Jump to content

Talk:Energy Catalyzer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alanf777 (talk | contribs) at 16:31, 14 July 2011 (Don't like bushnell edit). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Craig Cassarino

Then there's Craig J. Cassarino, founder at International Technology Development Corporation, also in Bedford, New Hampshire. He's been with Leonardo since 2001 too.

Article in The Oil Drum, reliable source

The Oil Drum, see our article, has put up an analysis of the Rossi story, The return of cold fusion?. According to our article, "the site has become well-known for rigorous, quantitative analysis of energy production and consumption." This is an edited publication, by an independent publisher, the Institute for the Study of Energy and Our Future. I think this is reliable source. From the article: "a friend and colleague of mine went to visit Focardi. My friend is not an easily duped person and he went there ready to debunk the hoax. He came back rather perplexed, saying something like, 'well, there may be something in this story.'"

(The comments make it clear that the "friend" didn't see a test, but rather found Focardi credible.)

What this article mostly does is to strengthen the notability of the E-Cat. It cites a blog post by Kjell Aleklett, a physics professor. This blog gives a good idea of how some close to the news are examining it. --EnergyNeutral (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, the comment where he says that the friend didn't see a test. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And another reliable media source notices the E-Cat: Fysikaktuellt, p. 13 (of the PDF), pp. 24-25 of the published magazine. I'd call this a biased and not very well informed critique, but it shows, again, notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnergyNeutral (talk • contribs) 00:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article and discussion page

It appears that many tempers are flaring and there is fierce debate going on here. I think everyone editing for or against this device should take a deep breath and calm down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.202.179.224 (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, anyone "editing for or against this device" should probably not be editing at all. Instead, we should be editing for Wikipedia, with the intention of producing an article which deals with a controversial topic in an appropriate manner, in accordance with Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely. Many of us may have strong opinions, and we could argue about this or that, but the article must be based on what is in reliable sources, following policy and guidelines. Both "For" or "Against" opinions are bias, and we need to set that aside and allow the weight of sources to express what they do, for now, and avoid original research. More will be revealed, I'm sure. --EnergyNeutral (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't reliable sources for even basic facts concerning this common fraud. There have been countless fraudulent energy devices. What makes this one special? 188.102.1.23 (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing makes it special; we have lots of articles on, er, "novel and imaginative" sources of energy. See here for example. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there are reliable sources for basic facts! This article has already been severely overhauled to ensure it. Whether it's real or not it's still notable, and the references are still real and reliable. Read the rest of the discussion before making statements based on false premises.94.170.239.207 (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't judge whether something is real or fraud or mistake. Wikipedia reports what is in reliable sources, in a balanced way, the balance reflecting the balance of the sources. This is an encyclopedia, not News of the Latest and Greatest, See It Here First! nor is it All Frauds Exposed. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (what a charming name!) is absolutely right. --EnergyNeutral (talk) 17:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perpetual motion devices are notable and they are discussed in science courses. This device is just one of many alternative energy hoaxes and is not notable. It was recently argued that this article cannot plainly state that the owners will not allow independent analysis because no reliable source states this. That's the most important basic fact about it, yet no reliable source even finds this topic important enough to report on. The [European Inventor Award] was recently held, but there no mention of this there. That shouldn't surprise anyone, but the fact that this is being treated as a notable topic on Wikipedia is extraordinary. 188.102.1.23 (talk) 18:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The guy above is an old pal of mine who comes from the Italian Wikipedia. He uses always the same arguments and the same examples, and his aim is one and only one: obtaining the deletion of the article.--79.11.2.205 (talk) 18:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not that person. That's not a nice way to talk about an old pal, but perhaps you could introduce us. 88.75.122.243 (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As to the IP conversation, it doesn't matter. Wikipedia does not decide notability arbitrarily. Rather, if it's covered in reliable sources -- which are independently defined, see WP:RS, more than just some passing mention, we normally consider it notable. Otherwise we would be arguing continually. I can appreciate that there are things that one editor might like to say, that the editor believes are true, and things that could be said in the other direction that another believes are true. However, these views are not what the article is based on, in any direction. Right now, the article says, for example,

On this demonstration, Discovery Channel analyst Benjamin Radford wrote, citing a physorg.com column,[16] "If this all sounds fishy to you, it should," and, "In many ways cold fusion is similar to perpetual motion machines. The principles defy the laws of physics, but that doesn’t stop people from periodically claiming to have invented or discovered one."[17]

