Talk:Energy Catalyzer/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

From the page "Fusione nucleare fredda" on the Italian Wikipedia: just a suggestion

Here:

it:Fusione_nucleare_fredda#1994-2011:_la_fusione_fredda_Nichel-Idrogeno_(Ni-H)

you can find a brief history concerning the study of Sergio Focardi about cold fusion in Italy:

1994-2011: la fusione fredda Nichel-Idrogeno (Ni-H)

Schema del reattore nichel-idrogeno ideato da Piantelli e Focardi per la misura dell'eventuale calore in eccesso[96]

Nel 1989 il biofisico Francesco Piantelli, dell'Università degli Studi di Siena, mentre stava effettuando studi su campioni di materiale organico[97], si accorse della presenza di un'anomala produzione di calore[98]. Comunicò il fenomeno da lui osservato a Sergio Focardi, fisico dell'Università di Bologna, e i due decisero di creare un gruppo di lavoro cui si aggiunse Roberto Habel, membro dell'INFN presso l'Università di Cagliari,[99][100][101] al fine di approfondire la causa di quell'anomalia termica.[102]

Dopo circa tre anni, gli studi approdarono a significativi risultati permettendo la costruzione di un reattore Nichel-Idrogeno sufficientemente efficiente. Passarono altri due anni di sperimentazioni e finalmente il 20 febbraio 1994, in una conferenza stampa presso l'aula magna dell'Università di Siena, venne annunciata la messa a punto di un differente processo di produzione di energia per mezzo di Reazioni Nucleari a Bassa Energia (LENR)[103], profondamente differente da quello fatto da Fleischmann e Pons[104][105].

Il loro processo si basava sull'uso di una barra di nichel, mantenuta per mezzo di una resistenza elettrica ad una temperatura di circa 200-400 °C e caricata con idrogeno attraverso un particolare processo[106][107]. Quando la reazione è innescata, ovvero la barretta di nichel emette più energia di quanta sia necessaria per il riscaldamento della stessa, vi può essere anche una debole e discontinua emissione di radiazione gamma che potrebbe testimoniare una possibile origine nucleare di tale fenomeno[108][109].

In base alle dichiarazioni dagli autori, attualmente gli esperimenti sono indirizzati ad un miglioramento dell'efficienza complessiva del sistema, al fine di realizzare un generatore di energia termica ed elettrica completamente autonomo.[110]

Secondo quanto affermato nel 2011 dal fisico nucleare dell'INFN Giuseppe Levi,[111] un fenomeno simile potrebbe essere alla base del funzionamento del Catalizzatore di Energia di Andrea Rossi e Sergio Focardi.[112][113]

If someone is able to translate this paragraph from Italian to English it could be added here as "Previous studies"...--79.17.129.23 (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It would make more sense to provide translations of the articles this is sourced from. We can't use another Wikipedia as a reliable source per policy, though I've no reason to think the Italian article is in any way flawed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok. References sought on the page about "Cold Fusion" on the Italian Wikipedia. ( = it:Fusione nucleare fredda )

Here some:

1) article from Corriere della Sera

http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/1994/febbraio/20/fusione_fredda_alla_senese_accende_co_0_94022011712.shtml

2) CONFERENZA NAZIONALE SULLA POLITICA ENERGETICA IN ITALIA 18 - 19 Aprile 2005 BOLOGNA

Focardi S., Piantelli F. - "Produzione di energia e reazioni nucleari in sistemi Ni-H tra 400 e 700 K" (also published on Nuovo Cimento)

http://www.christinasponza.it/christinasponza.it/speciale_nucleare/notizie_articoli/2005_04_18-19_convegno_bologna/2005_04_18-19_convegno_bologna.htm

http://www.christinasponza.it/christinasponza.it/speciale_nucleare/notizie_articoli/2005_04_18-19_convegno_bologna/Articoli/SessioneI/Focardi.pdf

3) "Large excess heat production in Ni-H systems" (published on Nuovo Cimento)

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998NCimA.111.1233F

text here: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSlargeexces.pdf

4) "Evidence of electromagnetic radiation from Ni-H Systems" (presented during the Eleventh International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, ICCF-11 Marseilles France 2004)

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006cmns...11...70F

http://books.google.it/books?id=Fsm5iewynnEC&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70&dq=%22Evidence+of+electromagnetic+radiation+from+Ni-H+Systems%22&source=bl&ots=x9pvDtsely&sig=L_d5SVUGj-qqmWu9qwjrjP5XFBo&hl=it&ei=KyOyTZvTIdGbOs6E9a0J&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDoQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=%22Evidence%20of%20electromagnetic%20radiation%20from%20Ni-H%20Systems%22&f=false

For further search: list of the publications of Sergio Focardi http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:698Po8_X1H8J:www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3085196.ece/BINARY/Focardi_ELENPUB.doc+%22Large+excess+heat+production+in+Ni-H+systems%22&hl=it&gl=it&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiqWck8HWUAEMMgtR9d09uKuKFoBjcSfnYrKHWecZoTT98eysgVb0BaCerDHQstpZ_sErwJ_8tt3lgA7ghk50c7SWEBhD2kWuGENclSoABGkG8xQZYMoNpeFVhcTrNGcb8YbNF1&sig=AHIEtbQteXm7zJx3re3WuzAdUlIfRieFNQ

(found here as .doc file: http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3085196.ece/BINARY/Focardi_ELENPUB.doc)

Regards.--79.17.129.23 (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that most of this material is probably more relevant to our cold fusion article than to this one. In any case, the difficulty is, as always, that there needs to be evidence of acceptance of Focardi's work before it can be considered significant for a Wikipedia article - we can really only follow the perspective of mainstream science in this regard - not because we wish to support the 'status quo', but rather because we lack the expertise to make our own assessments, and lack the expertise to determine who is able to make such judgements. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's a way round that problem: consult people in the field in regard to expertise, e.g. which awards indicate expertise, which memberships, etc. etc. You yourself (and other editors) may find it hard to judge whether membership of e.g. the Royal Swedish Academy and of their energy board means anything much but most research scientists on the other hand would. This indirect approach you can use even if you don't have the relevant expertise yourself. Publication in journals can be indicative, as long as it is borne in mind that some journals automatically reject papers in this area, returning them without even sending them out to referees.

