessed in context for what they are being cited for. We also need to take into account Misplaced Pages:PARITY#Parity_of_sources here. Much of the other content of this article is ultimately derived from one of two sources. Rossi himself is one, and he cannot be seen as remotely reliable as an impartial source for his own device. Most of the remaining mass-media sourcing is derived from Ny Teknik, and even ignoring their increasingly-close involvement with Rossi, Ny Teknik is a technology journal rather than a scientific one, and they show no signs of having the sort of expertise to deal with the subject matter in the level of detail required to justify the claims they have published. In this context, the writings of physicists actually having expertise in the subject-matter even if published in ScienceBlogs may well be acceptable - they are making no extraordinary claims (unlike Rossi and Ny Teknik) but merely demonstrating why mainstream science would be incompatible with the evidence presented regarding the supposed power output of the E-Cat, in combination with the apparent lack of lethal radiation that would be expected from the supposed fusion reaction. I feel that, per Misplaced Pages norms, the careful use of ScienceBlogs would not only be acceptable, but would help restore balance in the article, which is skewed by relying almost exclusively on a few pro-E-Cat sources for its 'science'. However, if there is disagreement regarding this, the correct approach will be to seek outside input, rather than bickering amongst ourselves: WP:RSN would seem the appropriate venue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Further to this, as Binksternet notes above, the Wall Street Journal has chosen to publish a link to the ScienceBlogs article, which can only be interpreted as recognition of its credibility . I think at this point, we should stop discussing if we use the article, and instead concentrate on how. If anyone wishes to dispute this usage, they are of course entitled to take the matter to WP:RSN - but I'd recommend reading the relevant policy etc first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

That's easy. Use the blog to compose a brief section on nickel-to-copper physics, including Thieberger's major reasons why the E-Cat cannot be doing what is claimed. Binksternet (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Is the Wall Street Journal really a reliable source for this? Of course it is, sorry too much exposure to the euro debacle.... 62.30.137.128 (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I have now added a section on the Siegel and Thieberger article to the 'Evaluation of the device' section. Can I suggest that anyone wishing to question the suitability of the source does so at WP:RS/N - there is little point in going over the same ground here. Policy and practice seems clear, and per Misplaced Pages:PARITY#Parity_of_sources, there is no requirement for stronger sourcing of mainstream science responses to fringe 'science' claims, and that indeed, WP:FRINGE requires such material to correct an otherwise unbalanced article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Having read the blog in question it clearly demonstrates how and why Nickel-Hydrogen fusion does not occur in stars, not leaving room for any thoughts that the reaction may be a low energy one as LENR suggests. Other research indicates that ultra low momentum neutrons may be at the heart of low energy nuclear reactions I know that this article can in no way be used here (as it does not reference the e-cat or rossi specifically). However I think that it is a demonstration that these scientists may be nuclear physicists, yet they have no background in an understanding of many of the explanations that have begun to surface that explain how LENR works. Basically a blog by scientists who, despite being nuclear physicists, have little or no background in the actual field of LENR, should not be reviewed as a reliable source. 118.93.230.190 (talk) 11:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. And ridiculously illogical. It is obvious that these scientists aren't experts in things they don't know anything about. But so is everybody. It is for those claiming expertise in a field to demonstrate that their theories are valid - indeed to demonstrate anything at all, beyond the usual dubious and unrepeatable 'experiments'. The ScienceBlogs article is cited because it is based on mainstream physics, which does produce results, and makes no claims at all, beyond pointing out that such physics indicates once again that Rossi's wild assertions are worthless unless backed up with evidence. Widom-Larsen theory is irrelevant here, and the source you cite doubly so, given that it is written by the "President and CEO of Lattice Energy LLC". AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeong E. Kim paper