That's from reliable source. It's an opinion, not a fact, as such, so it's attributed, as would be any editorial statement. Is it true? Well, some people would not think so, the key is "the principles." What are "the principles" that "defy the laws of physics"? Copper-nickel fusion with hydrogen is thought by some to be impossible, by others to be possible. But we don't know that the device works through that, it's just a theory. The device is not a "perpetual motion machine," because it does use a fuel that could, if the Coulomb barrier is somehow bypassed, explain the heat. We don't know, those of us who haven't checked it out, whether it works at all. But the editorial opinion does represent what a lot of people think, including one of the IP editors. Because it's in reliable source, it is a good thing that it's in the article, for balance. Do you understand now? --EnergyNeutral (talk) 20:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "defy the laws of physics" is such a catch-all term, it's not even funny. Usually in these contexts, it connotes the judgement that a claim "violates all laws of physics", which itself is a term that isn't all too uncommon either. How does one even write a claim that violates all laws of physics? There are hundreds of physical laws! Therefore, it is obvious that allegations connoting violation of all of them are 100% nonsense. Some might think I'm being too literal, but I say I cannot accept something at face value unless if it is literal—period. But because this allegation is from a reliable source [television???? ;)], I suppose it is okay to include it anyway for balance.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk 12:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That deletion

The deletion Kmarinas made, with the comment "that wasn't even the summary" seems to have been on the Ny Teknik blog and then taken down. See the google cache while it lasts. Not that I think it matters, it's still just a blog.LeadSongDog come howl! 17:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hum, that text is still there in that blog. It's also in the original blog[1], and it is used as the summary of the blog in the i-sis.org [2] and in the Ny Teknik article [3]. An anonymous editor later restored the missing summary, but he omitted the part about scam [4]. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

University Tests

http://www.socialnews.it/ARTICOLI2011/ARTICOLI201105/fusione.html (in Italian)

According to Loris Ferrari, Associate Professor of Condensed Matter Physics at UNIBO, a team of researchers at the Dipartimento di Fisica (UNIBO) formed by Sergio Focardi, Ennio Bonetti, Enrico Campari, Giuseppe Levi, Mauro Villa, and Ferrari himself, have been studying the Energy Catalyzer since May 2011.
Therefore it seems that this team is going to perform university tests and measurements concerning the Energy Catalyzer.
Wow, it sounds interesting:

--79.11.210.61 (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to Ny Teknik ( http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3208908.ece ), Andrea Rossi and UNIBO signed the agreement regarding commissioned research into the energy catalyzer last Wednesday, i.e. 22 June 2011. --79.10.163.15 (talk) 00:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are all eagerly awaiting any peer-reviewed papers that result. PhGustaf (talk) 04:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In an interview ( http://www.queryonline.it/2011/06/23/e-cat-intervista-a-giuseppe-levi/ ) Giuseppe Levi said that: "in the agreement it is specifically stated that our E-Cat research team here at UNIBO is free to publish all the results of our tests, whichever the outcomes are." --79.10.161.182 (talk) 12:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I should hope so - it wouldn't do much for the reputation of the University of Bologna to accept any other conditions. Meanwhile, can we keep discussion on this talk page confined to what has already happened, and has been reported in reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Levi speaking

In this reportage here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ

Giuseppe Levi talks about his experiences with the Energy Catalyzer (about min 17:15). It seems that at least one of the tests at UNIBO will perform some sorts of controlled explosion regarding the E-Cat. A sort of explosion seems that has already happened. --79.20.141.175 (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First official communiqué from UNIBO

http://www.df.unibo.it/bacheca/avviso_efa.pdf

(found here: http://www.df.unibo.it/bacheca/bacheca.htm )

--79.16.153.203 (talk) 11:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nickel-Hydrogen Excess Power Replicated by Peers?

Dr. Brian Ahern (PhD., MIT) has apparently duplicated excess power in Nickel-Hydrogen reactions, even absent the Rossi "catalyst":

According to Dr. Ahern, "This 5 watt excess is very much less than Rossi; but it is a real and repeatable experiment. There was no radiation above background level." Testing will continue with nore alloys (supplied by Ames National Laboratory) in the coming weeks.