Another principle very much worth bearing in mind, to some degree modifying the above, is that people who have not read the literature on a subject cannot be considered experts on it. In this connection, most of the people who criticise cold fusion research have read only very selectively, so their opinions should be given little weight, regardless of what esteem they may have within the scientific community. --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Consulting 'experts' would violate WP:OR. And since, as you note 'cold fusion' research isn't recognised as mainstream science by most of the journals which one would expect to cover the topic if it were, one has to assume that their expertise is of greater significance. To dismiss their opinions, and instead give precedence to a minority opinion would constitute a breach of WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE etc. This is the key issue at stake here: Wikipedia can only follow mainstream science in a topic like this - it isn't a forum for debating the validity of the mainstream. Frankly, I find it a little strange that a person of your renown would consider this article of such importance in any case - if Rossi's 'catalyser' is indeed powered by cold fusion, it would seem to deserve commentary in more notable places. If and when this occurs, this will of course be most useful as a reference here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Until the journal editors wake up out of the kind of slumber that they are in, as described by Gurdjieff, this W'pedia page is an invaluable resource to refer people to, especially on account of its informative references. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Why are we considering science at all, especially mainstream science? If someone is directly involved in the events in some way we should be reporting on that individual's qualifications as best we can determine them. If they are not directly involved in the events then they are of no interest here and should not be mentioned. Put the science (or its lack) in the Cold Fusion Article or something so we can have a nice clean history of this event. Either this will be a very interesting story of fraud or it will be the most significant engineering story of our times, and getting it mixed up with scientific arguments makes no sense at all.Sphere1952 (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

As you will see if you look up a few scientific articles, it is the norm for Wikipedia articles to include both the science and the history. See below as to why the Rossi reactor deserves a separate article.

Later on you state 'bringing in science keeps interfering with reporting on the history of an on-going event'. It should not interfere if an article is written properly, so the correct procedure, in line with traditional w'pedia practice, is that if an article becomes confusing because of the way successive insertions have been made by more than one editor, someone with the appropriate skills should adjust the article appropriately. The fact that something starts off imperfect is no reason for not doing it in the first place. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

And the references are very relevant to this article because, like the Rossi reactor, they involve the Ni-H system rather than the more common Pd-D system.

The reason why the Rossi reactor deserves its own article is its claimed practical importance, which sets it apart from cold fusion research in general. And it would be incoherent to suggest that scientific assessments should be excluded from such an article; engineering depends on underlying science.

Re 'mainstream science', note that article 3 was published in the regular journal Nuovo Cimento. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

While I understand your argument here, it seems that bringing in science keeps interfering with reporting on the history of an on-going event. It is well known that the science of LENR is controversial, and saying much more than that just brings in the controversy. I think any discussion of why needs to be very limited in order to stay out of muddy waters so that a clear report is provided on the events to date.Sphere1952 (talk) 11:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a mirror that reflects the published, reliable sources. It is not a place to discuss our personal opinions. CLOSED by siNkarma86 @ 21:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

By the way, the production of energy proposed by the article is physically impossible. If it were true, Rossi would win a nobel prize. I've read the italian article: there are NO official articles on scientific reviews, no serious document and no teorical explanation about how it would be possible to produce energy ah 800 K temperature. This article is a false rumor. ^musaz † 14:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I inform all of you that Musaz is a user on the Italian Wikipedia who is desperately trying to obtain the deletion of the "Catalizzatore di Energia di Rossi e Focardi" page on the Italian Wikipedia. He affirms to be a student of physics and he says that his professor told him that the E-Cat is scam.

I invite all of you to keep both eyes open because I suspect that this could be the first of a number of attacks coming during the next months and concerning the feasibility of Rossi's E-Cat...--79.6.11.183 (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Given the claims being made regarding Rossi's 'catalyzer', and their incompatibility with known principles of physics, the suggestion that it may be a scam hardly constitutes an 'attack'. Rather it is an entirely rational approach, compatible with Wikipedia policies - WP:FRINGE in particular. I'd also draw your attention to WP:NPA, and suggest you discuss article content, rather than your opinion of contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

@ 79.6.11.183: i've never said that, no professor told me, and i'm not "desperately trying to obtain the deletion". Please don't lie. Yes i'm a student, and the E-Cat can't work simply because it violates a lot of physical principles. ^musaz † 20:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

E-cats can't be violating the first law of thermodynamics. If their energy output can be entirely accounted for by nature, then they can work. That doesn't mean humans will understand E-cats anytime soon. There is also a difference between physical principles and physical models. Principles are more fundamental. E-cats violate current physical models (such as particular models of QCD), but they do not necessarily violate very basic principles of science such as the three laws of motion or the laws of thermodynamics.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 10:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

No. Since there are no scientific pubblications, the experiment is not accepted by the scientific environment. It is not science, it can't be shown in an encyclopedia at all. If there existed some valid theorical arguments the experiment would have a huge number of pubblications and the inventors would become the most important living physicists. ^musaz † 10:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

There are no scientific "pubblications", the experiment is not accepted by the "mainline" scientific "environmentcommunity", and nor is it "science". Science is a process of discovery, not the discovery itself. The results of E-cats may very well be a very important discovery, but that doesn't mean that it was arrived at by a strict enough scientific protocol. However, valid theoretical arguments alone do not imply a huge number of publications. There can be valid unwritten theoretical arguments, which of course, being unwritten, would preclude them from being already published. Finally, to conclude that they would be the most important living physicists if they were right would be a value judgement based on your own personal preconception, rather than a peer-reviewed scientific consensus. Your use of the word "No" at the beginning of your comment can mislead one into thinking that you responded back to me contradicting what I said.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 11:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

They affirm they realized nuclear fusion. Years of research had produced DEMO, and mr. Rossi states to have developed a way to realize nuclear fusion at 500 °C within a little box. The results of E-cats can't be a very important discovery, there's no other way to deal the matter. ^musaz † 11:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

http://web.mit.edu/hr/oed/learn/change/art_four_room.html "When you're in the Confusion Room, you're neither here nor there. The old way is unraveled, the new way unclear. A new leadership team at the top -- what do we keep doing and what do we change? A new structuring of client or project assignments -- what do I do with the requests from my old clients or projects, and how do I get started with the new? Living in this room means living with uncertainty. Ambiguity. Suspicion. Rumors and flights of imagination fill in gaps of scattered information. You may begin putting together pieces of the puzzle, if only tentatively." "Like a sailboat "in irons," stuck out of the wind, you can languish in the Confusion Room and endure a daily grind of busywork that seems poorly connected to your goals -- both those you once served or those unknown that lie ahead, out there, somewhere." "Usually the information starts to trickle in, however, and the new picture begins to form. At this point you pick up speed out of the Confusion Room to the last of the transitional rooms: Renewal."siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 02:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general debate about the Energy Catalyzer. Unless you have links to sources meeting Wikipedia's standards for reliability - in this instance, mainstream published sources, and recognised peer-reviewed journals for scientific claims, there is no point in posting comments here. Abuse of this forum to engage in debates not directly related to article content may result in the comments being deleted, and if necessary, editing rights blocked for those who abuse the article talk page. Please confine your comments to questions directly of relevance to article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Undue weight on 'demonstrations'

The current article has at least four sections (and counting) that cover the public and private demonstrations that Rossi has orchestrated. This style of coverage may be appropriate to a dedicated blog, but for Wikipedia's purposes it's probably time for a bit of editing. We should strive to produce a concise summary of the demonstrations. Briefly, all purport to show excess heat production; there has been no demonstration of ionizing radiation or neutron production; despite Rossi's claims that he has operated devices for years in his factory, there has never been a demonstration of a device that works for more than a few hours; and Rossi has not released either detailed plans or a device to any independent researcher for testing, so no other independent group has been able to replicate his experiment.

