Talk:Energy Catalyzer

declaring connected contributor status

I am preparing a paper for possible publication ... arxiv? ICCF? .. based on information in the Levi et al report. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1305/1305.3913.pdf

I am therefore probably disqualified from contributing to this article (I heartily endorse the recent changes, particularly bumping Bardi out of the lead.)

This potential paper relates ONLY to the Hotcat as described by Levi et al, so I am NOT posting a declaration in Cold Fusion. Alanf777 (talk) 23:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Heads-up : 3rd party report preprint -- pending a RS

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1305/1305.3913.pdf Preprint, not yet known who is publishing it. Alanf777 (talk) 10:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

If and when the paper gets commentary in published reliable sources, it may well merit mention in the article. For now, as a primary source, there are no grounds for inclusion, as far as I can see. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

That's why a gave a heads-up in talk, rather than putting it in the article. Alanf777 (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

NyTeknik, in Swedish http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3697489.ece Alanf777 (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Why doesn't that surprise me...? As has been mentioned before, there are reasons to be a little wary of citing Ny Teknik yet again as a source, in that they seemed to be conducting a previous test themselves, rather than reporting on results - and Ny Teknik staff appear not to be qualified to conduct such tests. If we are to cite anything regarding this, it should however be Ny Teknik, rather than the paper - as a non-peer-reviewed submission, and a primary source, we must avoid giving undue weight to the paper itself, unless and until it is peer-reviewed, published, and receives independent notice. If the claims made are borne out, I'm sure that at some point there will be plenty more in the way of sourcing available, and meanwhile we should avoid the frantic rush to include questionable material that has happened with every previous supposed claim of 'proof' regarding the E-Cat. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Aside from the one Ny Teknik reporter who still doesn't know when to cut his losses and admit that he's been duped, is there any meaningful press coverage? Of course not. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Unreviewed Arxiv preprints are essentially self-published sources. While a specific and thorough critique of the document is beyond the scope of this comment (and not worth my time, and not required to determine that this is an unreliable source), I will note that it is obvious that this document isn't intended to ever be published in a peer-reviewed academic journal; the format and style, omissions of details, dubious or missing controls, and paucity of references all demonstrate that this is intended as a promotional propaganda piece, rather than a serious scientific work.

To take just one example, Plots 3 through 8 are an extensive case of the lady doth protest to much, methinks. Essentially, power output (interpreted from the surface temperature of the device) is plotted against time and against power input to the device's resistive heating coils. We are instructed to believe that if the temperature changes at the surface of the device were due to resistive heating alone, it should follow the heating and cooling curves of a generic resistor element (Plots 4, 5, 6), with abrupt changes in the rate of heating or cooling as the resistive heaters are turned off or on, and asymptotic approaches to steady-state minimum and maximum temperatures – instead of the more sinusoidal pattern of temperatures observed. We are prompted to draw the conclusion that resistive heating alone cannot explain the data.

What is completely neglected, however, is any attempt to account for the heat capacity of the device or the insulating effect of the housing around it—both factors which would tend to damp (and delay) swings in temperature and which could readily yield exactly the surface temperature vs. time profiles observed.

The 'control' experiment, performed with a 'dummy' device, could not do a better job of concealing this problem if it had be deliberately designed to do so. The 'dummy' device was missing the fuel charge and container, giving it a lower mass and heat capacity. Worse, instead of cycling the resistive heater element on to full power and off again every few minutes (as was done for the 'real' device), power was increased in small increments and the device was allowed to reach thermal equilibrium after each small increase in input power. The incremental increase in input power would make it difficult to discern the shape of the heating curve, but that's irrelevant because the document doesn't provide this information anyway. Not one plot of temperature versus time and input power is shown, frustrating any attempt to glean the smallest bit of information about how the device would actually respond to resistive heating in the manner used in the experimental runs. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

There IS a plot (fig 7) of output power and input power vs time, plus formulae for calculating output power from temperature -- so the information is there, albeit not exactly how you would like it.

I agree that the comparison with an RC circuit is wrong (and irrelevant) : because that assumes a linear resistor. But the radiation loss goes as T^4 --- I would be VERY surprised to see a shape like an RC exponential. Anyway, this isn't a forum, so I'll let it sit for a while, and see who else picks up the story Alanf777 (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

There have been multiple additions on this. I added the Nyteknik link to the latest. Alanf777 (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The material as currently written appears not to be backed up by the sources. Ny Teknik qoutes (going by Google translation) one of the experimenters as saying "We do not draw any conclusions...". How can our article then state that there were "very positive results"? I'd call that a conclusion. Also, it is not normal to include inline links, particularly ones labelled 'much more extensive investigation'. Who's opinion is that? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The information isn't there for the control, which was my point. They don't present – and it looks like they carefully avoided collecting – any data on what the temperature (or power output) versus time curve would look like for a control device that received the same cyclic resistive heating. Either way, though, the problem is that we only have this self-published report, and the same credulous reporter from Ny Teknik. It's not appropriate for us to announce the opinion of the one reporter (and the same reporter every damn time) who falls for a story that nobody else is buying; that's a terrible WP:WEIGHT violation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The fact that the results cannot be verified without the magic pixie dust secret "catalyst" makes the paper worthless for anything other than advertising. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a "black box" (or should I say "red-hot-box") test whose only aim is to establish the existence and magnitude of excess heat. Alanf777 (talk) 23:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

REF : also http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Rossi-Vindicated-E-Cat-Tested-by-Third-Party-Investigation.html : search site:en.wikipedia.org "oilprice.com" indicates it's referenced 34 times (oops .. 35 times) in wiki articles. I think that qualifies as a RS. Alanf777 (talk) 23:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

http://oilprice.com/about-us "About Us

OilPrice.com is the fastest growing energy news site online. Our analysis focuses on Oil and Gas, Alternative Energy and Geopolitics. We have 3 in house writers and publish research from over 150 contributors. OilPrice works with over 250 syndication partners who re-publish our analysis. Some of our partners are: Zerohedge, Business Insider, Forbes, 24/7 Wall St, Arab News, The Street, Rigzone, Mining.com, Mineweb, Minyanville, Stockhouse + many others...

I think that lets the report in. Alanf777 (talk) 23:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The thing is, we shouldn't be trying to game a bad report into a Wikipedia article based on scraping low-impact websites. (Pageview numbers are readily available on OilPrice's site. The author of that article typically gets fewer than two thousand hits on each of his posts; I've posted YouTube clips that have gotten more views.) Where's the BBC? The New York Times? Scientific American? Nature? The fact remains, it's a crappy report, and it's only getting coverage from crappy, credulous outlets. It's certainly possible that OilPrice is being over-cited elsewhere on Wikipedia. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It's particularly worrying that in a nine-sentence article, the OilPrice author (Charles Kennedy) manages to make at least two errors in his description of the experiment ("cameras were used to record the heat inside the reaction tube"—no, they measured the surface temperature of the vessel only, there was no measurement of internal temperature; "electrical power output was measured suing a large bandwidth three-phase power analyser"—no, there was no electrical power output from the device, only input...of course, now that my attention has been drawn to it, I do wonder about the accuracy of their power measurements, as the input power for the resistance coils employed an "industrial trade secret waveform") along with several typos, formatting and grammatical errors suggesting that his 'article' is really more of a badly-proofread blog post. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I've gone to WP:RS/N for consideration there. Mangoe (talk) 01:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Since Mark Gibbs is in the current lede/lead ... maybe THIS will suffice? http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/ Alanf777 (talk) 03:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

And it's another damn blogger. The guy writes posts about cellular phones and social networking; he's not qualified or competent to comment on nuclear physics. Once again, it's an entirely credulous recitation of the report's claims, without any hint of critical commentary or attempt to seek independent comment—you know, journalism. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Gee ... he's good enough for the lead as long as he's critical? Extensive quote added to the article. I have a strange feeling I can get a release for the quote. Alanf777 (talk) 04:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I cut back the quote to a fair use 3 sentences/paragraphs. I can get a formal release after a month. Alanf777 (talk) 04:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see why the ENTIRE quote was deleted. I added a follow-on to the Lead. Alanf777 (talk) 05:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

One could say that Wolf Blitzer isn't qualified or competent to do anything besides report the news, but I doubt that would stop his coverage from being considered RS. If you read Mark Gibbs' article you'll see that it's written in an NPOV manner. No one's trying to masquerade this report as something that's gone though the peer-review process of a respected scientific journal. Why not present it in an honest manner for what it is? After all, it was written by reputable scientists who I'd assume ARE competent to report on nuclear physics. From where I'm standing it seems the only reason you want it excluded is to satisfy your decidedly POV stance on the topic. Wikimart333 (talk) 04:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

"who I'd assume ARE competent to report on nuclear physics", I'd suggest looking up their publications and see what fields they are in. It makes for interesting reading, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ha, it claims the authors are independent, just search the archives for Giuseppe Levi to see how independent he is ^^. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Gibbs isn't even self-consistent in the article. He describes the test as "independent", and then goes on to say that "The authors... weren’t in control of all of the aspects of the process". What sort of 'independence' is that? Regardless of whether we report this latest Rossi 'demonstration' at all, we can't cite Gibbs for an assertion that it was 'independent' while he hedges it with qualifications (and note the 'hoax' get-out clause at the end of the piece). And note also that Gibbs seems to think that LENR is some sort of recognised scientific phenomenon one can summarise in a few words, rather than the highly-contentious and speculative field it clearly is. He simply isn't knowledgeable enough to assess the validity of the paper. Not that he seems to be trying to. This is little more than a recycled press release. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, regarding the original arXiv paper, I have to ask whether it is normal scientific practice to use Wikipedia as a source? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The answer to that is no; it is not normal for a scientific paper to cite Wikipedia. Also I would like to suggest a principle that, as a safeguard against the danger of circular chains of citation, Wikipedia should never cite a source that cites Wikipedia. Cardamon (talk) 23:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