I have added the preprint paper from Yeong E. Kim. As per parity of sources. If we lower the standard to allow a blog to illustrate to mainstream view, then there cannot be an objection to using a preprint to at least illustrate that theoretical explanations are in work, without going into detail. Comparison of the amount of text between the mainstream view and the fringe view should make arguing undue weight impossible, after all this article is about a fringe topic. So before you delete this section, also bring the whole package to WP:RS/N --POVbrigand (talk) 07:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

That is nonsense. We are not 'lowering standards', we are following them. Or if we aren't, you should raise the matter at RS/N, as I have repeatedly suggested. The Kim paper states clearly that it is a "preliminary theoretical" explanation, "based on incomplete experimental information". He states in his conclusion that "In order to explore validity and to test predictions of the generalized BECNF theory for the hydrogen-metal system, it is very important to carry out Rossi-type experiments independently in order to establish what are exact inputs and outputs of each experiment". On this basis, you are seriously misrepresenting the source as making claims it most categorically does not. Your addition is also extremely ambiguous as to what it is 'explaining' anyway - unsurprising, as the Kim preprint is an unassessed primary source written for a specialist audience, and as such, to claim that it 'explains' anything at all is misleading. Do you understand the physics involved? Do you expect our readers to? I am not going to get involved in ridiculous arguments about 'the whole package' - sources are assessed on their own merits, and not on the basis of bogus arguments about 'parity', and gross misrepresentations of sources. On this basis, per WP:BRD, I am going to delete your additions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure you find 1000 reasons why that bit about Kim shouldn't be in. I think that noting the existence of a preprint paper from a Professor of Physics and Group Leader of the Purdue Nuclear and Many-Body Theory Group that explicitely mentions Rossi's device as an example that theoretical proposals are being made is fair and not violating NPOV. And if you would give a damn about wp-policies instead of pushing your POV you could easily understand that a preprint from a physics prof who authored or co-authored over 200 referred scientific journal publications should be at least on par with a science blog.

I am not saying Kim has the right theory. I am only giving an example of a proposed theory that according to the authors might describe what is going on in the Rossi ecat.

I will put it back in and I invite you to rewrite it until it suits your view. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The Kim paper is not shown to be notable. It's a primary source. Find a secondary source that quotes it. Binksternet (talk) 15:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Go read the policy first "On Misplaced Pages, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article." Misplaced Pages:Notability#Notability_guidelines_do_not_limit_content_within_an_article --POVbrigand (talk) 15:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Non-notable Prof. with non-published paper on fringe topic fails on so many levels. Stop with the fringe POV pushing insanity already. Please. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 15:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Exclusion on the basis that their work lacks peer review is not allowed according WP:FRINGE. Non-notable is bogus: He is Professor of Physics Group Leader, Purdue Nuclear and Many-Body Theory Group and Fellow APS. I could call the same thing about the authors of the blog. --POVbrigand (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The Siegel and Thieberger article is presenting non-controversial mainstream science in a manner understandable to a non-specialist audience. Kim's paper is a specialist preliminary primary source that explicitly states it is a "theoretical analyses... Based on incomplete experimental information". Sources aren't assessed for reliability in the abstract, but for what they are being used to support. The two are in no way equivalent. Still if you wish to dispute what you have been told is the position, take it to WP:RSN. There is no point repeating the same arguments here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree to that description of the blog and I think the adding of the blog was a good thing for the article. The only thing I want to do is show that the fringe side is also producing theoretical ideas on the device. --POVbrigand (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

You are clearly in the minority here. If you can't accept that, take it to WP:RSN. And BTW, I don't think that lumping Kim in with a 'fringe side' that includes the likes of Rossi is exactly complementary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I noted that I am in the minority, and maybe you have noted that I stopped reverting. You see, contrary your picture of me I am not an idiot. I am not your typical Free energy POV pusher, I still have the WP-reader in mind. I still think the the device is not scientifically proven and I like to whole circus about it. I don't want to lump in Kim with the fringe side, but I was afraid you wouldn't be able to differentiate anything which isn't mainstream. --POVbrigand (talk) 17:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