It's misleading for us to create a new section in the article every time Rossi repeats the same dog and pony show; the April tests in Bologna appear to have lasted less than three hours, and Lewan's article doesn't report that any scientists were even present. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I've turned the four sections you allude to into subsections of a single section and I think it looks a bit neater now. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: there has never been a demonstration of a device that works for more than a few hours, given that one demonstration lasted for 18 hours, it would appear that TenOfAllTrades has looked up a different dictionary to everyone else to define 'few' (no conspiracy involved, I accept that!). To a scientist the length of the demo doesn't matter, what matters is the result of the calculations that come out.

Same dog and pony show? No sir! In general, each new expt. has been designed to take into account what has been learnt, or has remained unclear, from the previous ones. That is scientific progress.

Equally it is misleading to talk of the demos being orchestrated by Rossi. This should be clear to anyone from the historical accounts given by Lewan, which we should accept in the absence of clear contrary evidence.

As long as no essential information is lost, whether there should be separate sections, or a single one combining all the important information doesn't really matter, except that it should be done by someone who understands the science. I'll nominate Mats Lewan for the job, or in case some w'pedia rule forbids this, Sven Kullander. --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you enlighten us as to what 'the science' is though. There has been no published information that provides sufficient information on this to determine whether this is 'cold fusion', a hoax, or heat produced by decaying Unicorn droppings - clearly the relevant science will differ in each case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You make my point, I think. For a device that Rossi has claimed can operate continuously for months or years at a time (in his patent application, which you have striven to emphasize is based on preliminary work—and surely his technology shouldn't have regressed since then?), 18 hours as his best showing – and done only once, before a selected, limited audience – is very poor indeed. I stand by my characterization of it as a 'few' hours, as the device purportedly should be able to do 180, or 1800, or 18000 hours without difficulty.

Interestingly, the experiments which would "take into account what has been learnt, or has remained unclear" have not been performed, and Rossi has refused to allow them to be conducted. He has declined to allow additional, more precise measurements of gamma ray or neutron output from the device after the first negative report, and he has refused to provide any additional samples of his 'used' fuel for isotopic analysis by an independent laboratory. I accept that Rossi has conclusively demonstrated a black box which accepts cold water as one input and delivers hot water (or steam) as output, at least for a few hours (or 'less than a day', if you prefer). What he has failed to do (and has actively resisted efforts to investigate) is demonstrate that what goes on inside that black box is on the level. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that there is not a single demonstration that LENR processes does produce neutron or high energy gamma radiation, but there are plenty of evidence for excess heat. Therefore it is not reasonable to use this as an argument. Right now demonstrations are best information that is available. And Levi's et al. experiment was scientific by any standards. Others were just public demonstrations, but they were not intended to be scientific. So please, no more unreasonable deleting the content, but if format should be changed, then make real contributions that are more informative than the current format. Jouni Valkonen (talk) 02:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

"There are plenty of evidence for excess heat". No. There is plenty of evidence for claims that the 'Catalyzer' is producing excess heat, and no evidence at all that it actually is. In any case, we aren't interested in what is 'reasonable', but on what is reported in reliable sources: which at the moment, amounts to very little. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Enough, though. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hypothesis: fusion alone, or fusion and fission?

See WP:NOT#FORUM

It seems that that the Rossi reaction is a nickel inhalation process where neutrons from some nickel atoms are transfered to other nickel atoms forming copper, leaving the donor nickel atoms reduced to iron. In fact the analysis conducted by Kullander and Essén about the "produced" powder (ie the powder transformed after two moths of use of the E-Cat) show a substatial percentage (about 10%) of iron too. In other words fusion and fission occurring simultaneously where the energy comes from fission of nickel to iron, while also enabling fusion of nickel to copper.--79.10.163.208 (talk) 10:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC) This is pure speculation. Wikipedia talk pages are to be used for article-related issues, and must therefore be based around published sources. Please remain on topic. Postings misusing this page may be deleted, per WP:NOT#FORUM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC) I have read that Rossi indicated that the iron was a contaminant of the sample and it came from the pipe. I have also heard that hydrogen under pressure causes metals to become brittle and break down. This is perhaps another reason other than safety that the energy output has been decreased from 15kW to 4kW. He has stated that the only transmutation is from Nickel to Copper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.167.8.150 (talk) 01:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

LENR and weak force

I have a bit of a problem with the New Energy Times reference. Its editor is known to push the Widom-Larsen theory which he espouses and say the reaction is not fusion and only he knows the truth, which is a bit dodgy when one considers what 'fusion' actually means (even if W-L is the right explanation, which is what Rossi seems to think is the case, the process would I believe still technically be fusion). Given the degree to which this seems to be a policitcal issue, I'd almost go a far as saying that this might not be considered an RS, but probably we should leave it as indicative of a particular PoV on these matters. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Plea for Restoring an external link

Continuing with my personal interest, there has been considerable discussion on the web (and indeed in most of the reports from the January demonstration) on the question of fakes. I believe I was one of the first to formalize this, in a series of posts in physorg.com (Posting as Alanf777). In fact one of my posts is the last in that thread, which has since been closed. (Under a policy of cutting off any discussions after three months or so).

I subsequently expanded these posts into a Self-Published paper http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_proof_frames_v336.php Proving the Rossi eCat is Real -- Version 3.36 (with index), indexed from a place-holder http://lenr.qumbu.com/index.php lenr.qumbu.com which I added to this article : 21:58, 12 April 2011 Alanf777 (talk | contribs) (12,193 bytes) (Added an external link). This was removed by Stephan Schulz at 22:21, 6 May 2011 Stephan Schulz (talk | contribs) (15,327 bytes) (→External links: Rm unreliable sites per WP:EL).

I submit that this paper is the only place on the web where "all" known fakes are collected and analyzed, and evaluated against the published experimental results, and as such is serving a useful, if transient function.

I therefore request that it be allowed to stand for the time being in the "external links" section (or possibly through a 1-sentence "fakes" summary in the "Evaluation" section.)

Alan (Alanf777 (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC))

Sorry, but a self-published paper is highly unlikely to be acceptable, per our WP:EL guidelines.

On the more general point regarding the lack of acceptable reliable sources for this article, I think we need to remind ourselves that Wikipedia isn't an appropriate place for 'breaking news' - if and when the 'catalyzer' receives greater attention from mainstream sources (which it surely will, if it does what is claimed), we will have plenty of opportunity to cover it in more detail. In the meantime, speculating about the physics involved, and similar questions, is better conducted elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

What can normally be linked

3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[2] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.

Links to be considered

4. Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.