In this case, Wikipedia is a very minor source and only significant so far as Wikipedia is the data source for a chart made up of compiled data found elsewhere. I don't see any danger in a circular reference happening here... even though I'd agree that the e-Cat and its proponents seem to be trying to astroturf Wikipedia for the purposes of establishing circular references just like you are warning about. The main problem is that this paper isn't being sent through normal publishing channels and being reviewed by independent editors... other than those who are bothering here on Wikipedia. I'd have to agree with the above sentiment that this is little more than a press release dressed up like a scientific paper. --Robert Horning (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Any sort of use of a paper that cites wikipedia in some way is unsuitable for wikipedia, see WP:CIRCULAR. It's pretty much a blanket ban. The issue is that we would never know if they only relied on wikipedia for the image alone or included common knowledge information that doesn't usually need a cite, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Circular references are the most important problem of the "E-Cat", that's why I proposed this article for the deletion last year. But really, the wikipedia citation in [1] is the best. The COP now is around 3, why is a factor of 197 of the beginning reports missing? I still wonder how is it possible to proceed in this way with the supposed discovery of the century. If it is not an hoax, an ignobel will be definitely assigned for the E-Cat. By the way, coming back to wikipedia, pay attention that we are talking always of the same people: Rossi, Focardi, Levi, Essén ... so this is not an independent report. TheNextFuture (talk) 13:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not it's a hoax, an ignobel is a definite possibility. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it can win any awards as it is unknown outside of blogs and this article. Its whole existence depends on circular references. It is strange that things built on nothing can persist for years Bhny (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

For Google Trends Comparison for Ignobel and E-Cat, see [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellulpatrick (talk • contribs) 00:44, 26 May 2013 AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for providing such a convincing illustration of how each of Rossi's new circus tricks attracts less attention than the previous one. Unfortunately, as original research, we can't include it in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The abstract of Brian Josephson's E-Cat Video on the Cambridge Website, linked already in the External Links section, has been updated to note that "Towards the end of 2012, it was claimed that 'an independent third party' was carrying out tests on a new version of the reactor. Eventually, in May 2013, their very favourable report was uploaded to the physics preprint archive". see [3] Ellulpatrick (talk) 00:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The Test is a blackbox test. It was not meant to validate science but rather show that something was creating energy with a significant higher power density than previously seen. We should focus only on criticisms regarding the blackbox nature of the test. Anything to do with LENR / Cold Fusion / reactants / etc, is irrelevant for this paper. It could be hamsters for all we care. The fact is, the test is claiming anomalous energy production and that's all that matters. Let's revert any comments about the TEST that distract from the subject at hand. Siegel's comments regarding reactants are not a critique of the test. The fact that box remained plugged in and that the testers didn't control the original energy source (so that they could properly measure it), shows that it could be rigged. Critiques around measuring the energy given off are also relevant. Anything else which doesn't criticize energy measurement (input/output) is a sideshow and feeds argument that the skeptical language being used is NON CREDIBLE (and in many eyes, evidence that Rossi is real) 24.207.125.44 (talk) 13:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC) Also, language such as "supposedly independent" is very passive. You can say "Siegel argues that the independency is in question" and then cite, but altering the voice of this article to fit his perspective is very weird.24.207.125.44 (talk) 13:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

As long as the test is presented as science (which submitting it to arXiv clearly does), any scientific criticism is valid. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not valid. You don't criticize a paper for something it's not trying to claim. Nowhere did the paper make claims about what was inside the blackbox. It's sort of weak reasoning which is giving fuel to those who say that the skeptics do not know what they're talking about. It's important to appreciate, that unlike the Forbes article, Siegel's post does not have to make it past an editor or a fact checker. 24.207.125.44 (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

" ... but rather show that something was creating energy with a ...", black box plugged into a wall can't show that. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

PhysOrg article, plus comment from Ethan Siegel's blog

EDIT: IRWolfie- removed the PhysOrg article so I had to revert it. IRWolfie also pointed out that this comment from Ethan Siegel:

Subsequently, Siegel added that there was not enough Nickel-62 and Nickel-64 (the only two isotopes which can fuse with hydrogen), at 3.6% and 0.9% respectively, in the reactants to explain the 10% copper output. The 10% copper also had the ratio found in nature, not after fusion. Siegel pointed out that Rossi did not allow the reactants or products to be measured and noted that "Rossi also refused to unplug the machine while it was operating" despite it being an easy way to surreptitiously power the device, and that the "independent" testers had to rely on data supplied "from the manufacturer".

should be inserted onto the "Test" section instead of being placed on the "Reactions to the claims" section. The problem with this quotation from Siegel's blog is that it has nothing to do with the actual tests. Siegel wrote about:

• Nickel62 and Nickel64 - which are not even mentioned in the paper
• 10% copper output - which is not even mentioned in the paper
• fusion (ie nuclear fusion) - which is not even mentioned in the paper
• products (ie transmutation products from the reaction) - which are not even mentioned in the paper

moreover Siegel suggested that the scientists who performed the tests were "circumvented" by Rossi who - according to Siegel - was secretly supply hidden power to the E-Cat during the tests. It should be reminded that the tests are simply calorimetric measurements, as the title of the paper pointed out clearly: "Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device". So these tests were not performed in order to establish HOW the E-Cat works - as Siegel's comment seems to suggest -, they were performed only to establish IF the E-Cat works, ie if the E-Cat releases more energy than the input amount. Therefore this comment from Siegel is a mere potshot at the entire story concerning the E-Cat and has nothing to do with a critique regarding the paper in itself. Hence it is more appropriate to let his potshot on the "Reactions to the claims" section. --Insilvis (talk) 05:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

PhysOrg is almost never a wp:RS. They are simply a news aggregator without fact checking. LeadSongDog come howl! 06:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Then it should be submitted to WP:RS/N. There are other articles from PhysOrg which are on the page so it would be better to establish if PhysOrg can be used as legit source or not. (P.S. what about Siegel's blog?) --Insilvis (talk) 06:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

scienceblogs are generally reliable, and usaully used for the authors opinions. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not for you to decide what part of Siegel's comment is really relevant, nor is it for you to perform your own little flawed analysis of the source in that way. He said it with respect to the current test so in that section it goes. He is pointing out flaws with past tests, and noting how Rossi has forbidden people to get those measurements now in the current test. Moving that into a different section makes no sense, and sounds like you want to stop people pointing out flaws in the current test, IRWolfie- (talk) 08:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Bhny removed I think you meant IRWolfie Bhny (talk) 09:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, my fault. Corrected immediately--Insilvis (talk) 10:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

User:IRWolfie removed the PhysOrg article again, so I had to revert it again. At the moment PhysOrg is considered to be a ligitimate source, so there is no reason to delete it. Otherwise submit it to WP:RS/N. --Insilvis (talk) 10:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

stop moving the siegel part around the place. It belongs in that section. The onus is on you to prove a source is reliable, not on us to prove it's unreliable. Scienceblogs is reliable because of its reputation, PhysOrg not so much, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC

please, discuss it here BEFORE reverting! --Insilvis (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:BRD; Bold change, revert discuss. It's not Bold change, revert revert revert. You made a bold change, it was rejected, now discuss it and get consensus, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

You are also being deceptive by surreptitiously deleting mainstream rebuttals from Scienceblogs, which is regarded as reliable and which you don't seem to deny. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

First of all, I did not delete any information. Please, if you want to change the position of the citation from Siegel blog try to do it without deleting the other sources. Maybe you did not notice that, but you are deleting two or three sources during your edits.--Insilvis (talk) 14:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

[4] Siegel magically disappeared then? You are using the arxiv source, despite consensus being against using a circular reference, you are using physorg despite objection to its reliability, and you are deleting unfavourable material or trying to move it away thus violating WP:FRINGE. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I added one source which is the source from PhysOrg. The arxiv source and the PopSci source were added by a5b. As far as I know, PhysOrg is a reliable source. I have already ask you to submit PhysOrg to WP:RS/N if you do not think PhysOrg should be used.--Insilvis (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

PhysOrg is a poor quality source, I will let others chime in on that. You are adding the arxiv and PopSci source, don't try and pass the blame onto others for what is in your own diffs [5]. If you are inserting content into article you have to defend it. You are still not addressing your censorship of critical commentary, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Arxiv's paper is clearly not reliable, but I added it (diff) to the section to allow readers easily go to the arxiv to read the paper discussed. `a5b (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

References are to verify the previous sentence. The section External links is for external links, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but it is easier to find this paper if it is added as footnote just after title “Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device" early in "Test" section (check the diff) `a5b (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

There are also notes, but notes aren't refs: Template:Efn. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, converted to EFN. Should we convert to EFN other SPS links, e.g. to Rossi's SPS blog named "Journal ..."? `a5b (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Insilvis, the http://phys.org/news/2013-05-rossi-e-cat-energy-density-higher.html post from May 23, 2013 is about this arxiv paper too: " In a paper posted at arXiv.org, the researchers write that, ... ". And please, stop the edit war. `a5b (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

to IRWolfie: look, this is the edit made by a5b when he inserted the arxiv source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Energy_Catalyzer&diff=556546492&oldid=556545684

this is the edit when a5b inserted the PopSci source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Energy_Catalyzer&diff=556573068&oldid=556563580

So, a5b added these two, I added the PhysOrg source.