This is NOT germaine to the wiki article, but is germaine to the discussion. (And, like everything else on this topic, has few reliable sources) -- Peer duplication of the basic science drastically reduces the probability of outright fraud. The recommendations for article deletion are ridiculous. The article needs to stick to what facts are available, and need to give ample caveats where needed. But, there seems to be a growing probability that this article's importance is on the upswing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.253.149.127 (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. If it isn't "germaine to the wiki article" then it doesn't belong on this talk page. This is not a forum. As for the rest of your comments, they are WP:OR in any case. Please confine future postings to material of relevance: i.e. that supported by reliable sources. Postings not relevant to the article may be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has this replication been linked to the E-Cat by reliable sources? I would have to disagree with AndyTheGrump on its appropriateness in this talk page because of the real potential for the two to be come linked in the media. The question here is when/if it becomes a part of the E-Cat story, and I'd argue it becomes a part when a reliable independent source links it to the story. I'd find attempting to exclude discussion of a point with real potential for relevance to the subject somewhat questionable behavior. I'm still coming to the E-Cat article here as my primary point of summary information on a continuing event, and I find it rather annoying when people attempt to color the description of the event based upon theories about the science. 15:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.155.215 (talk)

Evaluation of the device :: Bushnell Interview

I added a (fairly lengthy) extract of the interview by Bill Moore of EV World (a reliable source -- quoted over 20 times in wiki), with Dennis Bushnell, Chief Scientist at NASA Langley. Since the interview itself included quotations, I put the extract in a blockquote. The transcript, and its publication is approved by EV World. Ellipsis .. in the transcript indicates that there was a pause, or an "Umm,err..." which I removed. Alanf777 (talk) 00:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this may be a copyvio - I've reverted to the previous version for now. This is the copyright notice at the bottom of the transcript:
Copyright 1998-2011, EVWorld.com, Inc. All rights reserved.
EV World premium subscriber content may be freely distributed 12 months after its original publication date with the only stipulation being that EV World be credited and a link is provided back to the site.
Transcript on lenr.qumbu.com with permission from EV WORLD : Driving the Electric Future in Motion Since 1998
This transcript may be quoted or copied, with links to both EV WORLD and lenr.qumbu.com
I think it might be possible to read this as indication that quoting would be ok, but there may be a problem with the 'links' condition not being compatible with Wikipedia's ShareAlike License - I'm not sure, and think this needs to be verified first. There is also a question as to whether the transcript will meet WP:RS requirements. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My email to Bill Moore :
To: editor@evworld.com
From: Alan Fletcher <AlanFletcher@farcad.com>
Subject: Interview with NASA Langley Chief Scientist Dennis M. Bushnell
Dear Mr Moore,
...
I would very much like to add references to Mr Bushnell's interview to my paper, and to the wikipedia article -- but I'd prefer to add direct quotes, but your Copyright (12-month delay) doesn't allow it (other than "fair use").
I've transcribed the LENR part of the interview at
http://lenr.qumbu.com/110606_bushnell_interview_part1.php
(I haven't provided any links to this, so it's invisible to the world).
If you care to post my transcript (with or without acknowledgement) with your original article that would work fine for me. Otherwise, I'd be grateful for permission to link to my transcript, and to make a few direct quotes of the transcript in my paper and in the wikipedia article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer
- - - -
Mr Moore's reply :
From: Bill Moore <editor@evworld.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-4-522125837
Subject: Re: Interview with NASA Langley Chief Scientist Dennis M. Bushnell
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 16:05:23 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20110606194728.3F91716100D2@zimbra.well.com>
To: Alan Fletcher <AlanFletcher@farcad.com>
Message-Id: <BDEAFDFF-9BEB-4D2A-A10E-9447512A6E4B@evworld.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Alan... feel free to quote the relevant parts of the interview with attribution to EV World, of course. Link back would also be appreciated.
- - - -
To: Bill Moore <editor@evworld.com>
From: Alan Fletcher <AlanFletcher@farcad.com>
Subject: Re: Interview with NASA Langley Chief Scientist Dennis M. Bushnell
|At 02:05 PM 6/6/2011, Bill Moore wrote:
|Alan... feel free to quote the relevant parts of the interview with attribution to EV World, of course. Link back would also be :::|appreciated.
I've prettied up the transcript, with plenty of attribution and links : See http://lenr.qumbu.com/110606_evworld_bushnell_interview_part1_v401.php
- - - -
Subject: Re: Interview with NASA Langley Chief Scientist Dennis M. Bushnell
From: Bill Moore <editor@evworld.com>
To: Alan Fletcher <AlanFletcher@farcad.com>
Much appreciated Alan.
bill
- - - - - - - -
I think that these emails establish both the right to copy and the approval of the transcript by the original publisher.
Since I provide timestamps the transcript can readily be checked against the MP3.

Alanf777 (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To ease the review of the quotes I'll put a copy in User:Alanf777.
If you like, I can get approval from Bill Moore for the exact quote and format.