Links normally to be avoided

Hmmm .... maybe

11. Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority.

though the site belongs to me I wouldn't describe it as a personal web page

Alanf777 (talk) 00:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

As a self-published source (and unreviewed original research), the paper wouldn't meet our requirements were it to be cited in the article, so the suggestion that it is being excluded due to 'amount of detail' doesn't really apply. On that basis, whether the paper is 'neutral', 'accurate' or 'relevant' is a moot point, and not really worth debating - though I'd point out that someone other than yourself would be in a better position to argue this.

Regarding the paper containing "information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources", if these sources meet our reliability standards, why not include the information from them in the article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The knowledgeable sources are the experimental reports, wiki and other sources for energy densities, elements, chemicals, enthalpy, formulae etc etc. Not much use. I'll leave it at that for now. (I split the comment on New Energy Times into a separate section). Alanf777 (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Background on Andrea Rossi, Symeon Tsalikoglou, Defkalion

Andrea Rossi

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

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

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

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

Ten - What is your reasoning behind trying to dig up negative information on Rossi from his past? It looks like you are trying to influence a negative opinion into the article. This does not sit well with what is required from an unbiased Wikipedia editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.86.81.20 (talk) 01:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Symeon Tsalikoglou and Defkalion

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

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

In defense of Krivit/New Energy Times

I'd like to chime in here in defense of New Energy Times, and Steve Krivit in particular. (I know of Krivit only from New Energy Times, and a recent 20-minute conversation relating to my "Fakes" paper, which I'll return to later.)

First, I wouldn't classify his interest in W-L theory as "pushing". He has published on his site a number of W-L related articles, but they are clearly identified and set aside in a section of "Special Collections" -- · Widom-Larsen Theory Portal, but this is only one of many sets or sections. Similarly, in Wiley Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia he co-authors with Joseph. M. Zawodny (NASA) an article on W-L theory "Widom-Larsen Theory: Possible Explanation of LENRs" -- but this is only one of 47. In his personal papers and presentations Publications and Presentations only 2 of 40+ are "pushing" W-L.

In short, I regard Krivit's [http://newenergytimes.com/index.shtml New Energy Times] and Rothwell's http://www.lenr-canr.org/index.html LENR-CANR as two primary and reliable sources in CF/LENR, and both should be allowed either as references or in the External Links section.

Secondly, the whole Rossi saga is evolving quite rapidly -- with, so far, one set of experiments a month, and a constant flow of "wars or rumours of wars", many from Rossi himself via interviews and blog posts. This time-scale is too short for ANYTHING to make it into a "Reliable Source", other than the painfully few media which have even noticed its existence. Not to mention the general catch-22 problem of anything to do with CF/LENR getting published by "respectable" journals.

Alanf777 (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC) (Signed belatedly -- I forgot to re-sign when I split the topic)

Italian patent

IMHO this is a remarkable information: the Ufficio Italiano Brevetti e Marchi (Italian Office for Patents and Trademarks) has licenced the patent for the Energy Catalyzer: http://www.uibm.gov.it/uibm/dati/Avanzata.aspx?load=info_list_uno&id=1610895&table=Invention&#ancoraSearch
Ufficio italiano brevetti e marchi,
TITLE: "processo ed apparecchiatura per ottenere reazioni esotermiche, in particolare da nickel ed idrogeno."
(TRANSLATION: "process and equipment to obtain exothermal reactions, in particular from nickel and hydrogen")
N. Brevetto 0001387256
Data Deposito: 09 aprile 2008,
Data Brevetto 06 aprile 2011,
Inventori: Andrea Rossi.

So, the date of the deposit is 9 April 2008 and the date of the licence (patent obtained) is 6 April 2011.--79.6.145.119 (talk) 08:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't speak Italian, and Google Translate doesn't help here: can someone find a link to the patent text? It would be worth knowing exactly what it is that has been patented. It would also be worth looking for any reports in WP:RS regarding the granting of the patent, as the patent itself is a primary source, and Wikipedia should ideally cite secondary sources - without knowledge of Italian patent law, it is difficult to assess the significance of this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the abstract and the description for the italian patent are not publicly available yet, according to this page: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?FT=D&date=20091010&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP&CC=IT&NR=MI20080629A1&KC=A1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.16.217.164 (talk) 14:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Unless Italian patent law is rather unorthodox, I cannot see how a patent can have been granted without making public what it is that has been patented. Can we be sure that the patent actually has been granted, rather than the application for the patent? These are two different parts of the process, as I understand it. Again, without secondary sources, trying to make sense of this is difficult. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I can give you a possible answer about this issue. The patent is so fresh (basically the "verdict" was published yesterday on the website) that usually it requires a "while" before publishing the content of the patent. How long does this process take? I do not know, but occasionally it takes a lot of time...

Comment: if the European patent is not approved then it is also possible that the Italian patent shall be "ovverruled" in the future by an unfavourable decision concerning the European patent. That is the reason why, even now, (ie after obtaining the Italian patent) Andrea Rossi cannot still "chant for victory" IMHO.--79.6.145.119 (talk) 14:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

According to someone I have consulted on this, there are no national patents in the EU now, which I think means the above scenario can't happen and the patent is secure. If anyone disagrees with this, perhaps they can indicate an RS?

Also, Re AtG's query as to why we can't see the details, I have come across a web page that says the details of the application are kept secret for a certain period, normally 18 months, which explains why we currently have only a general indication. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

In any case, the granting of a patent is no indication that the 'Catalyzer' (a) works, or (b) is commercially viable if it does. This is all speculative though - again, please find sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

You got perfectly right: the only new thing we know now is that an Italian patent was guaranteed to Andrea Rossi, but this information alone is not an indication tha the E-Cat (a) works, or (b) is commercially viable if it does.--79.6.145.119 (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course -- it is the experiments, which hardly fit our creative Editor's characterisation 'dog and pony show' which (IMO) indicate that it works. And if Rossi is telling the truth (which of course we can't yet assume), the E-cat is already in commercial use. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Now the patent is being referred to on Defkalion's website. http://www.defkalion-energy.com/ 90.192.141.219 (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Full text of the patent is available in English here.87.64.70.210 (talk) 07:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The above link is the original patent that was rejected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.167.8.150 (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

According to the title

("METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CARRYING OUT NICKEL AND HYDROGEN EXOTHERMAL REACTIONS")

it might be the English version of the Italian patent

("PROCESSO ED APPARECCHIATURA PER OTTENERE REAZIONI ESOTERMICHE, IN PARTICOLARE DA NICKEL ED IDROGENO")

--79.16.165.43 (talk) 11:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Another patent's page on WIPO

http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/fetch.jsp?LANG=ENG&DBSELECT=PCT&SERVER_TYPE=19-10&SORT=11286953-KEY&TYPE_FIELD=256&IDB=0&IDOC=693621&C=10&ELEMENT_SET=B&RESULT=1&TOTAL=1&START=1&DISP=25&FORM=SEP-0/HITNUM,B-ENG,DP,MC,AN,PA,ABSUM-ENG&SEARCH_IA=IT2008000532&QUERY=WO2009125444+