If you do not think PhysOrg should be used then you should submit PhysOrg to WP:RS/N. There are other articles from PhysOrg as references and nobody objected the use of this source since today. This does not mean that things cannot change, I am just underlining that if you decide to remove the source from PhysOrg because it is unreliable then you have to remove also the other sources from PhysOrg as consequence. --Insilvis (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

You re-inserted them, therefore the burden falls on you. You are still not explaining your censorship of the Siegel content, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

IRWolfie, there is your variant of Siegel note, with '====' added by me:

Ethan Siegel commented at scienceblogs saying that in the previous tests there was not enough Nickel-62 and Nickel-64 (the only two isotopes which can fuse with hydrogen), at 3.6% and 0.9% respectively, in the reactants to explain the 10% copper output. The 10% copper also had the ratio found in nature, not after fusion. ==== In the current test, Rossi did not allow the reactants or products to be measured. Siegel noted that "Rossi also refused to unplug the machine while it was operating" despite it being an easy way to surreptitiously power the device, and that the "independent" testers had to rely on data supplied "from the manufacturer". [34]

But the arxiv paper is not about nickel; so First part (up to ====) of this quote should be saved at other section. And second part of this blockquote (after ====) is about current test from arxiv. So, we can split parts and move second part to the "Test" section, keeping the "ref name=Siegel2" in both places. Insilvis, what you think about such variant? `a5b (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I think that Siegel's comment should be treated in an extreme careful way. This is the entire bit:

Subsequently, Siegel added that there was not enough Nickel-62 and Nickel-64 (the only two isotopes which can fuse with hydrogen), at 3.6% and 0.9% respectively, in the reactants to explain the 10% copper output. The 10% copper also had the ratio found in nature, not after fusion. Siegel pointed out that Rossi did not allow the reactants or products to be measured and noted that "Rossi also refused to unplug the machine while it was operating" despite it being an easy way to surreptitiously power the device, and that the "independent" testers had to rely on data supplied "from the manufacturer".

As I wrote before, the first part is not related in any way to the paper, so it should not be put on the "Test" section. The only part that can be considered as related to the paper is the very last part, ie this one:

..."Rossi...refused to unplug the machine while it was operating" despite it being an easy way to surreptitiously power the device, and that the "independent" testers had to rely on data supplied "from the manufacturer".

So I would rewrite this last bit this way:

Ethal Siegel from Scienceblog criticized the tests as described in the paper. According to Siegel, Rossi refused to unplug the machine while it was operating despite it being an easy way to surreptitiously power the device. He also added that the supposedly independent testers had to rely on data supplied by Rossi.

and I would keep the rest on the "Reaction to the claim" section. One must be aware that the paper is about "calorimetric measurements": there is not any theory or explanation concerning the supposed reaction, there is not even metion of supposed "products" of the supposed reaction. It is almost a series of measurements perfomed on "black box", if we can described the devices in this way...--Insilvis (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The relevance to the paper is explicitly pointed out; the absence of the measurements is what the Siegel source draws attention to. Your rejection of that is nonsensical. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I still don't understand why the comment from Ethan Siegel's blog should be removed. The whole story is running over blogs, if this is the problem we should delete the whole article starting from the first sentence. I still also don't understand why should we create a separate section "Test", while this is in fact just an another demonstration. TheNextFuture (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a big problem with this line: "According to Siegel, Rossi refused to unplug the machine while it was operating despite it being an easy way to surreptitiously power the device.". First, it is suggested that Rossi refused a request to unplug the machine. This is not mentioned in the paper. Second, the paper suggests that the device needs input power to function. I don't believe Siegel is a good critic because he is effectively making a strawman argument there. I suggest using the phys.org article instead to provide a critical view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.235.108.126 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Right. The paper doesn't say that Rossi refused. It's Siegel's opinion -- so I rephrased it as "Siegel surmises that ...". (I made a previous edit, which I reverted, indicating that Siegel said that Rossi SHOULD have unplugged it. He said that too.). Siegel also put "independent test" in scare-quotes. Again, an opinion. Alanf777 (talk) 08:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

IRWolfie- Reversion of "surmises" (see previous 2 entries) and "independent" eg- "(he cautions about their independence as well.)" -- Where? He puts it in scare quotes. And how is Siegel any more expert in determining "independence" that Gibbs/Forbes or Hambling/Wired? And why are even the REFs to Gibbs#2 and Hambling deleted? Alanf777 (talk) 14:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

He does not treat their independence as established, nor should we (in actual fact nor does Gibbs). Gibbs does not appear to be a physicist from what I can see. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

That's why I put in two specific quotes about independence http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Energy_Catalyzer&diff=556949430&oldid=556935813 -- deleted -- : do reporters have to be physicists? Gibbs #2 (even the REF of which you deleted) looks into their credentials. Alanf777 (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

If you want to critique what purports to be a scientific experiment, I think asking for credentials isn't way out of line. He's venturing his own opinion here, you aren't using him as a secondary source, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Who is "he ... his own opinion" ? Siegel? Gibbs? Bardi? Hamblin? Why are two personal opinions included, and two deleted? Alanf777 (talk) 18:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Why are only the opinions of scientists kept? Is that what you are asking? IRWolfie- (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

OK : Why are only the opinions of scientists outside of their area of expertise kept? Alanf777 (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Why are the opinions of physicists kept but not non-scientists? Is that your question? I think the answer is fairly obvious, IRWolfie- (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

"Test" section and critics of the "paper"

Hi. The article is being more popular now, 1.5-7 thousands of visitors per day in four days ([6]) and mean reader will notice that there are no problems with the "independent test". But actually there are some problems like non-independent testing; strange calorimetry (not with calorimeter, but with IR camera, check Steven B. Krivit) or possible usage of hacked power wires to hide additional power supply from ammeters (Ethan Siegel). `a5b (talk) 12:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Newenergytimes is not a reliable source, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Why it is not reliable, but some blogs are? The author of this page, Steven Krivit was editor of some RS books and he was cited by nbc (and I believe, many other): "Steven Krivit, a journalist who covers cold fusion claims and editor-in-chief of the Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia (Wiley, 2011)". Also, note in the nbc article that problems with power wires are usual in the E-Cat tests. `a5b (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

As has been explained already. Scienceblogs are well known and invitation only with a good reputation. Newenergytimes is a random SPS by a non-scientist known for cold fusion advocacy. That is the difference. Go look at RSN. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

PS: there is some list of blog posts, and sources, both reliable and not-reliable: pesn.com/2013/05/20/9602320_VINDICATION--3rd-Party-E-Cat_Test-Results-show-at-least-10x-gain/ -- scroll down to "Other Reports", may be "Mainstream News" `a5b (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Siegel and the test

I want to re-add this text to the article: [7]. Insilvis has objected based on his own original research. Are there any opinions from others? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the WP:OR...so no objection from me. The popsci article is also supportive. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

What is supposed to be original research? It seems fine to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

What I mean is, Insilvis did a bit of original research to try and say the text was unsuitable (in the preceeding sections), IRWolfie- (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Mine was not orginal research, I simply checked if the entire quotation from Siegel's blog was related to the tests in the paper or not. I found that the last part of Siegel's comment was related to the tests in the paper, so this last part was perfectly suitable to rermain on the "Tests" section. The other part, ie the initial part of Siegel's comment, was not related to the tests in the paper, instead it was related to the E-Cat story as whole so it was more suitable to the "Reaction to the claims" section. If there are sections then the logic of the sections have to be respected. --Insilvis (talk) 04:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

No you are wrong. It is exactly related because he is highlighting something which was not tested this time because Rossi had forbidden it but had issues last time. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

So Siegel did not criticise what was tested, he criticised what was not tested, right? --Insilvis (talk) 10:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

But.... you can criticize a test by saying that crucial parts were not included in the test? --Enric Naval (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the answer is simple: it depends on what the purpose of the tests is. In this case the purpose of the tests was to perform calorimetric measurements. So you do not need to analyze isotopes, find nuclear fusion reactions or trasmutation of elements, you "just" need to check if the output power is more than input. It is like if you had to measure Usain Bolt's speed and someone (for example mister Ethan Siegel) criticized you because you did not measure the lenght of his legs! This way of criticizing tests is simply pointless. --Insilvis (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

You may think it a pointless criticism - Siegel didn't. And pointing out omissions in tests is very much part of the process within scientific discourse. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

And the popsci article has a similar criticism of the test "The paper, which is not peer-reviewed, leaves out crucial details, for example referring to "unknown additives" instead of specifying what chemicals actually go into the reaction."

