Talk:Energy Catalyzer/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

removal of reliably-sourced information from article

text was removed by Moishe Rosenbaum: Ampenergo: removed irrelevant note about board membership of American company), I reverted (and modified the text to go closer to the source), then AndyTheGrump: (Undid revision 429981134 by EnergyNeutral (talk) See WP:BRD - I don't think this is relevant either)

The same with Moishe Rosenbaum: (→18 hour test: removed this section -- it is sourced to an online newspapery source, this test was explicitly NOT peer reviewed.), I reverted with (Undid revision 429963649 by Moishe Rosenbaum (talk)Peer-reviewed source not required, Ny Teknik is reliable source for news.), then AndyTheGrump reverted with (Undid revision 429981409 by EnergyNeutral (talk) Again, see WP:BRD - a WP:RS is a necessary requirement for inclusion, but not a guarentee that a source MUST be included)

These removals of reliably sourced information seem to be an attempt to keep out material, without seeking consensus, that might enhance the credibility of Ampenergo (that a founder was a U.S. energy official) or of the E-Cat (the Levi examination). However, Wikipedia determines notability based, not on editor opinion as to effect (an open door for bias), but on the decisions of independent publishers. Ny Teknik determined that these facts were relevant to the E-Cat story; the alleged requirement for "peer reviewed" shows a idea that this is a science article, whereas it is about news and business, and the description of Ny Teknik as an "online newspapery source" shows a deprecation of what is a long-standing, reputable print science/engineering magazine, as if it were a mere web site.

The text should be restored. --EnergyNeutral (talk) 02:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

It is a Wikipedia requirement that information be reliably sourced. This does not however indicate that such information must be included. Such issues are generally decided by talk page consensus, with due regard to policy. We are not obliged to 'enhance' anyones credibility - they must do this themselves. As long as this article relies on a limited number of credible sources, it will be bound by WP:FRINGE policy - extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, and arguments over whether a single source is 'reliable' or not are of little significance. Wikipedia is not a forum for the dissemination of new ideas, and nor is it an arena for the demolition of old ones. If the 'Catalyser' does what is claimed, it will no doubt attract more attention from other sources, but until then, we are obliged to remain sceptical, and are under no obligation to assist anyone's 'business' ventures - particularly if they are based on fringe science. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure AndyTheGump understood my comment. We should be unconcerned whether or not an article enhances credibility or reduces it, we should report what is in reliable source, not filtering it by these standards, but according to the balance of what is in reliable sources. So removing reliably sourced fact, such as that a founder of Ampenergo is a former U.S. energy official, instead of balancing it, should any balancing material exist in reliable source, or neutrally reporting it -- as the article did, drawing no conclusion from the fact, but allowing the readers to draw their own conclusions -- is creating imbalance, and it only seems improper to an editor with a fixed opinion that this is fraud or a con game, and many editors have simply stated that in comments on this Talk page. We need to focus on what is in reliable sources, present it neutrally, and let the "credibility" chips fall where they may. POV-pushing is not our business, neither the "believing" nor "skeptical" point of view. --EnergyNeutral (talk) 03:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

"POV-pushing is not our business". Then stop doing it. Find some other sources that actually address the subject of this article - the 'Catalyser' - instead of searching for peripheral 'credibility' from 'former U.S. energy officials'. Either it works or it doesn't, and the background of the backers is irrelevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump refers to WP:FRINGE but does not follow it. FRINGE says that magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses can be used. Ny Teknik definitely fits to this description.--Ettrig (talk) 07:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a problem with the text about the 18 hour test that the trustworthy source only reports what the propagators have said. --Ettrig (talk) 11:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

That can be handled by proper attribution. I'll look at it. (But "propagators" is a POV term. Is a witness a "propagator"?) As to ATG's claim, I'm pushing no point of view, I'm at the same time highly skeptical of the Rossi claims, for very obvious reasons, and noticing that there is contrary evidence in reliable source. I searched for no sources indicating credibility, rather I replaced reliably-sourced material, placed by others, removed from the article by other editors. I accepted one edit by Moishe Rosenbaum, removing material about Hagelstein, even though I know that this material was "true," because it wasn't sourced. Please, folks, let's follow Wikipedia guidelines and not our own opinions about "fraud" or "energy revolution."