So, in the article about the device, we cannot mention that preliminary theoretical explanations are proposed ? --POVbrigand (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Not without a secondary to give it some support. Otherwise we'd be reporting on my experiments with Andy's unicorn poop idea. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I want some unicorn poop! Let me in to the secret unicorn cabal, please. Binksternet (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Initiation fee is one unicorn (any color). ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh come on, everybody knows that Andy's ideas are not to be taken seriously, at least not here on wikipedia. --POVbrigand (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is your unicorn. Can we have Kim in now ? --POVbrigand (talk) 11:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Just wondering why James Randi's video is considered a reliable source and linked from the article, where Prof. Kim's is not? Although Mr Randi is certainly notable, why put more value on his opinion? 62.30.137.128 (talk) 18:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Because Prof Kim's article is a speculative primary source for a specialist audience, being (mis)used to support an extremely controversial claim? Randi, on the other hand, is merely expressing an opinion shared by many others - and he is certainly qualified to speak on the subject of pseudoscience, and on fringe claims. As always, it isn't just a question of what the source is, but what it is being used to support. Of course, we could exclude all the opinions in this article - though that wouldn't leave much content at all. The fact is that Rossi has so far refused to allow proper scientific assessment of his device, so material such as Kim's can only be speculative. If Rossi wants scientific backing for his claims, he should provide the information necessary, and as long as he doesn't, scepticism is entirely justifiable.

(Incidentally, pure OR this, but Prof Kim's paper explicitly mentions the emission of gamma-rays in some of the possible reactions he describes - there is nothing to say that the Kim paper and the ScienceBlog article can't both be correct. Maybe one of the reactions described by Kim could result in cold fusion, but only in conjunction with potentially-lethal gamma radiation! Of course, we can assume that this isn't occurring in Rossi's device - or if it is, he won't be about for much longer...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

"a speculative primary source for a specialist audience, being (mis)used to support an extremely controversial claim?" isn't that what WP:FRINGE is all about. We should inform the WP-reader that theories are being proposed, theories that are not mainstream science. We should not discuss Kim's claim only mention as an example that non mainstream theories are being proposed. That is what FRINGE is all about. You are inventing new rules to have it your way. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Citing Kim is giving him undue weight. Binksternet (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how citing Prof. Kim gives him "undue weight". According to: http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/yekim.shtml, he's eminently qualified, and is notable for presenting a paper at a major conference that explicitly mentions Rossi. From a simple google search of his name, he's certainly notable. 62.30.137.128 (talk) 07:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

And where does WP:FRINGE support the misuse of sources? As for 'inventing new rules', for the last time, stop making claims like this here. If you think this is true, raise it at the appropriate noticeboard. Endlessly making such assertions, while refusing to provide evidence, is anything but good faith, and achieves nothing beyond increasing animosity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Please provide the policy that supports: "a speculative primary source for a specialist audience, being (mis)used to support an extremely controversial claim?" --POVbrigand (talk) 07:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

There isn't one, so we won't use it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Can we get a review source on the reflective spectrum's non-whiteness for unicorn poop? I've heard a rumor about an unpublished paper saying the poop's rainbow appearance recomposes to white, but a non-notable fringemonger says it's brown! Clearly this is vital content for the encyclopedia. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. So your analogy equates Mr Rossi's nickel powder and catalyst to unicorn poop, and compares Prof. Kim unfavourably too. Some people might think that rude, arrogant, and ignorant. 62.30.137.128 (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

There is as much evidence of unicorns as there is of the energy catalyzer working, i.e none. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

That is a ludicrous assertion! It's the equivalent of internet trolling, making facetious comments designed to both antagonise, derail the topic of this section, and suit your point of view. There is plenty of evidence were you to actually read any of the technical reports that are available. 62.30.137.128 (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