"Crucial" to establish "what chemicals actually go into the reaction", not to perform calorimetric measurements - which was the declared purpose of the paper. "To judge someone on mere intent" should be the right definition for this kind of rebuttals. (P.S. is this science?) --Insilvis (talk) 05:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Is this science? Well, the test certainly wasn't... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

As I wrote before, this is a general rebuttal concerning the entire E-Cat story and it is not a critique of the actual tests. The tests as described in the paper are tests aimed at performing calorimetric measurements on prototype devices. It is a scientific process.--Insilvis (talk) 05:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

And as you've been told before, the conditions for the test were not sufficient to yield any valid results. You're wasting your time, and ours, by insisting otherwise. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Insilvis, you are now performing original research to delimitate what is a valid test, and what is a valid criticism of a test. How about you drop it, please. You should stop this, this just leads down a rabbit-hole of OR.

Siegel's criticism of nickel proportions is clearly related to the current test. Siegel asks "is this test the real deal", and the nickel proportions are part of the answer. Thus, that paragraph should be restored to the article because it clearly belongs there. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Dominus Vobisdu: so, do you think that the conditions for the tests were not sufficient to yield valid and reliable calorimetric measurements? --Insilvis (talk) 10:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Insilvis, you are still missing the point that it doesn't matter a damn. The source discusses the copper yields, and then mentions that it wasn't measured this time. That is all that matters and that is why we mention it here. Trying to invalidate the source with your OR is not what we do. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I did not try to invalidate the source. Otherwise I'd have delete it, and I did not delete it. What I pointed out is that Siegel lamented the authors of the paper did not measure copper yields: this has nothing to do with the tests, because the tests are calorimetric measurements. Meausurements not related to isotopes or trasmutation therefore. There is not any understandable reason why not detecting production of copper can affect calorimetric measurements. However it seems that my position is not shared, so for me there is no need to further discuss this matter. --Insilvis (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you incredibly slow? It has already been explained to you why the test not looking at the reactants and products is interesting, now stop with your uninformed original research. You are flogging a dead horse. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am.

Can you repeat it here so I can understand why the test not looking at the reactants and products is interesting?

P.S.

"Products" of what? --Insilvis (talk) 04:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Because without knowledge of the reactants and the products of the reaction the "test" tells us nothing of value. Pointing a thermal camera at the thing and doing some rather cheeseball data collection while Rossi runs the magic black box is not science (or even informative). — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

There is not any reason to consider such a thermal camera as unfit to measure the temperature of that kind of object. Instead, the authors of the paper adopt the most conservative possible way of calculating the amount of heat energy being radiated (ie considering emissivity as equal to one). As consequence, the paper seems to describe both precise measurments (performed with the proper instruments) and results. It is a scientific process.--Insilvis (talk) 09:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

How come Bardi's personal blog is good enough for the lead, while Gibbs' Forbes official blog (remind me, which is the RS?) is relegated to follow-on comments? In any case Bardi just echoes Siegel, who echoes Motl, who is wrong on several points. His earlier comment is obviously way past it's best-by date. If Forbes is ejected from the lead, so should Bardi. Alanf777 (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Your opinions on what is "way past it's best-by date" are of no relevance whatsoever. As for Bardi, it has already been established that he is WP:RS - and per WP:FRINGE, it is entirely appropriate to present the mainstream position on something as implausible as the E-Cat in the lede, regardless of your opinions on who is 'wrong'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Bardi's "fade-away" prediction has not come to pass. So it's clearly an incorrect opinion, and therefore no longer suitable for the lead. I still claim parity for Gibbs' comments. His second article (currently in "reactions") reviews the credentials of the paper's authors and considers their independence. Alanf777 (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

You opinions are, as usual, irrelevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Andy. The credentials of the authors and the test itself don't matter at all if it was not run under strictly controled conditions, which Gibbs and the testers themselves admit it was not, and if the results of the test were not published in a real peer-reviewed publication. WP:PARITY is for the mainstream view, not the fringe view. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

My arguments for parity are on the relative RS-ness of two commenters, not on fringe vs mainstream science. One on a private blog, the other on a mainstream news blog. Oh, and thanks for the WP:PARITY reference, particularly the last sentence of paragraph 4. The ECat article IS in the "fringe physics" category. Alanf777 (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Youa re wrong. Scienceblogs are not private blogs; they are invite only blogs. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand paragraph 4. It is for those that argue that, for example, only an astrologer can argue about astrology, only cold fusion researchers can argue about cold fusion. Physics, and particularly nuclear physics is the relevant "encompassing field" in this particular case. Siegel is a physicist, Gibbs is a ? IRWolfie- (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

On para 4 : being a marginalized fringe subject, fringe-oriented sites are permitted to present the fringe view (with a majority-opinion counterview). On their qualifications, I was comparing Gibbs (official site) to Bardi (unofficial site), and their comments were not on the science -- but on the "environment" of the test. Siegel is a BAD physicist: (yeah, yeah, not a forum) he got his main argument against the test BACKWARDS. And when someone pointed out his error, the post was deleted (end of not a forum). Alanf777 (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, you've read para 4 of WP:PARITY backwards, as I've already pointed out to you. It does not provide justification for using fringe sources to present fringe views. No he didn't get his arguments backwards but his arguments attack something for which you are a true believer; you have some balls calling someone else a bad physicist, no offence. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

He did get at least TWO things wrong. The paper describes the outside of the cylinder as steel-ceramic-paint. ONE: He read that as steel, and said the emissivity should be 0.2. TWO: the authors say that using an emissivity of 1.0 (rather than the actual emissivity in the range of 0.8 to 0.9 -- which is typical for paints, by the way) UNDER-estimates the power. Siegel says it OVER-estimates it. The authors are right, as shown in Fig 7. As a supposed "currently" astrophysicist he ought to get his radiation right. THREE: he seems to have stopped reading half-way through, because he doesn't note that the radiometry was checked when the system was driven with a resistor, both with pads of a known emmissivity AND with a thermocouple. Then he says "I — for once — will also encourage you to read Lubos’ take on this, because he seems to be the only person other than me who recognizes what awful pretend-science this is." -- of course, Motl made the SAME mistake on emissivity, and ALSO got the convection wrong -- but that's another story. So I give Siegel three strikes on one review. Pretty bad physics, right ? Alanf777 (talk) 02:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about, Siegel says none of these things in [8]. This really a benign issue about the cylinder and I have no idea why you think it is important. I don't see how whatever the emissivity values would change the main points (specifically those included here). You are just being arbitrary critical about something which seems unimportant so that you can resolve your cognitive dissonance by rejecting the entire post. So no not bad physics, not even close. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

You are right. The statements I quoted were by Motl, who Siegel referenced. I apologize for calling Siegel a bad scientist. Alanf777 (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Follow the money

The last test was funded by Elforsk, the research center for Swedish electricity companies. They made a statement on their website : here is the English translation.

Quote : "The results are very remarkable. What lies behind the extraordinary heat production can not be explained today." 91.178.9.81 (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

And continues "...There has been speculation over whether there can be any form of nuclear transformation. However, this is highly questionable. To learn more about what is going on you have to learn what is happening with the fuel and the waste it produces". Not that the link is any use as a source. Who wrote it? Is it any sort of official statement from Elforsk? There seems no way to tell. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

it is an official statement : it is listed on their website in the news (aktuellt) section. Also, Elforsk is cited as funding the test in the acknowlegment section of the arxiv paper. 91.178.9.81 (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

What is the purported significance of this? IRWolfie- (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Forbes and Wired

I object to the Forbes/Wired deletion. This is not a science entry. These reporters are as competent as anybody to comment on the test, and raise issues which have been discussed extensively here in talk (and in the comments to the quoted blogs). Are the testers independent? Are they in cahoots with Rossi? Did he sneak a fake past them? These are all relevant to the eCat. Alanf777 (talk) 02:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

"This is not a science entry. These reporters are as competent as anybody to comment on the test". A slight failure of logic, I think... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not a science entry. These reporters are as competent as anybody to comment on the REACTION TO the test". Alanf777 (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

eg Wired's full quote : "These are all individuals who have previously shown an interest in this area, and some critics have been quick to dismiss them as Rossi's friends. However, it's no small matter to put your professional and academic reputation on the line like this, especially when there are so many accusations of fraud flying around." Alanf777 (talk) 02:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

From my talk page : Misrepresentation of source. [edit] Just to make this entirely clear: if you misrepresent a source again by selective quotation, in the way you have done here [1], I shall have no hesitation in reporting you, and calling for you to be topic-banned per Wikipedia:general sanctions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 5:52 pm, Today (UTC−7) Go ahead. I expanded the quote to remove the "selective quotation" Alanf777 (talk) 8:09 pm, Today (UTC−7) Alanf777 (talk) 03:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and I left out "It may also be significant that the EU is hosting a session on cold fusion in Brussels on 3 June. Organised by ENEA, Italy's nuclear research agency, it's called "New advancements on the Fleischmann-Pons Effect: paving the way for a potential new clean renewable energy source" .. is that TOO selective? Alanf777 (talk) 03:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

And I STRONGLY object to deletions-without-discussion by User:Dominus Vobisdu Alanf777 (talk) 03:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Tough - if your idea of 'discussion' consists of spouting nonsense to the effect that a section describing a 'test' and a paper submitted to arXiv "is not a science entry", there is no point in bothering - it is utter crap, and you know it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The edit summary was more than abundantly clear. Gibbs opinions as a non-specialist are irrelevant. Sorry, but there is no point in firther discussion. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Concerns about the objectivity of the article

It is my opinion that this article is not a reliable source of information on the topic as it gives a highly biased account of its history. In particular, non-factual negative opinions and speculations are featured prominently throughout the article with little concern for their relevance or accuracy (see for example the comparison to a perpwtual motion machine). Another problem is the omission of crucial information, in particular regarding Defkalion and ELFORSK AB.Stengl (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE dictates that fringe views should be given less weight than mainstream views, not that the quality and accuracy of comments supposedly reflecting mainstream views should be low. Making a comparison to a perpetual motion machine shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the claims being made and the history of the research. Never once in 20+ years has any cold fusion researched claimed to have built a perpetuum mobile, and Rossi doesn't claim it either. Magazines such as Forbes are explicitly allowed as sources, yet a recent positive article from Forbes was deleted twice, presumably because it was positive as a negative article by the same autohr which also appeared on Forbes has been in the article for a while.Stengl (talk) 14:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Nothing is 'explicitly allowed' as a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources such as Forbes are explicitly allowed as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Reliable_sourcesStengl (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Gibbs is a journalist, so his opinion on the newsworthiness of the device is credible. He is not a scientist, so his opinion on the scientific validity of the test are not credible, all the more so that it is quite an exrtaordinary claim. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no policy which dictates that non-scientits must be excluded (if there is, about half of the sources in the article must immediately be removed). It is the hypocrisy with which positive views are marginalized that makes this article highly unreliable.Stengl (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC).