Alanf777 (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be as well to ask for advice on this - maybe at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. The problem is that the ShareAlike License effectively means that anyone will be able to cite the quotes (if attributed), not just Wikipedia - and the e-mails don't really indicate that this had been understood. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Defkalion press conference June 23

Apparently Defkalion appears to have announced a press conference for June 23, see http://technews.it/DZRKa (Google-Translate [5], including (bold-facing added): "The press conference will include previously unpublished details concerning the commercial and industrial applications, the company's strategic plans, and trade issues of interest not only for future customers Defkalion, but also for the political society of Greece"). Anybody know whether the website http://technews.it reliable? 87.174.25.133 (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless what is reported at the press conference is reported in mainstream reliable sources, it is of no significance to this article whatsoever. Also, I'd remind you that the article is not about Defkalion, but about the 'Catalyzer', and unsubstantiated hype like this won't go into the article anyway - I think 'the political society of Greece' has got more immediate concerns at the moment... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait and see: maybe something interesting will be told during that press conference, or maybe not. So, just wait and see...--79.16.153.44 (talk) 14:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it is 'interesting' or not is irrelevant if it isn't reported in reliable sources. This talk page is for discussion about article content, not speculation about what might be said at a press conference the day after tomorrow. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Press releases may be reliable sources. // Liftarn (talk)
'May be...' If and when one appears, we can discuss this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it depends on what it says. // Liftarn (talk)

First media coverage: Xanthipress

http://www.xanthipress.gr/eidiseis/politiki/8178-episimi-parousiasi-tiw-defcalion-.html

--79.10.163.15 (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a notable mainstream news organisation? Given the uncritical echoing of Defkalion's statements, it seems unlikely. And again, I'll remind contributors that this article isn't about Defkalion. There is as yet no evidence whatsoever that that company meets Wikipedia's notability requirements, so press conferences, press releases etc are of no relevance here unless they directly relate to the only issue that makes the 'Energy Catalyzer' notable - the claim that it produces energy by cold fusion or a similar process. All this hype about what Defkalion claims it will be doing is in any case covered under WP:CRYSTALBALL - we report things when they have happened, and when they have been reported in reliable sources - we do not report speculation, particularly when based around unproven claims regarding advanced technology. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic hype collapsed: We do not include content from primary sources, and this article isn't about Defkalion. Find WP:RS.
I have to disagree with AndyTheGrump about what makes the Energy Catalyzer notable, and therefore about what makes Defkalion notable. The notable thing about the Energy Catalyzer is the claim that they are commercializing a product. How it works or what it does is completely irrelevant. In this context every single word out of Defkalion is of interest. Whether the device actually works or not will be of eventual interest, but until it is either demonstrated as a fraud or goes into accepted widespread use this is simply not at issue. Sphere1952 (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Size

According to Defkalion's web site:

Description
The line of products to be produced by Defkalion Green Techologies S.A. will carry the name Hyperion. Individual units producing heat ranging from 5 up to 30KWh/h will have the following dimensions: L55xW48xH35cm. Larger units producing 1MW heat will be sized to fit inside a container sized 20 and 40 feet. All products are plug-and-play.

See here: http://www.defkalion-energy.com/products

--79.10.132.54 (talk) 11:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A PDF from Defkalion

At last something that (seems) detaled:

http://www.defkalion-energy.com/White_Paper_DGT.pdf

Hyperion products have different configurations, most notably:

  • Series A : Single tube single module CHP: By this configuration, 5-10Kw heat power will be released to operate micro-CHP/micro turbine configurations
  • Series B : Multi tube single module CHP: By this configuration, multiples of 5 or 10Kw heat power (max 30kW) can be integrated in the same box , when product has to operate (heat) bigger CHP/micro-CHP or steam turbine configurations
  • Series C : Single tube single module heat only: By this configuration, 5-10Kw heat power will be released to operate small steam or hot water demands such as agricultural applications (green houses)
  • Series D : Multi tube single module heat only: By this configuration, multiples of 5Kw heat power can be integrated in the same box, when product has to produce substantial amounts of heat for energy demanding applications
  • Series E : Single or multi tube modules in parallel: To face the energy demands of big industrial installations at the range of MWs. Such products consists of arrays of A, B, or D series rack-mounted
  • Series F : Single or multi tube modules in series: To accelerate power in different configurations

--79.10.132.54 (talk) 11:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Defkalion press conference: Marianne Macy reports

http://www.cobraf.com/forum/immagini/R_302192_1.pdf

--79.10.132.131 (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Size: secondary source (Ny Teknik)