For example, this: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf, which was published on nyteknik. This isn't a rave review, but negates the unicorn comparison. 62.30.137.128 (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the anti fringe editors can get away with that, because if you were to show up in a noticeboard and complain you will be laughed out of court. After all it is clear who is wrong and who is right when it comes to editing fringe. On the other hand if you use the wrong words at them you will be dragged to the noticeboard and blocked indefinitely before you can say "wikipedia spirit" --POVbrigand (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm lost. When exactly did we start to consider that coughing up twenty bucks a month to an ISP such as that constituted evidence that someone was publishing a wp:RS? LeadSongDog come howl! 20:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I never stated it was a WP:RS but the numbers and calculations within make sense (to me at least ;). And since when do you equate cost of hosting to reliable source? 62.30.137.128 (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

He has a disclaimer on his home page Note - everything here is created by an unqualified amateur, and beyond that an amateur prone to making mistakes and having lapses of memory! Also, many of the “new energy “ ideas are of course lunatic fringe. Also this source isn't even a blog. It's a 1995 style home page. Bhny (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Most company websites / e-mails have disclaimers these days; all you've got to do in this instance is get a calculator, some simple equations, and work the numbers... oh, I agree that many of the ideas are 'lunatic fringe' but thermodynamics isn't. As for 'the website is so 1995', how ridiculous: most of the most wonderful scientific ideas were way prior to that :) And congratulations on successfully diverting from Prof. Kim's paper, which is *STILL* valid to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.137.128 (talk) 23:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Information on US patent activity:

Why was the paragraph I added regarding US patent prosecution deleted? It was a series of statemented facts. What does "OR/synthesis" mean? What qualifies a 'non-notable blog'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.137.19 (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump thinks it's original research rather than from a reference. You need a reference that talks about the inadequacies of the patent. I took out the wiki link on Rossi's blog because there's no wiki page for it and not likely to ever be one, but then Andy deleted the whole paragraph. I'm sure he'll be here soon to explain further Bhny (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that, without a reliable source pointing out the problems with Rossi's patent applications, it is original research and/or synthesis to link the patents with the relevant legislation etc - and thus not permitted in articles. We aren't saying you are wrong in making the connections, and pointing out the flaws - I've thought much the same thing myself - but simply that we can't add this unless outside sources say the same thing. Sadly, some people seem to be under the impression that patents confer credibility on inventions - they don't, and it would be less misleading in my opinion not to discuss them at all in articles unless they were actually seen of some significance in relation to the topic. Others disagree, however. This has been a rather contentious article, and we have to ensure that, as far as is possible, it is all properly sourced, and avoid coming to conclusions ourselves. This is the way Misplaced Pages works, and while it can be frustrating at times to have to avoid stating the obvious because we can't find an independent source, there isn't any other way that won't lead to us imposing our own opinions and bias. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I've done a lot of editing of article about historic inventions (telephone, electric lights, electric motors) and have argued that there is some merit in claims to be the "true inventor" of something in having patented an invention and publicly demonstrated it, and explained its details and principles of operation, as opposed to some rival claimant who did neither, but pops up with testimony from his friends and neighbors that he really invented it years before the successful inventor, but only demonstrated it to his friends and relatives. If we were looking back on who really invented the present invention, the patent would be an important datum. But we are still at the stage of determining whether there is any new and useful invention, and in that argument a patent is not strong evidence. Edison (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I see these points you're making, but I did try to be careful to remain precisely factual. It is a fact that he is claiming catalytic materials in the processes, and it is a fact that he has said he will not reveal this. Is that not OK to put so far? So, then, is it not also germane to mention that US applications require a 'best mode requirement' . It is a matter of fact that he has committed himself to a patent application procedure that will require him to reveal the formulation of his catalysts. There must be some sensible way of saying this, as it is germane to the position he has adopted, which is that he has stated he does not see any reason to reveal the catalyse formulations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.137.19 (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, see WP:OR: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources". Rossi provides 'A' - a statement that he hasn't revealed his catalyst in the patent. The patent legislation provides 'B' - a requirement that patent applications contain pertinent facts. 'C' however is an assertion that 'A' involves a contravention of 'B' - and neither 'A' nor 'B' mention this. We aren't here to conduct investigations into the validity of patents. Yes, Rossi's patent applications look flawed to me, but my opinion is neither here nor there unless I can find a source that says the same thing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes we should not be adding synthesis, if a reliable independent source makes the connection then we can (if it has due weight). IRWolfie- (talk) 10:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