I think DV is referring to wp:REDFLAG, which is policy.LeadSongDog come howl! 16:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Journalists have proven to be very gullible when reporting scientific stuff. I have seen too many news pieces that report uncritically the inventor's claims, with the token opinion of a university professor to "balance" the opinions. Claims of endless sources of energy pots of gold at the end of the rainbow need extraordinary sources. Rossi makes the very extraordinary claim that he can make nuclear fusion without radiation, but he uses a nuclear reaction path that should give out radiation and consume enormous amounts of energy (from Siegel's blog). Rossi is clearly making an extraordinary claim, and thus falls under WP:REDFLAG. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

arXiv and Peer Review

Several entries have been deleted on the basis that arXiv is not "peer reviewed", or submitted to a "major publication". See arXiv, which notes "Although the arXiv is not peer reviewed, a collection of moderators for each area review the submissions and may recategorize any that are deemed off-topic." List of academic journals by preprint policy notes that "Journals focusing on physics and mathematics are excluded because they routinely accept manuscripts that have been posted to preprint servers." It should also be noted that "A majority of the e-prints are also submitted to journals for publication, but some work, including some very influential papers, remain purely as e-prints and are never published in a peer-reviewed journal." (personal opinion) It is also common to submit a "long" version to arXiv and a "short version" for publication. arXiv is a form of "open peer review", in the sense that the authors get comments from everyone, and frequently update their paper based on those comments. The Levi paper is already on Version 2, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a version 3.(/personal opinion) Alanf777 (talk) 04:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The paper has not been peer-reviewed. That is all that the article needs to note. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

It's misleading to imply that is not standard practice these days. Alanf777 (talk) 05:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Standard practice is to submit it to a preprint server and to a peer-reviewed journal. The fact that a paper is on arXiv (as are many peer-reviewed papers) does not more make it reliable than the fact that both types of publications are printed on paper (and if that dates me, "that both are in PDF format"). It's the peer-reviewed version accepted by the journal that confers some level of trust. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Which part of Andy's statement "The paper has not been peer-reviewed. That is all that the article needs to note" did you not understand? And your comment about "standard practice" is pure and utter BS. Sorry, but your barking up the wrong tree here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

None of this in means it is in anyway peer reviewed. A person can re-factor their article as much as they want, but it doesn't mean it's peer reviewed. Only by misunderstanding what peer review is could you think that (I thought you said your background was physics?). A paper can be put on arxiv before submitted to a journal, but after the peer review the arxiv paper can not be modified with the changes received through peer review. Arxiv is not a form of open peer review, and the barrier to entry is very very low. Updating your pdf based on comments is not a form of peer review, and equally applies well to any information on a public website (even wikipedia); you would not claim these sites are peer reviewed. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Moderators deleting posts that are off-topic or otherwise misplaced is rather different from peer review. ArXiv mods move or delete uploads that are miscategorized or unrelated to science; they don't evaluate the technical correctness of documents uploaded. Moreover, Hanno Essen – by virtue of having submitted to arXiv before the introduction of the 'endorsement' system in 2004 – is automatically pre-qualified to post documents at his own discretion.

The fact that some documents posted to arXiv are considered significant, important scientific works despite never subsequently being submitted to (or accepted by) a peer-reviewed academic journal is certainly not credible evidence that all such documents are significant, important scientific works.

While Levi's document is on version 2, there is no obvious indication that it represents any attempt to correct the original's numerous scientific flaws, or address any criticism received. While I have neither the time nor the inclination to comb through both versions side by side, the author's own comments indicate that version 2 (uploaded less than four days after version 1) merely corrects formatting errors. The 'long version'/'short version' preprint/peer-reviewed submission concept is true (in some cases), but irrelevant; there's no indication that any version of this document or its contents is intended for, or will ever be suitable for, submission to a peer-reviewed journal. Suggestions about 'open peer review' guiding revisions, or about hypothetical eventual journal submissions, are unsupported speculation bordering on wishful thinking.

From your remarks, Alanf777, it is clear that either you don't understand how arXiv works, or that you're trying to confuse and mislead other editors. Either way, you appear distinctly unqualified to make further pronouncements about the significance, importance, or reliability of documents posted to arXiv. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, you'd better hie over to An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything and make a few corrections. It was published only on arXiv, a number of people (egLee Smolin) argued against it in reply-papers on arXiv, and Lisi responded to them with a supplementary paper. On arXiv, of course. Alanf777 (talk) 16:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Nobody has replied to the 'test' paper. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what was confusing about the second paragraph of my comment. I don't know how to make it any clearer. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Even if the arxiv paper would not get worst this unsupported list of blog-facts and blog-declarations, I would wait some time before writing something about it. I mean, at the end the E-Cat will be the revolution of the century or even of the whole millennium, nothing changes if we wait some months. TheNextFuture (talk) 09:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Moving Ugo Bardi to reactions section.

Ugo Bardi might be a great guy, but I don't see why his views should be given any more weight than one of the many others who have commented on the ECAT. So to avoid undue weight to his views I moved them to the same section as the other. // Liftarn (talk)

See WP:FRINGE, and in particular the WP:PARITY section. Bardi is one of the few mainstream scientists to have commented on the E-Cat in detail. It is a requirement of articles covering fringe topics that mainstream critiques be included, and since the lede summarises the body of the article, it is also necessary that such a critique be included in the lede. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

That is simply not true. Please see the reactions section and you will find several. // Liftarn (talk)

He's representative of the consensus, and probably the scientist who has commented the most broadly on the topic. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources for that claim? Even if it may be so, that giving that much weight to a single person in the head of the article throws it entirely out of balance. // Liftarn (talk)

How exactly is it off balance? IRWolfie- (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

This discussion page rambles to the point it is difficult to follow. There are two main points that are clearly wrong.

1, The statement that no independent test has been carried out. You can't prove a negative and so can't possibly know that. In fact an independent test has been carried out. The paper is available for viewing or downloading at arXiv:1305,3903 It was paid for and commented about by Elforsk on their official site. Elforsk is a large, well known R&D organization, equivalent to EPRI. It can't get much more official than that.

It doesn't matter that it has not been peer reviewed yet, or that some don't like the experimental procedure. An independent test HAS been run. There are various secondary sources of confirmation mentioned, such as Gibbs in Forbes magazine. I expect that several other tests have been run by large organizations doing their due diligence.

2. The comment on an independent test is followed by a very negative commentary taken from a blog site run by Ugo Bardi. The comments to his post were uniformly negative. Mine was censored. What is the justification for this? I can point to several other blogs run by scientists, including a Nobel Prize winner and a Chief Scientist at NASA, that come to the opposite conclusion.

One can only conclude that there are several editors on this topic that are so convinced that LENR is impossible that they favor anything negative about it. For example, the selective quote from Elforsk given. The full quote is shown below. (Google translation)

Swedish researchers have tested Rossi energy catalyst - E-cat

"Researchers from Uppsala University and KTH Stockholm has conducted measurements of the produced heat energy from a device called the E-cat. It is known as an energy catalyst invented by the Italian scientist Andrea Rossi.

The measurements show that the catalyst gives substantially more energy than can be explained by ordinary chemical reactions. The results are very remarkable. What lies behind the extraordinary heat production can not be explained today. There has been speculation over whether there can be any form of nuclear transformation. However, this is highly questionable. To learn more about what is going on you have to learn what is happening with the fuel and the waste it produces. The measurements have been funded by such Elforsk."

For those the prefer peer reviewed papers, there are several hundred listed that confirm LENR here. lenr-canr.org

Rossi forecast at the beginning that nothing would convince the skeptics until working E-CATs were out in the market and he was right. I wonder what you will say when Defkalion demonstrate their Hyperion at the National Instruments Week in August.

LENR has now been proven beyond all reasonable doubt. This negatively biased wiki entry on the E-CAT is doing a great disservice to thousands of viewers.

a.ashfield Parallel (talk) 19:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Read WP:FRINGE. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I still don't see why the blog of a chemistry teacher should be given such prominence. // Liftarn (talk)

'Chemistry teacher'? So much for NPOV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

He's a professor, with impressive credentials in new energy resources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump refuses to debate me or facts, saying he is not interested. As stated above, you can't prove there has been no independent test but there is proof that there has been.