"It either works or it doesn't" is a narrow view of an encyclopedia article. Suppose that the E-Cat turns out to be a fraud. We will still have an article, and wouldn't it be of high interest that it was backed by that former energy official? ATG is arguing that the notability decision of a media source is irrelevant, claiming that, instead, we make these decisions "by consensus." We do make the article decisions, but informed by media decisions and Wikipedia guidelines. Insisting on our own opinions is "POV-pushing." --EnergyNeutral (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Addition of notable skeptical comment, opinion on discovery.com. AndyTheGrump, are you happy now? --EnergyNeutral (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

EnergyNeutral's point above about "science or business" is really the crux of the issue. The article as written makes scientific claims -- about the mechanism for the energy production, about the amount of energy production itself, about observed and unobserved tests. Look at reference 16 from Physical Review C. That's science. Thus, a credulous report of a test that violates all principles of science, especially transparency, should not be included. I agree that the newspaper is a generally reliable, verifiable source, but it is not a peer reviewed journal. Scientific claims, especially extraordinary claims like this one, require unassailable peer-reviewed evidence. Thus, I'm going to re-remove the claims that come across as scientific.

Now, with that said -- I would not object to folks completely rewriting this article from a purely business point of view, in which we would treat the Energy Catalyzer as a marketable product, in much the same way we would treat a new innovation from Apple or Airbus. We could focus on the coverage in Ny Teknik, on the inventor's company and his finances, his customers, his future plans. In this case, we would eliminate any specific scientific claims, other than to say (1) That the device is claimed to produce usable energy, and (2) The scientific validity of the mechanism of energy production is highly questionable.

One way or the other is fine with me. If it is a business article, then references to Physical Review C and discussion of the Catalyzer's tests and scientific merits have no place here. If it is a science article, then opaque private tests without peer review have no place here. What is the consensus? Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

It is clear from the header of the article that the article is part of the physics project, the rational skepticism project and the alternative views project. Your opinion of what belongs here is secondary to the rules of what constitutes information acceptable for inclusion in the article. I disagree with your arbitrary deletion of the 18 hour test. I have reverted it and will continue to revert it until a consensus is reached on this talk page. So far your argument for its deletion is of very poor quality. I suggest you improve it.Enslaved robot boy (talk) 04:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Similarly, I am uncomfortable with the "Media Coverage" section of the article as currently written. If we're approaching the Catalyzer as a scientific phenomenon, then media coverage is pretty much irrelevant. I'd rather see coverage in peer-reviewed journals. However, I have not removed this section yet. If we go to a business-oriented approach, then I think this section should be expanded.Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Moishe, you make some good points. First of all, it's clear that the E-Cat is not a "scientific phenomenon." Opinions about how it works are just that, opinion, there can be no "scientific consensus" on the E-Cat, because the information on which such a consensus would be based has not been disclosed and there are, as we all know, no peer-reviewed journal articles on this. However, if there is notable speculation on how it works, i.e., that is covered in reliable source, or if there is technical evidence as to its operation, similarly covered, this can -- and should -- be covered according to the balance of what is in reliable source. Where, in my opinion, we have flexibility, is in how we frame it.

The theory of operation of the E-cat, such meager sources as exist, would be covered in Cold fusion (which generally covers all low energy nuclear reaction claims). Rossi claims that the E-Cat doesn't involve "cold fusion," apparently, but that could be a semantic issue.

My point is that the strict sourcing requirements for articles on scientific subjects do not apply to this article, so removal of notable "news" from reliable news sources is inappropriate. However, relevant secondary sources -- and possibly some primary sources of interest -- can be used in a non-science article, I don't understand why you'd think they must be excluded.

Where I think we can agree is that the primary focus of this article is not "how it works," i.e., the science of it. It would be an article about an unknown. We don't even know what is in the device, beyond nanopowder nickel and hydrogen, and the secret "catalyst" is claimed to be crucial to the difference between this device and the prior work reported in Focardi's paper (and, by the way, there is some reliable secondary source on that paper).

Even in "science articles," there can be sections about matters of interest, public reaction, etc. This article is better described as being about business news, but: there are possible scientific implications, and there is some comment on that in reliable source. I.e., people are claiming this is impossible, using arguments from scientific theory, and others are claiming that, in spite of the lack of adequate and accepted theory, there is so much heat that this couldn't be mere mistake, and that is also an argument from scientific theory about the measurement of heat and how much heat is chemically possible. --EnergyNeutral (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Very good points. If the article is about 'science', it needs to be evaluated as such. Otherwise, the science-related parts must go. We cannot assist a 'business venture' in making claims which cannot be independently verified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Andy. Let's simply agree on this: this is not a "science" article, though people can be -- and are -- drawing implications from it about science, or applying scientific theory to validate or reject the factual claims or interpretations. I don't understand, though, this comment that "we cannot assist a 'business venture." We neither assist nor oppose, right? We report what is in reliable source, with proper attribution and framing wherever what is being reported is controversial. We do not report claims as fact.