What AndyTheGrump wrote is right. Especially because Rossi states that the system works also WITHOUT the "secret" catalyst. So, according to the words of Rossi, the secret catalyst just amplifies the effects but it is not a necessity. And this can be the reason why Rossi is confident that his patent will be accepted. The so-called "best mode requirement" is required only in the US, and can be circumvented if the inventor can demonstrate that further improvements on his invention were undiscovered at the time the application was filed.--79.11.2.27 (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Nope. I'm right because I'm citing Misplaced Pages policy, not because of anything that Rossi states. He makes many claims, often contradictory. None of them have any bearing on what goes into the article, unless seen as relevant by reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

On this, I'm going to need to side with Andy here. An official reply from some place like the USPTO or some reporter who has interviewed the actual patent reviewer or some other patent official about the application by Rossi would count as a "reliable source". So far, I don't see anything even resembling that sort of reliability and I'm not even sure if a patent application is even being attempted for that matter. I won't speculate any further as that is "original research" as well... even though I do have strong opinions on this topic. I think in this case time will tell what is going on here, and Misplaced Pages will still be around two or three years from now... even if Rossi and the E-cat may not be. --Robert Horning (talk) 01:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Andy's got it right. We go by reliable secondary sources; everything else is noise. Binksternet (talk) 01:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Sadly, some people seem to be under the impression that patents confer credibility on inventions - they don't

Well, the article certainly implies that they do when it says "An international patent application has received an unfavorable international preliminary report on patentability because it seemed to "offend against the generally accepted laws of physics and established theories" and to overcome this problem the application should have contained either experimental evidence or a firm theoretical basis in current scientific theories." 86.179.7.53 (talk) 01:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

No, that's the reverse implication. When an examiner considers the invention cannot work for fundamental physical reasons (conservation of energy, etc.) it will not be considered patentable. Many other inventions that can't work for other reasons are granted patents which are only shown to be invalid when subsequently tested in court. And sometimes an examiner misses a fundamental reason why it can't work. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that according to this they do some checking, so the granting of a patent lends some crediblity. Doesn't definitely mean it will work, but more credible than without one. Stands to reason, if what the article says is true. 86.181.170.34 (talk) 01:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not use patents to establish credibility. Binksternet (talk) 01:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Patent examiners don't check that anything will 'work'. All they check is that it appears to be a valid patent, per the legal requirements - and even that is provisional, until the patent's legality is tested in court. In any case, none of this is relevant to article content. A patent is a primary source, written by a non-neutral party. Its existence confers no credibility whatsoever to its claims: see this one as evidence... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

"However in 2009 a presentation was given"

"US Military: A Credible Candidate As eCat Customer". ecatnews.com. December 16, 2011.

One presentation by one scientist working for SPAWAR doesn't change the fact that cold fusion is still viewed as pathological/mistaken/etc by most scientists. Cold_fusion#Ongoing_scientific_work already reflects that there are some scientists working inside SPAWAR. There is no official SPAWAR announcement saying that cold fusion should now be considered an established science. Let's not confuse the position of research institutions with the position of individual people inside those institutions. And let's not confuse "we are researching this" with "this research is now accepted by the scientific community as reputable". --Enric Naval (talk) 11:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

And ecatnews.com isn't a reliable source, by any stretch of the imagination. To use a source like this to assert that there is "Proof of Cold Fusion" in a section heading is bordering on delusion... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's not mislead the reader into thinking SPAWAR officially endorses the device. Binksternet (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Proof of Cold Fusion

The following text has been removed three times by different people.