The only criteria for selecting Ugo Bardi is that his views are the same as the editors. Nobel Prize Winners don't count unless their view is "correct." As clear a case of bias as one is likely to see. Parallel (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a debating forum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I changed 'no independent test' to 'no peer-reviewed test' which is accurate Bhny (talk) 00:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I second Andy's statement. If you want to debate, there are PLENTY of forums on the internet where you can debate your sweet little heart out. This, however, is not one of them. It's strictly against our policy. See WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:Talk page guidelines. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Saying there has been no peer reviewed test is deliberately misleading. There have been two 100 hour independent tests carried out by seven scientists, funded by ELFORSK and reported by ELFORSK on their site. They are funded to start a six month continuous test this Summer. Since when has well referenced news got to be peer reviewed before noting it? Ugo Bardi has no first hand experience of LENR and is parroting the group think of certain physicists who won't deign to look at the facts. Why not quote NASA Chief Scientist Bushnell for example? Is NASA not main stream? You may think LENR is fringe science but should not force that opinion on others. Vobisdu, I don't appreciate the ad hom. You have no idea if my heart is small or sweet. Parallel (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

It is a fact that there has been no peer-reviewed test on the E-Cat. As for the rest, read WP:FRINGE. Then go away and learn about how science works. Unless and until LENR is recognised by mainstream science, we have no choice over the matter: Wikipedia policy dictates that we represent mainstream views in articles on fringe topics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, I never said the tests had been peer reivewed. I said they were well referenced and they are. I already told you I had read WP:FRINGE but you obviously don't read what I write. It is not a question of whether LENR is mainstream science, it is a question of getting the facts right. For example saying there had been no independent test when there had been. You have a fixed opinion about LENR, obviously have not kept up-to-date with the new data, yet tell me "you clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about." I feel the same way about you. Parallel (talk) 15:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The tests were not 'independent'. Rossi had full control of the apparatus the entire time. Any independent scientific testing will have to wait until Rossi releases sufficient information to allow proper scientific replication of his device. That is how science works. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, You need to read the report before making erroneous statements like the above. Rossi did not have "full control of the apparatus the entire time." In fact he wasn't even present except for a brief visit. Parallel (talk) 15:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, where does the report state that? Not that it matters: the test was not 'independent' in any real sense - it was entirely reliant on apparatus set up by Rossi. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

[9] Unknown additives? This is not how science works. If this truely worked then Rossi would publish the full experimental details, rather than hide behind smoke and mirrors. If it does work, Rossi wants to keep it secret to produce it commercially, then the first few produced would be bought to be taken apart and analysed to see what's in them. From Levi's blog he says "I have an interest in science, but as I am not a scientist, I care much less about understanding the physics of why the E-Cat device works than whether it produces heat or not.", well that is evident in his paper from the way it is written. The output of the device has not been reliably measured, just guessimated. This just smells like a fraud to me.Martin451 (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, You are completely wrong too about "independent scientific testing will have to wait until Rossi releases sufficient information." You don't need to know what is inside the black box to measure its performance. Of course it is possible to measure the energy input and the heat produced.

You won't be able to determine how it works until the ingredients and ash are measured. Thanks to people like you, who persuaded the US Patent Office not to grant patents for cold fusion, Rossi is forced to keep this proprietary.

Apart from the published report, several of the scientists who ran the tests have commented that they were free to do exactly what they wanted with the exception of examining the inside of the inner tube (little bigger than a quarter and 33 cm long) or the few grams of powder it contained. Parallel (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Martin, it is singularly stupid to prevent the man from getting protection for his invention and then complain that he won't tell you how it works.

He sold his business EON for about a million Euros (public record) so it is ludicrous to suggest that instead of retiring he would blow that money and work 14 hour days, for years, to set up an elaborate fraud. Parallel (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not interested in nit-picking over details - the test were not 'independent' in that Rossi set up the apparatus - indeed, it was already running when the tests started, precluding any proper determination of what was being measured. That is not how 'independent' testing is done. Changing the subject, you wrote above that Rossi "wasn't even present except for a brief visit" during the tests. Can you please let us know how you came by this information - I can see nothing in the report to confirm it. Do you perhaps have some connection with Rossi or the 'testers'? If so, you should read Wikipedia:conflict of interest, and lest us know what the connection is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec)You need to know a lot more than Rossi is telling. Rossi is even keeping the waveform used to power the thing a secret, so we cannot reliably measure the input. Rossi needs to say what is in his experiment so that it can be independently verified. The US patent office don't grant patents for perpetual motion machines and cold fusion, because they would be inundated with quacks and frauds trying to patent the unachievable. Scientists need to know what is inside the tube, so that we can understand how, and if it works, or whether it is a misunderstanding of basic physics by Rossi. I am reminded of last year when CERN announced the possibility of faster than light neutrinos, many of my work colleagues asked me about it, and I had to explain why it was not a conclusive result. In that instance CERN made the announcement because they did not understand themselves, because they were fully open about their experiments. This is opposite to how Rossi works, smoke and mirrors, making wild scientific claims, whilst refusing to give details. If this device does work, then there is no way he will be able to fund and develop it on the industrial scale it will be used. Maybe he does believe it works, but there needs to be a proper scientific analysis of it, and you need to read a good text book on scientific method.Martin451 (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Even if Rossi were granted a patent on the device, if it was proven to work many governments including the US and Chinese would ignore that patent, even passing new laws if need be.Martin451 (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your last comment, please remember WP:NOTFORUM: speculation regarding what might happen in the future is beyond the scope of this talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, you are clearly not interested in the facts. Whether that is nit-picking I'll leave others to judge. What bit did you not understand about it being possible to measure the input and output from a black box? For the second test, the scientists involved did have access to everything around the black box. They looked for fraud, such as hidden wires. Hanno Essen, one of the professors carrying out the tests, was former chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society. He found nothing to suggest fraud. The E-CAT was not running at the start of the second test.

Regarding Rossi's presence, read what I wrote. As I said already, several of the professors commented on the tests and were interviewed. Look it up yourself. I have absolutely no connection with Rossi. If I had I would have said so. Do you belong to a club that thinks physics was fixed soon after leaving school? At least let us know the connection. Parallel (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:FRINGE policy, we are not going to make assertions regarding 'independent tests' that run contrary to established physics. That is all that needs to be said on the matter. Wikipedia policy regarding fringe topics has been made clear, and it isn't open to negotiation here. If and when mainstream science recognises Rossi's E-Cat as doing what he claims, our article will reflect the fact. Until then, it won't. Since this is not a forum for debate, there is nothing more to be said on the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Martin, Why do I have to know a lot more than Rossi is telling? Of course he is keeping proprietary information secret. Read what I wrote before about why. Also about patents. You are wrong in stating the input cannot be measured reliably. You lack electrical engineering knowledge. There is no requirement for Rossi to tell you or anybody else about how the E-CAT works. CERN is paid for by taxpayers so of course what they find becomes public.

Again you jump to the wrong conclusion. You are apparently not aware that Rossi says he has partnered with a large company. Their identity will only be made known after the automated factory they are now building to mass produce E-CATs is finished. For obvious business reasons.

What makes you think I need to read a textbook on the scientific method and haven't had much more experience than you? Parallel (talk) 17:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, you say it is fringe science, but by what authority? The independent tests were run according to established physics. Unless you are claiming to know more than the seven professors who ran the tests and ELFORSK. Parallel (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

For cries ache, read WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:TALKPAGE guidelines again. Using article talkpages as discussion forums to debate the general topic is disruptive. Please stop. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's get back to the "independent test" question. No independent test has been reported by a source independent of Rossi. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

As for "black box" tests; they can be done, but even if Rossi had agreed to disconnect the device from commercial electricity, we don't know how many batteries or capacitors were pre-charged. A "black box" power test has to be run for long enough to discharge (potentially known) internal sources of power. (There is no easy way to distinguish a potential superbattery from a potential "free energy" device by a black box test.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Does anybody know if this Steve Featherstone is a scientist or not?

"Steve Featherstone wrote in Popular Science that by the summer of 2012 Rossi's "outlandish claims" for the E-Cat seemed "thoroughly debunked" and that Rossi "looked like a con man clinging to his story to the bitter end."

Does anybody know if this Steve Featherstone is a scientist or not?--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 09:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you want us to google that for you? What is your point? People that write in reliable sources are writers. If you google you might find his linkedin profile where he says he writes for many reliable sources. Bhny (talk) 09:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Is it a scientist or not? From your answer I suppose he is not.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 10:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I too don't see the point of the question. For our purposes what matters is he's functioning as a journalist writing in a reliable source and giving an informative overview of the current state of reception of the E-Cat. This gives us a good intro to the reception section (I'm moving it to the top of the section for that reason). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

We don't appear to be using him for scientific statements, we aren't using the source even for a critique, so I'm not quite sure what the issue is, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Understood. So there is not any problem to use the quotations from Mark Gibbs of Forbes for the same purpose, right?--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 13:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

So long as no hard science is being proffered or fringe notion advanced, it's certainly possible. What edit have you in mind? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually I think Featherstone's summary would be better in the lede than Bardi's blog comment, as it's a more RS; maybe they should be switched? - thoughts? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, Alex. It's certainly unusual to see a blog post so prominently featured. Bishonen | talk 13:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC).