Another patent's page on WIPO--79.16.165.43 (talk) 09:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Where does it say that the patent is approved? I can only see that the patent application has been received... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koma77 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Here: http://www.uibm.gov.it/uibm/dati/Avanzata.aspx?load=info_list_uno&id=1610895&table=Invention&#ancoraSearch

(see also the beginning of this section above: "Italian patent")

But I named the section above "Italian patent" because it is the Italian patent that was guaranteed, not the "international" patent (i.e. the European patent). The Italian patent was issued by the Ufficio Italiano Brevetti e Marchi, instead the European patent has not been granted until now. The two patent might be the same patent according to the titles (which are identic) of the two. The issuing of the Italian patent is usually considered as "favourable precedent" in order to obtain the European patent. There is a strict cooperation by the two offices, and usually when the Italian office issues the patent then the European office issues the patent too, but this cannot be 100% granted. Legally, the two patents are separate patents. So, the invention is now "patented" in Italy while it is "patent pending" in the rest of Europe.--79.6.3.175 (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

On Google Patent: US patent application

Here:

http://www.google.com/patents?id=84vwAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&source=gbs_overview_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

The patent (the same one approved by the Italian Office for Patents and Trademarks) on Google Patent (it is the US patent application)--79.10.163.208 (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Ny Teknik article about the patent approval

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3173090.ece

--79.10.163.208 (talk) 00:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Text of the Italian patent (PDF, in Italian)

http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wads.jsp?IA=IT2008000532&LANGUAGE=EN&ID=id00000009030887&VOL=95&DOC=003fb4&WO=09/125444&WEEK=NA&TYPE=NA&DOC_TYPE=PDOC&TOK=cP1NW5D9tf6GNXp0hjLx8OnUe7E&PAGE=1

--79.6.9.51 (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Italian article deleted/redirected

After the german article, the italian article was deleted now. See: [1]. 2.203.177.212 (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

After an epic discussion

http://it.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Pagine_da_cancellare/Catalizzatore_di_energia_di_Rossi_e_Focardi

the page was not deleted but redirected:

http://it.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Catalizzatore_di_energia_di_Rossi_e_Focardi&redirect=no

so all the contents were preserved, the history of the page was preserved and the talk page of the voice was preserved. Moreover the redirected page can easily reverted and restored as full page in case of fresh information.

--79.20.142.59 (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Should 12KW fusion source produce enough gamma radiation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=211

The article simply assumes that proton capture at room temperature is possible, using classic nuclear reaction tables to calculate the corresponding gamma emission and residual activity i the reaction products to be expected. Having a look at figure one, to be able to be in the room, the catalyzer would need to be shielded by at least 40 cm of lead, as a result of the 1-7MeV quantas released per reaction, a lot higher than corresponding levels of a fission process with Uranium. Rossi Use only centimetres of lead. If true, the reaction energy is split up in a 10- 100 times more x-ray quantas, and I've heard about alphas, that is easily shielded. However, this clearly breaks the current known behavior to the isotopes involved.

Per-Ola Idberg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.65.83.254 (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Cold fusion is well-known to produce fused isotopes (such as helium from deuterium), by unknown mechanism, without the expected radiation. There is no adequate information in reliable source, at this time, on what, if any, radiation that the Rossi devices produce, beyond Rossi's own statements. --EnergyNeutral (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Cold fusion isn't 'well-known' to produce anything. It is fringe science, and has never been demonstrated to exist, except in the minds of believers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump's unsourced opinion is no more usable than mine. "Never been demonstrated to exist," however, flies in the face of what's found in peer-reviewed mainstream scientific journals, especially the recent Naturwissenschaften review by Storms, "Status of cold fusion (2010)," which baldly and clearly treats cold fusion (mechanism unknown) as demonstrated, and that paper passed independent peer review, at an independent multidisciplinary journal published by Springer-Verlag, which is not a haven for "believers." ATG's comment makes my point about POV-pushing here. How about working on the article? The Storms review doesn't cover Ni-H reactions, but his 2007 book does, citing Focardi, for one, and that book is the best monograph available in the field. The idea that cold fusion wasn't demonstrated is a very old one, which got less and less true as it was repeated more and more. Is this found in any recent peer-reviewed secondary source actually covering the topic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EnergyNeutral (talk • contribs) 20:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Painfully credulous reporting

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

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

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

a portion of the Q&A about isotopic composition, from Ny Teknik
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ny Teknik: What results have you obtained from the analyses? Kullander: Both measurements show that the pure nickel powder contains mainly nickel, and the used powder is different in that several elements are present, mainly 10 percent copper and 11 percent iron. The isotopic analysis through ICP-MS doesn’t show any deviation from the natural isotopic composition of nickel and copper. Ny Teknik: How do you interpret the results? Kullander: Provided that copper is not one of the additives used as catalyst, the copper isotopes 63 and 65 can only have been formed during the process. Their presence is therefore a proof that nuclear reactions took place in the process. However, it’s remarkable that nickel-58 and hydrogen can form copper-63 (70%) and copper-65 (30%). This means that in the process, the original nickel-58 should have grown by five and seven atomic mass-units, respectively, during the nuclear transmutation. However, there are two stable isotopes of nickel with low concentration, nickel-62 and nickel-64, which could conceivably contribute to copper production. According to Rossi copper is not among the additives. 100 grams of nickel had been used during 2.5 months of continuous heating with 10 kW output power. A straightforward calculation shows that a large proportion of the nickel must have been consumed if it was ‘burned’ in a nuclear process. It’s then somewhat strange that the isotopic composition doesn’t differ from the natural.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(edit conflict)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Erk. Our article on Telepolis certainly seems to put it pretty far out on the fringe. The author, Haiko Lietz, has a history of being rather...sympathetic to the pro-cold-fusion perspective: [2], [3], [4]. Unfortunately, the discussion doesn't seem to name any players not already identified, and as far as I can tell it just links back to the same soundbites and blog entries we've already seen. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

This isn't a scientific article. It is s report on current events. The facts of interest here are who is involved, what are their biographies, what events have happened, and what did the players conclude. Raw experimental data may (or may not) be relevant. Discussion of what is believed about the physics itself is out of place here. Finding scientists who have actually witnessed the demonstrations and who have doubts would be important, but if they are not witnesses then their opinions are totally irrelevant. That was my complaint about the article in the form it had when I first read it. It was just a rehash of oft stated positions, and contained little about what was actually happening.Sphere1952 (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be a prevailing myth that work in this field is not published in the regular journals -- if you look at the excellent http://www.lenr-canr.org/LibFrame1.html Library at http://lenr.org lenr.org you will find many examples. To create a clearer perception and also add relevant background. I've added a reference to previous work by Forcadi published in the Italian Phys. Soc.'s journal Il Nuovo Cimento A. This is not a conference report; those go in the C journal, the A consisting of refereed papers in HEP. This paper used a similar system, but without the secret catalyst, so there was less power. --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