However, according to Ny Teknik, a founder of Ampenergo was a former U.S. energy official, is a fact easily verifiable. That is, Ny Teknik did report that. Right? If what they stated is controversial (is it?) then we'd leave in the attribution to Ny Teknik, and if it is not, we don't need it. Some here have implied that this fact is "promotion," but that's confusing the possible effect of a fact with the fact itself. If there is reason to doubt the fact, found in reliable source of usable quality, then we would balance with that. The notability of the underlying fact is assured by its coverage in Ny Teknik, which is a reputable source of news on scientific and technical subjects. What you and I think is "important," or "assisting a business venture," isn't our primary basis for making these decisions. --EnergyNeutral (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure if this article is about "science", but I am sure that this article is about an object and this object is the "subject" of TV reportages, radio programmes and press articles.

So, separating the two sides of the coin is difficult but IMHO we should be very careful about the scientific side, at least until the official announcement of the tests conducted by the universities of Bologna and Uppsala will be confirmed. --79.1.209.200 (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, "announcements" of those tests still won't be enough as to the "scientific side," and even if these results are published under peer review, we'll need to wait for secondary sources. Announcements reported in media secondary sources (like Ny Teknik, but by that time, should it come to pass, there should be others as well), we can use for this article, as it is certainly relevant to the "business." --EnergyNeutral (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

About the scientific side: the science involved is the previous peer-reviewed articles of Sergio Focardi et al. which are relevant because they suggest that "yes, some NI-H nuclear processes could be involved"... --79.1.209.200 (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Those articles are primary sources. We can cite them, my opinion, but we really depend on secondary sources for judgment. Given that Rossi claims to have based his development work on prior work, including Rossi, covered in secondary sources such as the Italian TV special, it seems relevant to me, but isn't adequately sourced yet. Yes, this is important in terms of overall POV balance, and can be tricky to handle. --EnergyNeutral (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

strain at a gnat and swallow a camel

The section removed about the February 18 hour test was reliably sourced, but the material about the first test, in January, left in place, is entirely outside reliable source guidelines. This will need to be rewritten entirely, based on the Ny Teknik articles or other sources (Ny Teknik has far more detail than anything else I've seen). I noticed how poorly the section was sourced because some of the statements seemed off, so I looked at the sources.... while the pages cited are of some interest, we can't source fact from highly involved people like Rossi himself, unless it's clearly attributed to him, and the Levi paper is apparently self-published (it has a university seal but that doesn't mean that the university approved it). Those are primary sources, not independently published. --EnergyNeutral (talk) 23:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

There is something on the media, like on the Italian newspapers. If needed, I will search for.--79.24.133.102 (talk) 23:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Media sources are inferior for "science," but the E-Cat is really "news." Serious newspapers have a reputation to uphold for accuracy. A science or technology magazine like Ny Teknik, even more so. So what the Italian media is reporting is important. --EnergyNeutral (talk) 01:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Isn't what the media don't report also significant? If the only sources which report this seemingly astonishing invention are the Italian Media, and Ny Teknik, are we not at least entitled to ask why? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course, but I prefer not to descend into a sort of "americo/anglo-centrism and related arguments". My opinion: I have listened Rossi who speaks English. You can easily understand that he has learnt English by reading scientific stuff, but he has just a "plain" knowledge of this language (listen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hVcRggbHrM ). Focardi, Stremmenos, Levi are not English mothertongues. So, it is easily explainable why sources, which report this seemingly astonishing invention, are the Italian Media: the Italian Media can easily pick up the phone and call mr Focardi (for example) because they all speak Italian! Also Mats Lewan of Ny Teknik speaks Italian, although he is Swede. In the Greek TV Stremmenos speaking, but he is married with an Italian and he was Ambassador of Greece in Italy during the 80s ( watch here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBOV7vztkVw , Stremmenos is the old guy with glasses and white hair).