The reason we use Bardi is because (as has repeatedly been explained) he is a scientist with a background in renewable energy, and a professor at a leading Italian university - he is clearly better qualified to talk on the E-Cat than a journalist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

That's true of course, but a journalist is well-qualified to give an overview statement of how Rossi stands in relation to the scientific community, which is what Featherstone is essentially doing. Also, a blog generally isn't a great RS. I've done the switch - see what you think. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Bardi's blog has repeatedly been discussed as a source, and I see no reason to suddenly discount it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, not discounted so much as moved slightly to make room for a newer stronger source. Whatever local consensus we have, we need to sure to observe sourcing policy. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Bardi is more of a relevant expert, so he trumps the journalist for opinions, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

For scientific statements probably, but as you noted above we're not using Featherstone for that purpose. Featherstone is good for a general overview of Rossi's and the E-Cat's current status (at the end of the road). There's room for both in the article, but having a blog (be it ever-so-eminent) supporting a large proportion of the lede undercuts the article's credibility and I wouldn't want to bet much on such a use surviving a going-over at RS/N. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

He doesn't provide an overview, he catalogues his own experiences, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Typical of the bias here to use the old Popular Science article instead of the new one "Cold Fusion Machine Gets Third-Party Verification, Inventor Says. The E-Cat strikes again." Posted 5/21/2013 It wasn't Rossi reporting a test but a paper published by a scientist sponsored by Elforsk.

PopSci is a better RS than a blog. But a trade magazine is even better. Engineering News "Interest in LENR device resurges as independent report is released" http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/interest-in-lenr-device-resurges-as-independent-report-is-released-2013-06-07

I don't believe fringe science is debated in parliament. Strong Confirmations of Fleischmann Pons ‘Cold Fusion’ Effect at EU Parliament http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/06/strong-confirmations-of-fleischmann-pons-effect-presented-at-eu-meeting/ Parallel (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure it is. Politicians love bullshit. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Read the papers that were presented and note the scientists who gave them. Robert Park used to publicly boast he had never read a single paper on LENR. Parallel (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Firstly e-catworld.com is a totally useless source, and secondly the article says nothing about the E--Cat anyway. Totally irrelevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

As anyone who looked would see, E-Catworld simply reported the event. That was the point I made. You apparently claim to be the sole authority and your word does not require proof. Hiding behind anonymity and prone to attacking the messenger rather than the message you claim fringe science. So ALL 14,700 experiments that demonstrated LENR are wrong. Max Planck was right suggesting science advances one funeral at a time.

Regarding the E-Cat, I linked the piece in "Engineering News."

Adrian Ashfield

Parallel (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

If you want us to discuss sources, try not wasting out time with articles that don't mention the E-Cat. As for 'engineeringnews.co.za' [10], the article merely regurgitates what we already have, from better sources. AndyTheGrump (talk)

Cold fusion (aka lenr) is fringe, that isn't debatable (convince the patent office, don't try to convince us). Politicians can talk about fringe, South African engineering web sites can talk about fringe, it is still fringe. When someone does a reproducible experiment (perhaps experiment 14,701) cold fusion may begin its journey to accepted science. Fringe is fringe because it lacks reproducible evidence. Cold fusion has a sorry history of non-reproducible experiments. Bhny (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

LENR is debatable. If you had read the history you would know that the Patent Office policy was rushed over by the likes of Robert Park in 1989. The policy was based on the flawed replication by MIT, who didn't know how to do it. Now MIT even teach a course on it and have had an open demonstration of it running since January.

Anyone can now set up a reproducible experiment by following the instructions here. http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEhowtoprodu.pdf

Defkalion claim their Hyperion can start and stop almost immediately by the flick of a switch. Of course you won't believe that until it is demonstrated at the next National Instruments Week in August.

The Martin Fleischmann Remembrance Project is currently reporting live favorable results at http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/follow/follow-4/271-s-g-cells-preliminary-test-findings-for-run-2

Adrian Ashfield Parallel (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

If you want to debate about LENR, do so somewhere else. This is not a forum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes to what Andy says. I guess I wasn't clear enough. It's not debatable here on the talk page. What we believe doesn't matter. Convince the world not us Bhny (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump I don't want to debate it, How else to show the errors without mentioning them? You refused to debate it at the dispute notice I started. I don't accept your unproven word as gospel.

Rossi backed off saying the nickel and hydrogen combines to form copper some time ago. The quote from PopSci is not the current article. What is wrong with the piece from Engineering News? To suggest "the article merely regurgitates what we already have" doesn't pass the smell test.Parallel (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

What specific changes to the article are you proposing, and what sources are you citing to support the proposal? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Cherry picking from Steve Featherstone: wrong wrong wrong

Someone added this sort-of quotation from journalist Steve Featherstone:

Steve Featherstone wrote in Popular Science that by the summer of 2012 Rossi's "outlandish claims" for the E-Cat seemed "thoroughly debunked" and that Rossi "looked like a con man clinging to his story to the bitter end."

Unfortunately this is clearly "cherry picking" and therefore it should immediataly deleted. The original article is this one:

• http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-10/andrea-rossis-black-box?single-page-view=true

The citation should be this one:

...As late as this summer, when Rossi’s story seemed thoroughly debunked, he continued to make outlandish claims about his E-Cat. He looked like a con man clinging to his story to the bitter end. Maybe he’d even conned himself...

However the article continues this way:

...To my astonishment, after three days of asking every cold-fusion researcher in the house, I couldn’t find a single person willing to call Rossi a con man. The consensus was that he had something, even if he didn’t understand why it worked or how to control it. The more I learned, the more confused I became. Could Rossi actually have something real? The only way to know for sure was to go to Italy...

So Steve Featherstone DOES NOT conclude that the E-Cat seemed "thoroughly debunked" and that Rossi "looked like a con man clinging to his story to the bitter end": the article continues by affirming quite the opposite.
Misrepresenting a source is a clear violation of Wikipedia's policies. Therefore I propose the immediate deletion of the entire quotation from Steve Featherstone's article.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Featherstone's last significant comment on Rossi in the piece:

"If history is any guide, no such report [on University of Bologna tests] would be issued. Rossi will reset the goalposts—the only thing he does with any consistency—and forestall his day of reckoning for another few months, and then another few months after that, until finally he disappears from the stage in a puff of smoke, taking his black box with him.

How do you like them cherries? AndyTheGrump (talk)

Incidentally, why do you think that anyone would be surprised that 'cold-fusion researchers' don't call Rossi a con-man? Even ignoring libel laws, it wouldn't particularly help their cause. Anyway, Featherstone is reporting a 'consensus' amongst the LENR researchers he spoke to - he isn't 'affirming' anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Of course he isn't 'affirming' anything. And this is the point: you cannot carve out a line from a nine page article to misrepresent the thought of the author! Of course he isn't 'affirming' anything, and this is precisely the reason why the citation from Featherstone's has to be removed. It is simply a misrepresentation of a source: the source did not conclude anything and now we have the same source at the top of the article that seems to conclude everything instead! Misrepresenting a source by cherry-picking: this is it.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 09:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

NUMB3RN7NE, I expect you will be accused of "debating" for pointing out an error. It was cherry picked from an old article. What I propose is a piece taken from Engineering News.

I propose this portion of the lede is removed

Rossi and Focardi say the device works by infusing heated hydrogen into nickel, transmuting it into copper and producing heat.[9][10] An international patent application[1] 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.[11] The device has been demonstrated to invited audiences several times, and commented on by various academics and others, but no independent tests have been reported by sources independent of Rossi, and no peer-reviewed tests have been reported in scientific publications. Steve Featherstone wrote in Popular Science that by the summer of 2012 Rossi's "outlandish claims" for the E-Cat seemed "thoroughly debunked" and that Rossi "looked like a con man clinging to his story to the bitter end."[12]

And replaced by this taken from Engineering News

“Rossi allowed third-party investigators to test an improved version of the E-Cat unit he first demonstrated in October 2011, called the Hot Cat or E-Cat HT (where HT indicates high temperature). The evaluation was performed by seven scientists: Giuseppe Levi, of Bologna University; Evelyn Foschi, of Bologna; Torbjörn Hartman, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson and Lars Tegnér, of Upssala University, in Sweden; and Hanno Essén, of Sweden’s Royal Institute of Technology. Their 29-page report, titled ‘Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder’, was originally posted on May 6 on Cornell University’s scientific archive website, at http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913. A revised version was uploaded four days later, but it should be noted that the paper has not yet been through a scientific peer-review process, and so its findings should be regarded as provisional. The authors were careful with their use of the word ‘indication’ rather than ‘proof’. Two separate tests were performed on the E-Cat HT – one in December 2012, which lasted 96 hours, and another in March, which tested an improved prototype running continuously for 116 hours. The scientists used a thermal imaging camera to quantify the heat output of the E-Cat HT, together with electronic equipment to measure the electrical power input that kick-starts the reaction. Both tests yielded evidence of so-called ‘anomalous heat production’ “in decidedly higher quantities than what may be gained from any conventional [energy] source”. More strikingly, the authors conclude that “volumetric and gravimetric energy densities were found to be far above those of any known chemical source”. They state further that, “even by the most conservative assumptions as to the errors in the measurements, the result is still one order of magnitude (ten times) greater than conventional energy sources”. Some commentators maintain that the test might somehow have been rigged by Rossi, for example, by hiding an additional source of electrical energy input. In follow-up comments on the Web, the authors of the report say this is very unlikely.” Ref http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/interest-in-lenr-device-resurges-as-independent-report-is-released-2013-06-07 Adrian Ashfield Parallel (talk) 23:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, no. That would be plagiarism. Also, the weird formatting, like "seven scien- tists" indicates that this website just scraped the material from elsewhere, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Or breach of copyright - and if you intended to mark the entire section as a quotation, please read Wikipedia:Copy-paste. We do not quote huge chunks of a source, for copyright reasons. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Does everyone realize that "engineering news" is a small South African industry magazine? (I have no idea if it is a wp:rs but it is a regional publication of little influence) The reason for the weird formatting is obviously that it is laid out for press and clumsily copied to their web site. Bhny (talk) 23:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Yup. Like I said above, "As for 'engineeringnews.co.za', the article merely regurgitates what we already have, from better sources". Sadly, some people seem to think that article talk pages are write-only... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Engineering News Weekly page impressions: 105 776 (monitored by DMMA)