And I've been sent a message that I'm in danger of breaking a three times revert rule!

The latest Undo comment us utterly laughable 'TenOfAllTrades (talk | contribs)‎ (38,515 bytes) (Undid revision 467077845 by Solmil (talk) Misplaced Pages isn't the place to promulgate your personal "Truth and Real Science")

This statement is a totally emotive ridiculous illogical statement. How can promulgation of my personal "Truth and Real Science" be in anyway associated with completely unrelated and independent scientific information supplied from SPAWAR and other agencies.

It would appear that Truth and Real Science are something very few people want to hear in this particular Misplaced Pages community.

It appears that the subject of 'Cold Fusion' in their minds is Religious, since these people removing this information seem unwilling to admit hard true independent scientific evidence into this article.

I would ask any sane intelligent human being to watch the video, particularly from 46.0 onwards to obtain hard evidence of repeatable experiments by numerous scientific communities as to the reality of 'Cold Fusion'.

Solmil (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Just because we don't fully understand the Universe, is not sufficient a reason for the Universe not to exist.

What may be currently missing is a theory that explains these scientifically proven facts.

In general Cold Fusion has received world wide derision from most communities, particularly the scientific community. However in 2009 a presentation was given by The Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) which gives clear independent repeatable hard evidence of Cold Fusion.

Solmil (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Enric Naval already advised you to review Cold_fusion#Ongoing_scientific_work, and noted in reverting you that your summary placed extraordinary undue weight on a single presentation. You draw a conclusion that is far outside the scientific mainstream – apparently with the same religious fervor you're so eager to decry in others – based on limited and contentious evidence. Such statements don't generally belong in Misplaced Pages, and particularly don't belong in this article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes - and labelling a section "Proof of Cold Fusion" when it is nothing of the sort is ludicrous. You have been told to review Misplaced Pages policies on sourcing, undue weight, fringe claims etc, but instead you persist in foisting your own credulous opinions upon us. If mainstream science recognises cold fusion as real, so will Misplaced Pages - your dispute is with science, not with us. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Has any one of you guys who continually debase my addition of knowledge into this forum actually bothered to watch the video that I suggest? I actually doubt it. I doubt it because your comments don't stand up logically. If you did (watch the video) you would find your own comments are baseless. Why? Because numerous INDEPENDENT reliable scientific institutions have confirmed the existence of Cold Fusion.

Your religion of disbelief is a funny thing. Rossi is actually delivering Cold Fusion while you all religiously tell us it doesn't exist. He has the correct strategy. Time will tell.

Solmil (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Time already has told - cranks and conmen have been promoting magic teapots, the philosophers stone, and other nonsense for most of recorded history. Time tells us that they don't deliver. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll give you guys 24 hours to watch the video and report back. If there is no message in this forum by then, my assumption of your emotive religious unscientific thought processes will statistically (in all probability) be proved correct. If you do watch it (the video) there is hard scientific evidence of multiple independent consistent repeatable proof of Cold Fusion. If you're short of time, just go directly to 46.3 on the video. If you don't watch it, I'll just give up on you mob and stop wasting my time and let you continue with your faery stories. To Truth and the Golden Age of Humanity I drink! Solmil (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, another fighter for Truth. Let me save you 24 hours of waiting and say that you can give up on us today. Binksternet (talk) 22:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Yup. Go peddle your magic beans elsewhere. Heard it all before. BTW, read Projection (psychology) - you might learn something. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Solmil, just to inform that the team here takes pride in insulting anyone who "pushes" the "wrong" side of the story. Don't let yourself get tricked in overreacting, that is what they are after and they will drag you to a noticeboard and have you blocked indefinitely before you can say "wikipedia spirit". Stay Cool --POVbrigand (talk) 23:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

1. SPAWAR "US Military: A Credible Candidate As eCat Customer". ecatnews.com. December 16, 2011.

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class physics articles
• Mid-importance physics articles
• Start-Class physics articles of Mid-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