So IMHO language is one of the simplest ponderable explanations.--79.16.164.27 (talk) 11:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I just can't accept that. Major media outlets will have Italian-speaking journalists. Given the nature of Focardi's claims, I am quite sure if they considered them credible, they would have shown more interest. The only conclusion I can draw is that they are sceptical (at minimum) about the 'Catalyzer'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

This is another plusible explanation. Of couse, just to be sure of it we should have some sort of knowledge that inform us that US Media are 1) aware of the E-Cat,

and 2) then they sceptically dissmiss it as "incredible".--79.10.133.53 (talk) 13:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is all speculation. That few mainstream media sources outside Italy have reported on the 'Catalyzer' is however a fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not a verified fact. What's the source? AndyTheGrump? "Few" is not a "fact" word, it's an interpretation, and it's relative to complex subjective expectations. We can report, with attribution, interpretations found in reliable source. Know of any? --EnergyNeutral (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Meanwhile, AndyTheGrump, I found additional skeptical source in a place that seems to have been overlooked: the NY Teknik staff, and added this to the January demonstration section in my rewrite, described below. I hope this relieves your grumpiness some. This story cannot continue to be ignored by most U.S. media, because this is either the biggest fraud ever attempted in the cold fusion area (by far!), or it is a true energy revolution. Either way, this will eventually be massively covered. Right now, we can't report on what's burbling under the surface, but you can be sure that, for example, the U.S. military is looking at the E-Cat. If this is real, it's what a U.S. military agency recently called (in a report on cold fusion) "disruptive technology," i.e., technology that risks altering economic power, and that thus affects U.S. national interests. I'd love to cite that source .... but I have nothing connecting it with the E-Cat. --EnergyNeutral (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

"...you can be sure that, for example, the U.S. military is looking at the E-Cat". Nope. I dare say they may well have looked at it. Whether they are still looking is pure conjecture. And please try to stick to verifiable facts, rather than speculations bordering on conspiracy theories. Yes, my statement about "few mainstream media sources" wasn't sourced: It is rather difficult to prove a negative. However, it could be rephrased by saying that our article shows "few mainstream media sources outside Italy, and Ny Teknik" - if they exist, find them.

I've been rather busy on other things, but I'll no doubt do some searching myself - if you are right about this being "a true energy revolution", they will no doubt appear in droves. Meanwhile, per WP:CRYSTALBALL, we must write the article based on what we have, not what we think may come later. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. This cuts both ways. "Pure conjecture." No. Informed conjecture, but we agree on something. We can't base the article on this. "Conspiracy theory"? What conspiracy? We know that U.S. military laboratories are actively investigating cold fusion, of the palladium deuteride variety (E-Cat is nickel hydride), some of the important recent work on Pd-D has originated with them. Given the Ny Teknik and other reports, they'd be derelict in their duties to not be looking at this. Military analysts already know that the evidence for cold fusion is strong. You want a source for what the military knows? There is one. Remember, it's really irrelevant here, I'm just responding to you, I'd rather not discuss it here. You perform a valuable service by standing up for the skeptical POV, but, please, do remember it is a POV, not a "fact." --EnergyNeutral (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

January 2011 demonstration rewritten

Per comment above, I've rewritten the January 2011 demonstration section entirely, based only on two reliable sources, Ny Teknik, and Discovery.com (the latter merely represents an editorial opinion, but establishes notability. It also cites the otherwise-unusable physorg.com source, which allows placing a reference to a source that provides video of the test and other information.

Some of the material that I took out may be usable, but sourcing was weak by our standards; primary sources were cited for fact without attribution, and some of this amounted to original research, such as citing prior scientific work to establish "credibility." We will need to lok for reliable secondary sources that establishes the connection. I appreciate that we had a Nobel laureate editing this article, and possibly material got inserted based on his knowledge of the background, I haven't checked, and, for the future, it doesn't matter. Below is the material I removed, for reference, as wikitext.