There is plenty of material in "regular journals" on Cold fusion, as can be seen at lenr-canr.org, and in the bibliography of Dieter Britz, a skeptic, that bibliography is entirely mainstream, see the cold fusion article for a link. The Focardi paper is a primary source about Ni-H reactions producing effects of interest, what would be clearly usable here would be reliable secondary source mention of it. It is, in fact, cited in Storms (2007). Some seem more interested here in debating whether the device is real or fraud, expressing strong opinions on that, than in finding what is solidly sourced. Dr. Josephson is correct, though, in his analysis. Rossi based his work -- or claimed work --, we can report from reliable source (such as the Italian TV special), on prior published results, as well as private communications. --EnergyNeutral (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Media coverage

At least as far as Italy is concerned, the purported "Media coverage" is absolutely irrelevant. Only few very short articles, usually in local editions (not national editions) of newspapers. "Italian radio" here means just a single (non official) channel (radio 24). Only the documentary on Rai News remains. It is a single voice in the desert.

In my opnion the page is absolutely not notable, for sure it is not scientific.--Popopp (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Here: http://www.rai.tv/dl/RaiTV/programmi/media/ContentItem-4dc99de4-330c-47a1-a639-31db85a854ea-radio1.html it is possible to listen to the Radio 1 (the first State-owned Italian radio channel) a brief interview (just four minutes) with professor Sergio Focardi about the E-Cat. The interview (in Italian) was aired on 11 May 2011 and starts at 1:26 (1 hour and 26 minutes) since the beginning of the bradcast.--79.10.133.134 (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Can't you see that a "just four minute" interview means exactly what I'm saying? Irrelevant media coverage, no scientific value, no notability. --Popopp (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not a science article, so debate about "scientific value" is really beside the point. This is about something happening in the world, covered by news sources, and connected (only a little) with some prior reports in scientific sources (such as Focardi's work). There has been no scientific publication of Rossi's work, so far. That may change, but, while I have a crystal ball, it's not recognized as a Reliable Source. This is not the place to argue lack of notability, that would be Articles for Deletion. If it were not notable, why try to put lipstick on a pig? But I think it's sufficiently notable.

As additional evidence for this, at this point, see mention of the Energy Catalyzer in Cold fusion, with sources, and this opinion piece on Discovery.com. --EnergyNeutral (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

New interview with Sergio Focardi aired on Rai News television (in Italian)

Part one: http://www.rainews24.rai.it/it/canale-tv.php?id=23182

Part two: http://www.rainews24.rai.it/it/canale-tv.php?id=23181

It is possible to watch also on youtube in the Rai News channel:

part one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hX40Fgw4kQ

part two: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5pSxZDZXwg

The interview and the debate was aired yesterday (14 April 2011) --79.10.133.134 (talk) 13:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

New interview with Sergio Focardi aired on Rai Radio 3 (in Italian)

Here: http://www.radio.rai.it/podcast/A9187330.mp3 it is possible to listen to the Radio 3 (the third State-owned Italian radio channel) an interview (in Italian) with Sergio Focardi during the 30 min programme "Radio3Scienza" ( http://www.radio3.rai.it/dl/radio3/programmi/PublishingBlock-aaee447d-8a68-46e9-b13f-43525399e0d8-podcast.html ) aired on 18 May 2011.
Focardi talks about cold fusion and the Energy Catalyzer. Antonio Zoccoli, head of the INFN in Bologna, is interviewed too.--79.6.9.51 (talk) 14:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Tab

Data are taken from here: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/RossiECatPortal.shtml#demos

Demonstrations

Date	Duration	Avg. excess power (kW)	Avg. excess energy (MJ)	Participants	News ref.	Data ref.
14 January 2011	40 min	~11.7	~28	Giuseppe Levi David Bianchini Andrea Rossi invited observers media	Ny Teknik	Levi Bianchini
10-11 February 2011	18 h	~17	1000	Giuseppe Levi Andrea Rossi Daniele Passerini David Bianchini	Ny Teknik	None Available
29 March 2011	5 h, 45 min	4.39	90	Giuseppe Levi David Bianchini Carlo Leonardi Hanno Essén Sven Kullander Andrea Rossi Sergio Focardi	Ny Teknik	Essén Kullander
19 April 2011	2 h, 10 min	2.6	20	Andrea Rossi Mats Lewan David Bianchini Carlo Leonardi Angelo Saso Maurizio Torrealta Sergio Focardi Christos Stremmenos others	Ny Teknik	Lewan
28 April 2011	2 h, 58 min	2.3	25	Andrea Rossi Mats Lewan Carlo Leonardi	Ny Teknik	Lewan

Regards.--79.10.133.134 (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether using the NET table would breach copyright, but in any case, this is unnecessarily detailed, and better covered as prose. There is also the question as to whether NET meets our requirements as a reliable source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

"this is unnecessarily detailed". When is something "necessarily detailed"?siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 21:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

If I was to attempt to build a 'Catalyzer', I'd find more detail necessary than there is in the Italian patent. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Me too, at least as far as getting the high energy yield that Rossi appears to be demonstrating. However, what does this have to do with what can be used in this article? That's original research, based on personal opinion only. So Andy's a Grump and I'm Neutral, and none of that counts for anything, we are not reliable source. Is NET? Maybe. It is, in fact, independently published, but doesn't seem to have internal review, so it's really one person's (informed) opinion. Not much improvement, if any, over Andy or myself. --EnergyNeutral (talk) 22:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Background of Andrea Rossi

IN the Swedish wikipedia, the article sv:Andrea_Rossi was recently created, giving details about Rossis previous attempts with similar projects, somewhat discrediting him.

Also, the Swedish version of this article, sv:Energy_Catalyzer is currently much more sceptical than this version. Mange01 (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree the article could do with a better balance - the problem is the lack of 'sceptical' sources. The media seems mostly to be just ignoring this entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The "previous projects" you mentioned was Petroldragon. In the 70s Petroldragon was the pioneer of thermal depolymerization. Now thermal depolymerization is reality, also because Rossi's works and patents in this field.--79.16.129.196 (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

here is a report from italian RAI television: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzL3RIlcwbY&feature=player_embedded

they say, that at least one trial is still ongoing in italy. According to italian newspapers, and according to this transmission, italian taxpayers had to pay 20 millions euro for cleaning up his waste and used oil of his former companies. These trials are perhaps the reason why he said today on his blog: ...Andrea Rossi May 18th, 2011 at 11:14 AM Dear Mr Vladimiro Carlucci, We will not install our E-Cats in Italy for some year. Warm regards, A.R..... 89.244.80.27 (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

here is the link to the Petroldragon - Omar scandal: [5]. Perhaps someone can translate it? 89.244.80.27 (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, the 'previous projects' include his work with his other startup company (after Petroldragon, before Defkalion), Leonardo Technologies Inc. (LTI). It's difficult to search for detailed information about the company because so many inventors want to ride on Leonardo da Vinci's reputation, but it seems that their original aim was to build high-efficiency thermoelectric (TE) panels. TE panels generate a potential difference (and can supply an electric current) when their two sides (faces) are at different temperatures. They do this with no moving parts, and could in principle extract useful electrical energy from virtually any process that generates waste heat. At the time (and, I suspect, still), the best-available TE devices had an operating efficiency of around 4%; it was estimated that the devices would generate a sufficient return on investment if they could reach 15% efficiency. High-efficiency thermoelectric panels would be worth hundreds of billions of dollars.