So not that small. Certainly a better RS than somebody's blog. If AndyTheGrump thinks the news is the same as the other sources, presumably he has no objection to using it. I have emailed for copyright permission. Parallel (talk) 01:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

That was a stupid thing to do. Even assuming that they agree to release it under the appropriate copyright licensing terms (do you even know what they are?), we won't use it. Wikipedia is supposed to be written by contributors, not copied from elsewhere. And yes, I do object to using it as a source, for the reasons already given. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

You were quite happy to quote extensively from Bardi. Was that different because it was a blog? If you prefer a contributor to write it, I would be delighted to do that. Adrian Ashfield Parallel (talk) 01:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

As the existing editors have not corrected the factual errors noted above, that are derogatory about Rossi and misleading to viewers of this page, I propose replacing the introduction with the following. Only the first paragraph is virtually unchanged.

The Energy Catalyzer (also called E-Cat) is a cold fusion or Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) heat source[1][2] built by inventor Andrea Rossi[3][4] with support from physicist Sergio Focardi.[5][6] An Italian patent, which received a formal but not a technical examination, describes the apparatus as a "process and equipment to obtain exothermal reactions, in particular from nickel and hydrogen".[7][8]

There are a dozen theories of how it works, but none is widely accepted. NASA is following the theory of Widom-Larsen. (ref http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion/Theory) The US Patent Office has rejected all patents on LENR since 1989, following failed attempts to replicate Fleischmann and Pons “cold fusion” paper, although this has since been replicated, so Rossi cannot reveal proprietary details.

Rossi has publicly demonstrated several different versions of the E-Cat since January 2011, culminating in the demonstration of a plant rated at 1 MW made from 106 E-Cats, that produced 436 kW of heat in October 2011. 1 MW plants are now offered for sale through Leonardo Corporation 1331 Lincoln Road, Miami Beach, Florida-33139 USA.

Independent tests, funded by Elforsk, were carried out on the E-Cat HT, a high temperature version, by seven scientists: Giuseppe Levi, of Bologna University; Evelyn Foschi, of Bologna; Torbjörn Hartman, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson and Lars Tegnér, of Upssala University, in Sweden; and Hanno Essén, of Sweden’s Royal Institute of Technology. Their 29-page report, titled ‘Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder’is available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913 The test in December ran 96 hours, the test in March 116 hours. The scientists say the results indicated anomalous heat production at least an order of magnitude more than any known chemical reaction, but their paper has not yet been peer reviewed. A summary has been posted on Elforsk’s web site. They are funded to continue with a six month test starting this Summer. Ref. Engineering News http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/interest-in-lenr-device-resurges-as-independent-report-is-released-2013-06-07 Forbes. Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/ Elforsk http://www.elforsk.se/Aktuellt/Svenska-forskare-har-testat-Rossis-energikatalysator--E-cat/ Adrian Ashfield Parallel (talk) 04:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Violates WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:FRINGE. And we don't cite Wikiversity as a source. Go away and learn Wikipedia policies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

What Andy said. Wikipedia articles shouldn't be written as advertorials. As well, the fact that you're proposing that we put sales contact information into an article lede strongly suggests that you have no idea what might be appropriate content for an encyclopedia article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Can I make a suggestion?

If, in the not too distant future, I find myself living in an e-cat powered world, cruising the internet on my e-cat powered computer, brushing my teeth with my e-cat powered toothbrush, and sitting in my e-cat powered recliner while perusing the sears e-catalogue and petting my e-kitten then I don’t think it will have mattered if Wikipedia reported the e-cat a few months late.

If, on the other hand, I’m still living in the real world where Rossi’s in jail then it will have been a damn shame if his followers were allowed to have used Wikipedia as a propaganda machine to further Rossi’s criminal endeavors.

The point is that if Wikipedia is “always behind the ball” and “not a news source” then it is expected to be behind the times, so why don’t you Rossi supporters report the “energy revolution” AFTER it happens? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.74.163.157 (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Wikipedia lags behind 'the real world', as a matter of policy. We reflect the sources, and cannot pre-empt them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply to criticism

Re Wikipedia NPOV, it states Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. Editors here have demonstrated bias. For example cherry picking from an old article in PopSci to deliberately give the opposite conclusion to that reached by the author. Ignoring the later article from PopSci that was favorable. Stating Rossi believed the reaction produced copper when he later concluded this was just a minor side reaction. Inserting negative comments taken from a blog and not balancing that by positive ones from equally qualified sources. Deleting my edit correcting the article where it stated no independent test had been carried out. Ignoring these errors when they had been pointed out.

Re wiki WP.NOR The independent test was reported by Elforsk, Engineering News and Forbes.

Re citing Wikipedia as a source. I don't think it matters much which source is used just to confirm there were many theories. or that Widom-Larson was one of them. But the point is taken - Wikipedia is not a reliable source. I will change it.

To AndyTheGrump, it appears you are stating "Do what I say, not what I do."

To anonimous. How would you like to be made out to be a criminal, by name, on WIkipedia? Adrian Ashfield Parallel (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Nobody has been 'made out to be a criminal, by name, on WIkipedia' - that would be a serious violation of multiple Wikipedia policies. If you have evidence to the contrary, I suggest that you raise the matter at WP:BLPN. As for the rest, since you are clearly either incapable of understanding Wikipedia policy and guidelines, or refuse to accept that they apply to you, I see no point in discussing things further. Policy is not open to negotiation. Per WP:FRINGE, this article will not state as a fact that Rossi's claims are valid unless and until his claims are recognised by mainstream science. This is not open to negotiation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

If, on the other hand, I’m still living in the real world where Rossi’s in jail then it will have been a damn shame if his followers were allowed to have used Wikipedia as a propaganda machine to further Rossi’s criminal endeavors.

or

Steve Featherstone wrote in Popular Science that by the summer of 2012 Rossi's "outlandish claims" for the E-Cat seemed "thoroughly debunked" and that Rossi "looked like a con man clinging to his story to the bitter end."[12]

You don't think these imply criminal activity?

I understand you don't want to discuss this further because you don't like your belief system to be challenged by facts. It is not a question of policy. I wrote a factual, referenced replacement to the opinions you prefer in the introduction.

Parallel (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The idea that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is not a “belief system”, it’s simply sound logic.

Furthermore you aren’t challenging anyone’s beliefs with facts, because you don’t have any facts. You have claims. The entire e-cat/cold fusion/ lenr phenomenon is merely a litany of claims with no actual proof.

Also, if you’re going to engage in flagrant sophistry you’re going to have to be a lot smarter than that. I did not call Rossi a criminal, I proposed a hypothetical future in which the laws of physics hold true and Rossi has been sent to prison which I clearly contrasted with a fantastical future in which cold fusion is real. But you know who did call Rossi a criminal? THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.74.163.157 (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The government of Berlusconi and the mafia called him a criminal? Good point, son. Silent Key (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Your cliché about extraordinary claims sounds good but is not logical. All claims should be tested by correct procedures and competently run. That is all. Incompetent experiments, like that run by MIT in 1989, are the problem. They didn’t bother to inquire about the requirements and not knowing them, failed. Reminds of the overconfidence of Park claiming he has never read a single paper on the subject but knew all the answers. According to the New Energy Times he admitted LENR was real in 2006. Better late than never.

I’m not challenging anyone’s beliefs, I’m merely stating facts. Others, like AndyThe Grump, may find that challenging to their beliefs, but that is not my problem. An independent, third party test has been run. This has been confirmed by Elforsk, Forbes and Engineering News. The seven professors who ran the test reported finding more than a magnitude of excess heat. Way beyond any experimental error. Those are FACTS.

You said “In the real world …when Rossi was in jail.” Not much doubt what you meant. The Italian government passed a law that retroactively made the waste Rossi had collected redefined as hazardous. He was found guilty, but the small detail you neglected to mention was that he was later acquitted. Typical ah hominem that are all too common on this page. Small wonder you remain anonymous. Adrian Ashfield Parallel (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Parallel, take this as a final warning. If you persist in violating WP:NOTFORUM by using this talk page as a soapbox, I shall raise the matter at WP:ANI, and ask that you be topic banned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Please do. It is about time fresh eyes looked at this. This is the “talk page for discussing improvements to the Energy Catalyzer article.”

How can the E-Cat be fringe science and nonexistent when you can buy one?