Because I created this section stand-alone, I have not integrated the references with the rest of the references in the article. Help with clean-up is appreciated, as well as pulling in what may be appropriate from the sources below. For example, there is reference on Ny Teknik to primary sources, and those can be linked for the convenience of our readers. (In some cases, I did not include material from Ny Teknik about those sources, and other editors, thinking that what I left out might be important, may add reference back in, but I specifically avoided the theoretical speculations that Ny Teknik covered. That really belongs in a different article, probably Cold fusion. What might be important here is that knowledgeable physicists are indeed speculating or theorizing as to what might be happening; this has been going on in a similar way since 1989, and continues to be published in peer-reviewed mainstream reliable source, but this is all outside the purview of this article. --EnergyNeutral (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

removed material from January demonstration section

The apparatus was demonstrated in an industrial hangar outside Bologna to invited journalists and scientists on January 14, 2011.<ref name=Jan_2011_press>{{Citation | title = January 15th Focardi and Rossi press conference | date = 2011-01-14 | url = http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360}} (self published source)</ref> During the demonstration, which lasted for about one hour, the reactor was "ignited" with electrical current passing through a resistance. Prof. Levi, an independent observer, reported that the electrical power fed to the apparatus was about 1 kW on average (although reduced to about 400 watts for a few minutes), and that it produced heat energy of approximately 12 kW which was used to evaporate water. He reported that the water temperature was raised from 20°C to about 101 °C and that the output was dry steam. He calculated a power [[Fusion energy gain factor|gain factor]] of about 30.<ref name=levireport>{{Citation |author=Giuseppe Levi |title=Report on heat production during preliminary tests on the Rossi "Ni-H" reactor |date=2011-01-14 |work=[[Esowatch]] |url=http://www.esowatch.com/doc/Levi%2C_Giuseppe_-_Report_on_heat_production_during_preliminary_tests_on_the_Rossi_Ni-H_reactor_%282010-2011%29.004810.pdf}}</ref>

The intensity of the radiation emitted from the part of the apparatus where the alleged fusion process is taking place was measured both before and after ignition.<ref name=villreport>{{Citation |title=On the gamma radiation measurements on the Rossi system |date=2011-01-26 |journal=[[Journal of Nuclear Physics]] |url=http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/VillaMonthegamma.pdf}}{{Verify credibility|date=March 2011}}</ref> No significant difference in activity was detected when the apparatus was in an idle and "working" mode. This result conflicts with current theoretical and experimental knowledge of nuclear fusion processes and interaction between radiation and matter, according to which excess radiation would be generated, allowed to escape the apparatus, and subsequently detected. However, different considerations may apply at these very low energies.<ref name=resonant_tunneling>{{cite journal|last=Li|first=Xing Zhong, et al.|title=Sub-barrier fusion and selective resonant tunneling|journal=Phys. Rev. C|year=2000|volume=61(2), 024610|doi=10.1103/PhysRevC.61.024610|url=http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.61.024610|bibcode = 2000PhRvC..61b4610L }}This paper is one of many attempts that have been made to account for the apparent enhancements of reaction rates observed in [[LENR]] experiments.</ref> No gamma ray spectroscopy was performed owing to restrictions by Rossi and Focardi.<ref name=villreport/>

[[Giuseppe Levi]],<ref>{{Cite web |title=Curriculum Vitae |author=Giuseppe Levi |publisher=Università di Bologna |url=http://www.unibo.it/SitoWebDocente/default.htm?UPN=giuseppe.levi%40unibo.it&TabControl1=TabCV }} (primary source)</ref> a nuclear physicist from [[INFN]], helped organize the demonstration. He confirmed that the reactor produced about 12 kW and also stated that the energy was not likely to be of chemical origin since there was no measurable hydrogen consumption.<ref name=levireport />

(end of wikitext section) --EnergyNeutral (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Ampenergo

Ampenergo inc shares the address with EON inc and Leonardo corp (an office park in Bedford, NH), both belonging to inventor Rossi. Ampenergo has no known phone number and is not listed in any us online-phonebook. (I checked also Ampenerco) Since yesterday i tried to reach Leonardo inc by phone to ask for the Ampenergo phone number. There is always only a answering machine, i tried it 6 times at us-business times. It seems to be a sort of post box company. The complete section about this ghost company should be deleted in our article until we get something to cite. ZiccaLui (talk) 12:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC) ps. I found two pictures of the Petrol Dragon company: [1] and [2] ZiccaLui (talk) 12:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

This is the certificate of the State of Ohio issued for Ampenergo: http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3179056.ece/BINARY/Ampenergo+Certificate+of+Organization--.pdf

Regards.--79.16.128.21 (talk) 13:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

It appears that they registered a company, but anyone with a few dollars can fill out a few forms and do the same. It would be far more interesting if there were some evidence that the company was actually doing something. Like Defkalion, we have the placeholders for a company, but no actual evidence of money being spent, work being performed, or devices being built and sold. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, anyone can, however the Articles were recorded in Ohio on April 20, 2009. [3][4], which really just means they have an accountant there. There is a set of companies sharing offices, which would not be unusual. One is Leonardo Technologies, Inc., see http://www.lti-global.com/. The internet archive has a copy of this site from 2004.[5] NyTeknik reports the relationship between LTI, Leonardo Corporation, and Ampenergo. It's clear that Ampenergo is a serious business effort, and the claims that they have paid Rossi are credible. We see here knee-jerk doubt from POV editors, pushing it. NyTeknik is reliable source usable for the article. Much of the rest is original research, usable for background but only for the article with consensus.