"E-cat": Here is the Greek Energy box: a box of cm 55x45x35

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=sv&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nyteknik.se%2Fnyheter%2Fenergi_miljo%2Fenergi%2Farticle3208819.ece&act=url

--79.10.163.15 (talk) 20:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And once again, you post hype from Dekaflon - that NY Teknik repeats a press statement does not make it any more relevant to this article - nothing be included in the article from Dekaflon unless it has been subject to appropriate critical analysis from external reliable sources. A near verbatim copy of a press release tells us nothing at all of relevance to the article topic. There is therefore no point in posting it here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or here if you want a non-automatic translation. // Liftarn (talk)

Why is the Energy Catalyzer worth an article?

If the interesting thing about the E-Cat was it's claim to cold fusion or LENR then it would at best deserve a section in the cold fusion article. The Energy Catalyzer is interesting because they claim to be commercializing a product based upon some poorly understood process. The process is on;ly marginally interesting in itself, but the claim to commercialization is extremely interesting and needs to be watched closely. As I complained when I first saw the article, I find that arguments over the science are obscuring the only real interest -- the events. Everything about the E-Cat as an economic event is of interest, and nothing about it as a scientific theory is of interest. If it eventually proves to be a workable economic method of producing energy then an article on the science would be in order. (I guess even if it proves to work but not be economically sound a science article would be in order, though my interest will then wane.) 16:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphere1952 (talk • contribs)

You think this merits a full section. More like one sentence in a paragraph about claimed working products. And that paragraph would only have three sentences. One for saying that there is no working product that has been accepted by mainstream science, another to talk about Arata's claim that he has a working product[6], and another for Rossi's claim.
Hopefully, in a year or two some RS will finally catch up to the idea that there was never any working generator to begin with. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see no usefulness in mentioning Science at all. This is purely an economic story about current events. Either a wonderful fraud or a miraculous recovery from the brink of disaster. In either event it is the people and companies involved and what they do which is the story. Scientific theories have no role until after the fact. I think anything having to do with the potential science or its lack is simply a distraction, and that even whether the devices work or not is only relevant in the context of how the actors deal with this fact. The dance various scientists go through may be of importance to the story, but only to the extent it has bearing upon the economic reality. The ground truth here is who is involved, and what they are doing. Whether the devices work or not only becomes important later in the story when they either find excuses for pushing out the date or sit there like cats who have eaten the bird. If this article is properly written the beginning of it shouldn't need modification after October 2011. Right now no matter what happens it will have to be completely redone. 18:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphere1952 (talk • contribs)