Rossi claimed to have developed novel panels with an efficiency of 16% or better. The U.S. Department of Defense was understandably interested in this technology; they contracted with an independent firm to test Rossi's TE panels. (This full report, published in 2004, is linked from the Swedish article.) Of the 27 TE panels Rossi provided for testing, 19 failed to supply any current. The remaining 8 panels, rated for 800-1000 watts, dribbled out less than 1 watt under test conditions. Despite additional tweaking of the manufacturing process and additional tests, Rossi and LTI never supplied the DOD with a panel that worked better than existing technology. My understanding is that Rossi has left LTI, and they now sell working (but not terribly exciting) biodiesel-fuelled internal combustion electric generators: [6].

I expect this new scam scheme will follow a similar pattern. We have the same ingredients – a claim of miraculous energy output, an individual with no real track record of research in the area, a process with secret ingredients – and I expect the same result: a bunch of wasted time and (other people's) money, followed by Rossi's move to his next big money-making idea. The only real difference between the TE panels and the cold fusion is that developing efficient thermoelectric panels is at least physically plausible.

While I can't see that it would be appropriate to create a full Wikipedia article about Rossi – he's not particularly notable in his own right, and most of his press coverage relates to his cold fusion claims – it might be a good idea to fill out his background a bit in this article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The guys related to United States Department of Energy seem to have a different perspective:

Cassarino: You know, just because we’ve known Andrea for almost 15 years, we know what his capabilities are, and I knew he had been working on this, and one of the scientists that we had engaged had been working in this area, LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions), for 20 years.

The founders of Ampenergo are Karl Norwood, Richard Noceti, Robert Gentile and Craig Cassarino. Two of them also founded the consulting firm LTI – Leonardo Technologies Inc. – which for 10 years has been working on contracts amounting to several millions of dollars for the U.S. Defense and Energy departments, and with a recent contract with DOE amounting to 95 million dollars.

For further information:

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3179019.ece Ampenergo

According to Ny Teknik, Andrea Rossi has reached an agreement with Ampenergo, a US company which will receive part of the royalties on all sales of licenses and products built on the Energy Catalyzer in the Americas. Among the board of Ampenergo there is Robert Gentile, who was also Assistant Secretary of Energy for Fossil Energy at the US Department of Energy during the early 1990s: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=18065#axzz1MSm3aHU6

--79.16.128.92 (talk) 00:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

So, did he – or any of the companies he worked with – ever build a working thermoelectric panel better than existing technology and based on Rossi's work, or not? It's possible to make a ton of money from a technology company without having a working product; these guys have worked with Rossi before and know it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Basically: yes, if you work in the magic world of US Defense or US DoEnergy. I suspect that might be something working if the US Govt gives you 95 million dollars.--79.16.128.21 (talk) 02:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

So, is that based on any actual sources you found related to Rossi's thermoelectric device, or is this just your confidence that U.S. defense R&D money is always well spent? The only report of independent testing that I can find is the one I linked, which says the devices didn't work very well, if at all. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah ah ah!!! Of course my previous comment was a bit ironic...--79.16.128.21 (talk) 10:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• Whether or not anyone spent their money well is completely irrelevant to the article, which is supposed to reflect what is present in reliable sources. TenOfAllTrade's comments appear intended to cast doubt upon the Energy Catalyzer, which isn't the business of Wikipedia. Doubt in reliable source can be reported, and also other conclusions found in reliable source, generally they should be attributed. This page should not be a discussion of these points of view, nor of argument about them. The question here should be what can go in the article, and how it is to be expressed, no more, no less. --EnergyNeutral (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE. Wikipedia expects scepticism when faced with extraordinary claims. You are right about sourcing though. There is very little WP:RS, possibly because the mainstream media share our scepticism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

What is an extraordinary claim is a judgment that Wikipedia editors should not use, it's made by or reported by reliable secondary sources. Yes, there is little RS on this topic, and, yes, you can speculate that this is about media skepticism. But that's speculation. There is enough reliable source for an article, so deal with it! Article balance is, by WP:FRINGE, to be based on the balance in reliable sources. NyTeknik and the Italian TV news channel come to my mind as independent reliable sources, both for positive and negative opinion. --EnergyNeutral (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• On the substance here, the Petroldragon affair is worth some attention. It's covered in the Italian TV special report. There is no doubt in my mind that this is notable background on Rossi, and reliable sources exist, mostly in Italian. --EnergyNeutral (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

This article is about the 'Energy Catalyzer', not Rossi. And again, I refer you to WP:FRINGE: "The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. However, it also requires that they not be given undue weight. A conjecture that has not received critical review from the scientific community or that has been rejected may be included in an article about a scientific subject only if other high-quality reliable sources discuss it as an alternative position. Ideas supported only by a tiny minority may be explained in articles devoted to those ideas if they are notable. For a fringe theory to be considered notable, it is not sufficient that it has been discussed, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals, even if those groups are notable enough for a Wikipedia article. To be notable, secondary reliable sources must have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it. Otherwise it is not notable enough for a dedicated article in Wikipedia". We are expected to treat extraordinary claims with a great deal of caution. Any claim that Rossi has built a working 'cold fusion' power generator must therefore be treated with considerable scepticism, until such time as it is properly assessed. Also, given that your only Wikipedia edits so far, have been to this talk page, and given your user name, I will have to ask whether you are aware of WP:COI? If you, or any other contributor, has any connection with the subject of the article, they should not be involved in the production of this article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no connection with the subject of this article. The standards AndyTheGrump has given are about "fringe theory," and "fringe theory" is a very small part of the E-Cat story. Rossi does not claim to have built a "working 'cold fusion' power generator. Rossi does propose some mechanism, but reviewing scientists cited by Ny Teknik think (1) the heat is real, but (2) Rossi's explanations are nonsense. Given that Rossi is not a nuclear physicist, but an inventor and entrepreneur, that he might not understand how the device works would not be surprising. What he allegedly did was to explore many variations on a previously reported Ni-H reaction, which may or may not be helped by theory. And it's irrelevant here. This is not an article about cold fusion or LENR theory, but about a physical device that has been publicly demonstrated, that seems to be convincing some experts and not others, that appears to be attracting serious business involvement and widespread interest, most of it covered in sources we cannot use here, but with enough in reliable source that this article is well-justified.