LTI is the real operating company, with real contracts involving energy consulting. --EnergyNeutral (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I again added the reference to Ampenergo's Robert Gentile, with some supporting references to Gentile's history. That Ampenergo is founded by known, long-term associates of Rossi, that it is working with significant U.S. government contracts, and that there are two former U.S. Assistant Secretaries of Energy working with LTI, the main operating company, is all quite notable, as to intrinsic notability, i.e., obvious interest. (There is another LTI consultant, like Robert Gentile, apparently, but I have only non-independent reference to that, not WP:RS, or I'd have put it in.) If this is a scam, it's still succeeding in attracting some, ah, "interesting people." Background: LTI apparently has money. Rossi is not likely to run out of funding to build the Defkalion system, he won't have that excuse. --EnergyNeutral (talk) 21:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Cold Fusion any dangers?

Lots of Talk on useing Cold Fusion are they ANY dangers ?Thanks!WEREWOLFID (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a talk page for discussions on the 'Energy Catalyzer' article, not a general forum for discussion of Cold Fusion. I suggest you ask the same question at the science reference desk: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

So if we AGF, we ask "should the article discuss dangers of using the device?" Some of the sources do mention dangers without going into detail. If nothing else, there's the danger of a hydrogen leak. If the device did work there could presumably be potential for radiation and for radioactivation, also discussed in sources. Should the article not address these? LeadSongDog come howl! 20:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Until we have evidence from a reliable source (other than the inventor) regarding how the 'Catalyzer' works, we'd have no way to assess the dangers. In any case, it would be WP:OR to discuss anything not directly from sources. So no, I don't think so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

To dismiss discussion of the dangers of hydrogen leaks as OR or even SYNTH strikes me as just a bit much. It's not hard to find sources that say how tricky hydrogen plumbing is, and that it burns, deflagrates, or even detonates in air at quite modest concentrations, e.g. this one. Rossi does warn against the dangers of making and using the device. This is one respect in which I have no difficulty believing him. There are reasons why party balloons are filled with helium instead.LeadSongDog come howl! 20:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

If you can find a source which discusses in detail any dangers associated with the 'Catalyzer' specifically, we may be able to use it. We cannot look for general sources on the dangers of hydrogen for example, and use them. That is WP:OR, end of story. It is also possibly a breach of WP:NPOV, as we would be making unsourced assumptions of our own about dangers, and would risk letting our own opinions intrude. Either find a directly relevant source, or forget about it for now. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Andy is quite correct. There is some information out there, in primary sources, about possible hazards, I understand some of the prototypes exploded. It would be, indeed, very incorrect to simply assume "hydrogen" equals danger. These cells use very little hydrogen, it's claimed. Rather, if there is no fraud here, if the reports are accurate, the danger would be runaway heat. As we find reliably sourced information on possible dangers, we should include it. We can sometimes cite primary sources, but that takes agreement that these are relevant and that including the information doesn't create a bias; more commonly, we are looking for secondary sources, sources which collect information from primary sources and publish it independently, under editorial responsibility, hence Ny Teknik as a reliable source, mostly secondary in nature. --EnergyNeutral (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It has shielding and some gamma radiation bursts were measured when starting and stopping the device, but the shielding is quite limited so it may not be a major issue. // Liftarn (talk)

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)

For reference, the comment where he says that the friend didn't see a test. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by LeadSongDog (talk • contribs) 18:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

Hum, that text is still there in that blog. It's also in the original blog[6], and it is used as the summary of the blog in the i-sis.org [7] and in the Ny Teknik article [8]. An anonymous editor later restored the missing summary, but he omitted the part about scam [9]. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

|}

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)

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)

Or here if you want a non-automatic translation. // Liftarn (talk)

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)

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)

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)