Enric,

Arata is a tremendously serius and respected scientist who discovered something very valuable in his scientific field, but his work is not valuable in strict commercial terms because it is a technology which is not, at its stage of development, ready for the market. Vice-versa the Energy Catalyzer is clamed to be a fully commercially viable product, and therefore the E-Cat is simply in a league on its own. --79.10.161.198 (talk) 19:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. If the claims about the E-Cat are true, it may well be in a league of its own. Meanwhile, the combination of ever-increasing hype about commercial prospects and a total lack of verifiable evidence that it actually does anything at all makes it seem less and less worthy of serious consideration as either 'science' or 'commerce'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given the names lining up, such as Brian Josephson, it is rather clear that this is developing into a significant story. Whether the claims are true or not merely determines the outcome of the story, not whether it is an event for which it is worth maintaining a summary. It'd like to see a well developed summary of the events as they happen, uncluttered with opinions about the outcome. Suppressing statements by significant actors as irrelevant is interference with maintaining a summary of the event since these actors and their statements are the event. The E-Cat is not a Scientific Event, but an economic one. It should be being reported in much same the vein as the reporting of the Japanese nuclear disaster. It is rather clear that people with an opinion about the scientific validity of the process are interfering with reporting the event. Sphere1952 (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is "suppressing statements" on any grounds other than that Wikipedia policy does not permit articles and talk pages to be filled with speculation and hype. As for the suggestion that this is somehow comparable in notability to the Japanese nuclear disaster, I think that is not only ludicrous, but offensive. As for 'economics', I suggest you read WP:CRYSTALBALL: we aren't interested in the opinions of contributors on the future economic impact of devices which so far seem to do nothing other than create large volumes of hot air from the mouths of those with an 'economic interest' in promoting them, and from an array of wishful-thinkers who seem utterly devoid of any capability of critical analysis (or any awareness of history). AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've no opinion on the eventual significance of the E-Cat, unlike some. I do know that the Japanese disaster was objectively reported as it happened, unlike this event. If you consider this event insignificant then may I suggest that you ignore it? Then maybe I'll be able to turn to the article rather than the suppressed sections of the talk page to find out what's new. Sphere1952 (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you persist in making ridiculous allegations of 'suppression', can you at least attempt to back it up with evidence. As I have repeatedly pointed out, this isn't a forum for speculation and hype, per Wikipedia policy. If you want to read that, go elsewhere. Otherwise, stay on topic - article content, as provided by reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All I know is that the section above on Defkalion is "Collapsed" as off-topic, and as far as I'm concerned Defkalion is central to the topic. Any discussion of whether the device is or is not possible, however, is completely off-topic except where we have some expert witness involved in the events address that question directly. The topic is the Energy Catalyzer, and Defkalion has by all accounts an exclusive license for the Energy Catalyzer for most of the world; which makes them a central player. Rather than suppressing what they have to say we should be picking it apart very carefully for clues about what is happening and for names of people we should be observing. Whatever the end result, the history will be about these people and companies, and they are what we should be collecting information upon and writing about. Sphere1952 (talk) 23:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since you very clearly have little understanding of Wikipedia policy on notability, on reliable sourcing, and on other issues (see WP:N, WP:V, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:CRYSTALBALL etc), I can see no point in continuing this discussion further. We are not going to take speculative hype and meaningless press releases from involved concerns as a basis for an article, and therefore such matters have no need to be discussed on the article talk page - hence the collapse. This is an online encyclopaedia, not a news agency, or a futurists convention - and we don't give a damn about your opinions concerning what you think history will "be about". If you want to read Defkalon's press releases, I'm sure they will provide them to you, and if you want to speculate, there are plenty of websites that will cater to your needs. This isn't one of them, however. We write articles about things that have happened, not things that we 'want' to happen. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.Sphere1952 (talk) 23:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that has happened is that our video is out. Enjoy, along with the (literally) 10000 others who have watched it, either on that site or on youtube! (I wonder what led me to make that comment about wikipedia editing in the 'description'?) --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: write about the Defkalion Green technologies at its page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.49.75.221 (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To do that, someone will need to create one, and ensure it meets our notability and sourcing requirements. Given the lack of evidence that it has actually produced anything other than hype, I think that might be difficult. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added preprint by Yeong E. Kim

Seems reputable enough, even though it's a pre-print.

Alanf777 (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but it says it gives "preliminary theoretical explanations", and states that it is "based on incomplete experimental information" - too equivocal to actually be much use, I'd suggest. I'm not qualified to judge the science (and that isn't a Wikipedia editor's job), but I think it is fair to say that this is hardly unqualified support for the mechanism the Catalyzer is supposed to be using. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And you REMOVED it?
This is nutz -- there's absolutely NO reason to take that out.
My summary text clearly said it's a pre-print, that it SUGGESTS ... etc etc.
If you're going to allow informal disparaging blog comments by scientists with WAY lesser credentials than Kim ..... and NOT allow a paper by a scientist with excellent credentials, what ARE you going to allow? Alanf777 (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that it is reasonable to expect the general reader to understand what a 'pre-print' is, though that is perhaps a minor issue. I think that if we are going to include this, we need to make clear just how equivocal the paper is. Your wording certainly didn't give that impression to me. You need to bear in mind that Wikipedia has high standards when it comes to using sources making science-based claims - hence the debate on this talk page about the extent to which we need to treat this as a 'science' story at all. If we start including unpublished primary research based on "incomplete experimental information" , we may be pushing at the limits of the permissible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that a fellow of the American Physical Society (200? fellows out of 48,000 members) writes ANY paper about the Rossi eCat is notable in itself, regardless of the contents of the paper. I'll weasel-word the entry to indicate that it's a preliminary theory based on preliminary data. Alanf777 (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would be best to add your proposed text here, rather than in the article - I'd be happier to get further comments from others in any case. There is no rush, after all - if the Catalyzer works I'm sure we will get plenty of more solid 'science' sources. Meanwhile, what wording do you suggest? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I already put it up. But here's a copy: (I've added some WIKI-LINKS) Alanf777 (talk) 22:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeong E. Kim [1], physics professor at Purdue University, and a fellow of the American Physical Society, has released a pre-print of an invited paper, Generalized Theory of Bose-Einstein Condensation Nuclear Fusion for Hydrogen-Metal System [2] which -- based on the "incomplete experimental information currently available" -- suggests that under conditions similar to those in the Rossi eCat, Nickel and Pairs of protons could possibly form a Bose–Einstein condensate, overcoming the Coulomb barrier. This would allow various nuclear transmutations, producing isotopes of Nickel and Copper, and low-energy gamma-rays.