By the way, editors who are COI, contrary to what AndyTheGump claims, may certainly be "involved in the production of this article," through advising us on this Talk page. I'm more concerned about editors with a fixed point of view, who filter everything through what confirms their own beliefs, rather than using and arranging, in a neutral way, what appears in reliable sources, and who then try to make the article conform to their beliefs. --EnergyNeutral (talk) 03:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

"...sources we cannot use here...". How about finding a few more that we can? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Leonardo

Also of interest is:

1. http://www.wtrf.com/story.cfm?storyid=71260&func=viewstory
2. http://en.openei.org/wiki/Leonardo_Technologies_Inc#cite_note-0
3. http://openjurist.org/891/f2d/277/89/2053
4. http://openjurist.org/891/f2d/277/89/2110
5. http://blog.nheconomy.com/?tag=leonardo-technologies-inc
6. http://hqlnc.doe.gov/support/smallbusutil.nsf/a2c81aafcdc1246685256d8e00567fdd/85256953005c013c8525754e00651ce0?OpenDocument
7. http://www.manta.com/c/mm3nm0k/leonardo-technologies-inc
8. http://www.usea.org/Programs/CFFS/CFFSMoscow.htm
9. http://www.cslforum.org/meetings/workshops/washington2008.html
10. http://www.cslforum.org/publications/documents/SaudiArabia/B17b_CSLF_Ketzer_workshop_PortoAlegre_Jan08.pdf
11. http://www.lti-global.com/pdfs/NETL%20Support%20Contract.pdf

It appears Leonardo is mostly a consulting shop into DOE, feeding off US DoE contracts. During the past decade, they have worked the clean coal and carbon capture and storage agendas. They have addresses in Arlington, Virginia, Bedford, New Hampshire, and in Bannock, Ohio, though the last doesn't seem to have a telephone. A clean coal conferences last November, was attended by both Gentile and by Markus Ewart of EON AG. Their "e-on" logo is the same as e-on uk, a large, broad-play energy and particularly electricity company. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

1MW plan completed? 3m x 2m x 2m size?

According to a non-primary source
( http://www.e-catworld.com/2011/05/18/all-330-e-cat-modules-of-rossis-1-mw-power-plant-completed-now-a-container-is-needed/ )
the 330 E-Cat modules that will make up the first 1 MW plant have been completed.
And the dimensions of the 1MW plan will be 3m x 2m x 2m and will weigh 2 tons!
If this could be true, IMHO this would be a remarkable aspect of the plant: basically it could be placed everywhere.
It is very small for a 1MW plant.
I would be very pleased to obtain a confirmation about these data.--79.16.128.21 (talk) 14:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The source is not usable. Yes, it would be remarkable. --EnergyNeutral (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Apropos of nothing

Something to lighten the mood:

Magic tap

Things aren't always what they seem (and no, this isn't PhotoShop)...

— Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 21:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Ny Teknik

We seem to be becoming overly-reliant on this single 'reliable source' for this article. Can I point out that every time this source is cited, it tends to reinforce the view that there is little outside interest in the 'Catalyzer' from elsewhere. Whether this is justified or not is open to question, but it would undoubtedly make this article more credible if other sources could be found. Could those wishing to expand the article also expand their horizons a little? Even a minor comment in another mainstream source might add credibility. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

There are comments in other reliable sources, including skeptical comment, such as the January Discover opinion piece (which supports notability even though it was highly skeptical). AndyTheGrump is invited to source material from them. Ny Teknik is so heavily used because a science journalist from the magazine very extensively investigated the Rossi claims and arranged for review of them by Swedish scientists. I have no goal to "make this article credible," nor the Rossi device the same, but rather to present to our readers what can be verified from reliable sources, in a neutral way. --EnergyNeutral (talk) 02:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a list of media source in the Energy Catalyzer article, giving it both notability and verifiability. Some statements from NyTeknik could be sourced from them, but NyTeknik has the convenience of being in English. Also, beware of americocentrism. 130.104.206.154 (talk) 08:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

So many things wrong with this article.

It's not notable, and it's not news. This thing is shunned by the press. Only garbage outlets like Fox News, Washington Times, talk radio and Italian media have covered it. Credible journals haven't touched it. The debates on this talk page keep getting framed wrong. It's not about proving this thing to be a fake. Patents are an old trick that hucksters use to make people think that their fakery is more than it is. This thing is a magic trick. The electricity is used to ignite thermite, and it uses zinc and iron powder in a copper sulfate solution hidden in the "lead sheild" to add a large amount of energy. I think the potassium and chlorine traces are due to some other exothermic reaction, but this explains all the trace metals found. 213.29.115.6 (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Exothermic metal displacement reactions 213.29.115.6 (talk) 23:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Not even close. A 100 ml (say 650 g) slug of thermite can release about 2 MJ. Let's run with your notion that there's, say, a 3 kg hidden slug of thermite in there (and let's note that if Rossi can control a thermite burn that nicely, he's already a pretty good technician). That's 18 MJ. Now the 18-hour demo on 10-11 February is claimed to have run at 17 kW, which is over 1000 MJ released. That's around 60 times what a "thermite cell" could possibly produce. Whatever's happening here, trick or true bill, we can rule out hidden chemicals.Thon Brocket (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

These chemicals are pumped in and out through the "power cable." Now that the energy catalyzer has been shown to be a hoax, may we include in the article that it has never been reproduced? The owners won't allow independent analysis, and they have changed their story on how it works, finally saying that they themselves don't know how it works. 94.222.181.254 (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Where is the evidence for your claims (pumped through a cable, "shown to be a hoaxs")? --Chris Howard (talk) 19:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

This section is about including a statement in this article to the effect of "These results cannot be reproduced and the requests to independently measure them have been denied", so I'm removing the collapse as its rationale (this thread being like a discussion forum) doesn't apply. It is interesting that in the context of this talk page, the obvious fakery of the Energy Catalyzer is treated as a serious subject while plausible allegations of trickery (certainly more plausible than the homemade nuclear reactor) require proof that the so-called inventor refuses to provide (by disallowing the deep inspection necessary to debunk his claims). 188.102.5.250 (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that says "These results cannot be reproduced and the requests to independently measure them have been denied", or words to that effect, of course this can be included. Personally, I think it is a hoax, and have said so on this talk page. The problem is that the media are mostly ignoring it entirely, rather than reporting it as a suspected hoax, so we don't have sources to follow - and we cannot do original research to make such a statement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

You were absolutely correct here, Andy. That situation isn't stable, though, because if this is a hoax, it's a highly notable one, there has been nothing like this in recent history. (The "fraud" word has been bandied about with cold fusion before, but no major fraud was ever shown. Mostly there have been unsubstantiated -- but widely accepted -- allegations of "pathological science," or the like. Nobody ever figured out exactly what the "error" was, though.) It is not impossible that this is a hoax, but it would probably take serious manipulation, such as using different fraud mechanisms for different demonstrations. --EnergyNeutral (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)