Defkalion press conference June 23

Apparently Defkalion appears to have announced a press conference for June 23, see http://technews.it/DZRKa (Google-Translate [10], 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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) 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: Ennio Bonetti: http://www.unibo.it/SitoWebDocente/default.htm?UPN=ennio.bonetti%40unibo.it Ennio Campari: http://www.unibo.it/SitoWebDocente/default.htm?UPN=enrico.campari%40unibo.it Mauro Villa: http://www.unibo.it/SitoWebDocente/default.htm?UPN=mauro.villa%40unibo.it Loris Ferrari: http://www.unibo.it/SitoWebDocente/default.htm?UPN=loris.ferrari%40unibo.it --79.11.210.61 (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC) 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) We are all eagerly awaiting any peer-reviewed papers that result. PhGustaf (talk) 04:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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)

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)

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)

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.wiki.x.io/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)

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)

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)

I don't think we should assume (in the absence of an RS) that Bill Moore has so little intelligence that he did not understand that point. We did, BTW, have permission from him to use extracts from the broadcast for our video. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

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[11], 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)

There'd be more hope (except for disaster-oriented people) if the reverse were the case. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

Odd! --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thank you.Sphere1952 (talk) 23:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Andrea Rossi's explanation

http://pesn.com/2011/07/14/9501868_E-Cat_news_coming_fast_and_furious/

“ To make it extremely simple, what happens is that nickel has a particularity that protons spread from its surface with extreme efficiency. And very close to the nucleus, even if repelled by the so called coulomb barrier forces. And when we in the reactor inject the hydrogen the protons of hydrogen at high pressures and temperatures, will go pretty close to the nucleus of the nickel. And at those points, we have nuclear effects that produce gamma rays which add more energy and using a particular system to increase the pressure arriving to extremely high pressures... similar to ones that happen to be in the White Dwarf stars. In those situations, it is possible that physically that so called Gamow Factor, which is a probabilistic calculation of the coulomb repelling forces, is overcome, and at that point enough energy is produced to make it worth to be recorded. ”

--79.6.9.150 (talk) 12:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

That interview's from EV World (A RS) Alanf777 (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Media Coverage

Does this article count as as RS ? : Cold Fusion, Warm Future. A New Day Dawning? http://www.thesussexnewspaper.com/columnists/3061-cold-fusion-warm-future-a-new-day-dawning.html -- Their 'about' page indicates it's online AND print. As far as I know, it's the first UK mention of Rossi.Alanf777 (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It looks by a blog to me, and our article The Sussex Newspaper seems to confirm this: "The Sussex Newspaper is an online community project...". The author seems to be a copywriter rather than a journalist, and the article only mentions Rossi once. What exactly are you suggesting it is RS for? That someone in Sussex has read our article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks as (or more) legit as http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/ -- I agree the entry The Sussex Newspaper is minimal, but its about page says they're also print. Got logged out!! Re-signed Alanf777 (talk) 01:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of whether they are 'also print', the blog (or whatever it is) doesn't actually say anything of the remotest significance about the Catalyzer that we don't already know. We shouldn't be providing links to every trivial mention of the subject. Frankly, this article has become steadily more hard to justify with time, as the hype has continued, while verifiable evidence that the Catalyzer actually does anything has failed to materialise. The 'Media coverage' section is symptomatic of this - it is a totally redundant listing of media outlets that tells us nothing other than that they have chosen to report the story. Do we have this in every 'in-the-news' article? No, of course not, because the media is being used by the article for sourcing, rather than as a filler to make up for the fact that there is little else to report. I'm tempted to reduce the section to a single sentence which states that the Catalyzer has had some limited media coverage in Italy and Greece, but little elsewhere, though unfortunately this would be WP:OR, even if blindingly obvious. AndyTheGrump (talk)

Relax. Just wait until the end of the year. If still unverified I think we will all join together in WP:DELPRO. 94.170.239.207 (talk) 07:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Well I have to concede that if the Energy Catalyzer is a hoax, it would push the hoax world onto a new climaxing peak of hoax. In that sense the Energy Catalyzer is really pushing the envelope because it has already cheated sceptic societies, universities and NASA researchers... So, in my humble opinion the page should be kept in any case. I mean, the Energy Catalyzer deserves either Nobel Prize if it is true or IgNobel Prize if it is hoax...--79.16.165.64 (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Er, no. Wikipedia doesn't base articles on what contributors think might happen in the future: see WP:CRYSTALBALL. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Evaluation of the device: video by Brian Josephson

I propose that we add a paragraph on this video on Ecat from U. Cambridge Nobel Prize Winner Brian Josephson : http://sms.cam.ac.uk/media/1150242 81.240.135.52 (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

You mean something like:

In a video published both on youtube and on the website of University of Cambridge, Professor Brian Johnson (Nobel Prize laureate in Physics) states that there is a “deafening silence of the scientific and other media, in regarding to what may well be the most technology advantage of the century,” adding that “Whereas the ITER project may lead to practical power generation some decade hence, generators based on the Rossi reactor, first demonstrated in January 2011, are already under construction.”