I think I'd be happier if it read "...an unreviewed pre-print..." just to make it clear without the need to follow the link. I'll defer to others to comment on whether you've summarised the physics properly - it looks fine to me, but I'm no physicist, and this is way over my head. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I already clarified that it's a pre-print of an INVITED paper ... which honor is normally only given to acknowledged experts in a field .. and thus BYPASSES the peer review process. Alanf777 (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Invited where? And honestly, the paper does not look promising. Check the references - either it's Rossy-fluff, or its self-citations. That should give you an idea about how far out this stuff is. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Invited where? -- see reference 10. (Admittedly to a conference he's been involved with for a long time).
Does not look promising ... (ahh : opens scientific debate) ... You don't believe in Bosons? Or Bose Einstein Condensates?
Check the references - either it's Rossy-fluff : How else can he refer to the eCat experiments? Patent, paper & E&K experiment
... or its self-citations : since he's an expert in an acknowledged field -- and he's applying his previous methods to a new case, I don't see any problem with that. Edit: his reference 2 has 67 references
Even if we regard a pre-print of an invited paper as "self Published" it still passes Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources -- Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field (YES) has previously been published by reliable third-party publications (YES). Alanf777 (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have a problem there though. We don't yet know what "the relevant field" is. The article is about the Catalyser, and until it is demonstrated that it works by LENR (or even convincingly demonstrated that it works at all), it is supposition that Kim is an "an established expert". Unless and until the Catalyzer is subject to proper scientific scrutiny (i.e. by providing "complete experimental information") Kim's speculation remains just that - speculation by an expert in a field that may or may not be relevant. I think that Kim's own words can only be taken as an acknowledgement of this - the abstract is a collection of statements to the effect that he doesn't have enough information to go on, but he can give "preliminary theoretical explanations of the experimental results... in terms of the generalized BECNF theory". He's not claiming to be an expert in how the Catalyzer works, but instead to have the beginnings of an explanation as to how it might. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • see reference 10 - maybe I'm blind. Reference 10 where? Can you give a direct link? Note that conferences in physics (unlike e.g. computer science) often deal with new, surprising, and unconfirmed material - "the literature" is mostly journals.
References: The problem is not that he self-cites, or cites Rossi-stuff. The problem is that he cites nothing else. That's bad style, but more importantly, it is an indication of how isolated this work is. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's definitely a walled-garden issue. Apparently the conference is the Fifth Asia-Pacific Conference on Few-Body Problems in Physics this August: [7]. (Kim is listed as a member of the conference's "International Advisory Committee": [8]; his Purdue bio indicates that he's been an advisor for the conference since its inception in 1999.) The conference proceedings will be appearing in the journal Few-Body Systems, which has an impact factor of 0.622. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
walled-garden issue: I repeat -- That's STANDARD practice for follow-on papers, which is what this is. See my note above. (The papers he references DO have copious references.) His 'selected papers' (20/200) show expertise in the general area (Many/Few bodies, bose-einstein, etc) well beyond "LENR" itself. Alanf777 (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
dedented to restart with User:Chris_Howard's version.)
First -- I think that a separate section is merited. Maybe it should have a generalized disclaimer that these are all based on the preliminary results.
Rossi's own paper should be permitted, even though it's self-published.
Widom and Larsen reference should be moved here.
Other papers from generally recognized Reliable Sources (eg Purdue and Kim) should be allowed.
For THIS subject, publication in Cold Fusion/LENR journals and conferences should be allowed.
I have some minor issues with Chris Howard's wording -- but not with its general intent. Maybe it should be refined in Talk first. Alanf777 (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Alanf777, just go ahead - do indicate the minor issues, or edit the section directly. (I mean, I usually don't bite ...) --Chris Howard (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but no. Wikipedia has firm policies regarding science-based articles. If it hasn't been published in recognised peer-reviewed journals, and presents non-orthodox science, it is unlikely to be acceptable - and policy cannot be overridden by talk-page consensus (not that there appears to be one in any case). All this is entirely speculative, and has little bearing on the Catalyzer until it is confirmed that it actually works by LENR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AmdyTheGrump, no simple "but no" like that. WP:SOURCE requires sources to be "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and the creator of the work (the writer) is to be considered. The writer, Prof. Kim, absolutely has that reputation, and moreover in exactly the field of theoretical nuclear physics. He has even published extensively on Bose-Einstein condensate. Reliable creator of the work yes, so it can be cited as source. And it is definitely relevant as far as the subject of the article, the eCat, goes. Whether Kim's attempt at an explanation turns out to actually be a correct explanation in terms of theoretical physics in the end is another question which does not have to be answered by Wikipedia.
(And just as further remark for the sake of completeness, even if your argument has already been fully addressed above: WP:SOURCE explicitly does not indicate peer review as conditio sine qua non, not even in science: "academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science. But they are not the only reliable sources in such areas" - so WP:SOURCE.)
About the Widom-Larsen theory, that would be a different issue I would say. Haven't read of a reputable expert citing it as explanation for Rossi's eCat so far, but I would be interested to learn if it's otherwise. --Chris Howard (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rossi and Widom-Larsen's papers are already in this section. I'm just proposing to move them to the explanation subsection (which should perhaps be promoted). W-L is endorsed by Bushnell (See way above -- reminder to self ... get the necessary permission from EVworld ).
Minor edit -- Kim's paper is REF'd twice. (I'm still thinking about the whole para.)Alanf777 (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first reference to Kim's paper was to give an indication to the fact that in his paper he refers to the conference. Yet as you say, the article was referenced a second time. Because that second reference has been at the end of the same paragraph, I have now removed the first reference. And I have provided a further reference to the invited speakers' list. Done. --Chris Howard (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've put a draft at User:Alanf777 maybe we can edit it there. (It's better than putting it in Talk, because references don't work correctly here). Alanf777 (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some editing proposals on your page concerning the Kim preprint. --Chris Howard (talk) 09:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Draft at User:Alanf777 : I added brief descriptions of Rossi and Widom-Larsen. The Kim explanation may be too technical. I can't find a RS for Rossi's statement that he has a new theory which he will publish on his Journal/Blog in October.Alanf777 (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have now included the collected edits concerning the Kim preprint in the article. That is as far as I intend to go for the moment. --Chris Howard (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine ... it's the only RS paper that specifically addresses the eCat. Alanf777 (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluation of the device: Bushnell interview revisited

I looked at Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License and found its "Remix/Adapt" clause WAY too broad.
I've rewritten a paraphrase at User:Alanf777 with only three short quotes, which IMHO falls well within "fair use".
I can get permission for THAT sentence, but I'm not going to ask for any more.
EVWorld has a new audio interview with Rossi, but it doesn't really add anything.
There's a MUCH more interesting interview at
Andrea Rossi on the E-Cat – Part 1/2 and 2/2

but I presume that's not RS enough. Alanf777 (talk) 19:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I got permission from EVWORLD -- and sent it to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOTorg

A) I hereby affirm that I, Bill Moore, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of an audio interview with Dennis Bushnell and an associated article in EVWorld.

http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1983 http://www.evworld.com/evworld_audio/dennis_bushnell_part1.mp3
B) I hereby affirm that I, Alan Fletcher, am the transcriber of the the interview, with permission of Bill Moore, and as such may hold copyrights of the derivative work.

http://lenr.qumbu.com/110606_evworld_bushnell_interview_part1_v401.php


C) We agree to publish THE FOLLOWING QUOTED EXTRACTS from the transcript of the interview, under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0"

Bushnell described several emerging energy technologies, but he identified LENR as "THE most interesting and promising at this point". He said that "... It alone, if it comes to pass, would literally solve both climate and energy." He summarized the reported results of the eCat, and thought that "this will go forward fairly rapidly now."


We acknowledge that by doing so we grant anyone the right to use the QUOTED EXTRACTS of the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.


We are aware that we always retain copyright of our work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to us.


We acknowledge that we cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Alanf777 (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't exactly know what you think the problem with the license is. However, I'm extremely wary of "locking in" certain versions of content based on permissions obtained from copyright holders. The phrase is extremely short can be used under fair use, anyways. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the last edit on the Bushnell quote.
a) "thought" vs "said" : he actually said "I think that ..." so THOUGHT is a better summary, as it indicates opinion rather than fact.
b) "told" vs "said" : TOLD is plain wrong. You could say he "told the interviewer" but that's redundant.
c) I don't think the "(ie NASA)" is needed.
If anyone wants to use different quotes I'll get a new permission. Alanf777 (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ [9], Yeong E. Kim, Purdue University
  2. ^ [10],Generalized Theory of Bose-Einstein Condensation Nuclear Fusion for Hydrogen-Metal System
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Energy_Catalyzer&oldid=439462240"