(Video found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8eIhth8Iw8 and here: http://sms.cam.ac.uk/media/1150242)

--79.16.165.64 (talk) 23:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Nope. We already have a link to the video in 'External links', which is perhaps questionable. Unless a WP:RS comments on the video, I can see no justification for discussing it in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Media coverage 2 - La Repubblica

As it is 'not referring to Rossi', it has no relevance to the article. End of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Fully agree, it's just a tidbit...but thank to 79.16.165.64 for the info --POVbrigand (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

If an IP wants to provide 'tidbits' about off-topic subjects, they can't do it here. I have deleted it, per WP:NOTFORUM policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, now I know it's BS

How the man (Rossi) can claim to add pressure to a system so as to reach those equivalent to those inside a white dwarf star is beyond comprehension. Does anyone here know what he is saying????

The pressure inside a white dwarf are such that a teaspoon of material weighs more than several thousand tons. And that is achieved through the effect of gravity whose effect increases as the density (ie mass per volume) increases. How could it be produced under normal conditions here on earth? Simply not possible. Is there no one here who is versed in astronomy? Lacking the effect from gravity the device would simply blow up. This is the main problem in warm fusion today, which uses magnetic containment.

As for Kim, the obvious explanation is that "his" conference is dying on the vine; so he has to come with something which might drive up media interest, better attendance, etc.; well-protected by the usual cautionary platitudes.

Andy is missing the point, this is not about the holy grail of encyclopedic purity (which he thinks he is guarding). It is that no one here seems to have the requisite knowledge to realize that Rossi is driving a fraudulent scheme with the help of other hopefuls.

Sure, I'd like to believe that we're on the threshold of a new energy era; plus that I had won the El Gordo or some other lottery, or whatever they're baiting with on the web today. But it ain't true gentlemen! The final proof of my contention is that oil interests have not buried it all, one way or another. They recognize a scam; scams have been around since the first geyser in Pennsylvania came in in 18 hundred and something.

BTW, thanks to Alanf777 for the quote which revealed it all, at least to my satisfaction. PS It was nice dropping in to revel in your battles. Idealist707 (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You can throw a ball at a wall, and it can easily reach 100's of G's for a very short period of time. High G's for small periods of time don't require all that much momentum, or energy for that matter. If any such high forces occur in the device, the reaction density must be very low, or otherwise you obviously cannot contain such forces. Thus, the only possibility for pressure of white dwarfs in the device would be intermittent and sparse events that occur probabilistically in some way.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 09:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Rossi's Meeting with NASA

According to Hank Mills of Pure Energy Systems News (PESN):

http://pesn.com/2011/07/21/9501874_Rossis_Self_Sustaining_One_Megawatt_Reactor/

the meeting between Andrea Rossi and NASA representatives did in fact take place on 14 July 2011, but the relationship between Rossi and NASA is still tentative and exploratory. NASA has not yet validated the E-cat technology therefore.

--79.20.164.45 (talk) 13:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

"Eye of a newt, and ear of a toad..."

Pardon my loan from Macbeth, but it's my impression of his explanation. However, with your work here (nice article, will read it later), you will appreciate the need for examination on a quantum physics level, such as is shown in the Cold Fusion Wiki article. Summarily, we have electricity being consumed (and measured), we have heat being extracted through heat transfer to flowing water (measured), and we have hydrogen being added, resulting in nuclear fusion, producing a new element. Has anyone defined the paths, the probabilities, ie examined these processes using the tools of quantum physics? They would be pertinent here. The little I know says that the Coulomb (electrostatic effect) increases exponentially as the distance decreases (see Casimir effect). I don't see a way of getting by that effect. Unless it's like vacuum energy, ie caused by probabilistic effects, which as natural laws can not be patented. Has he provided any clarifications as to the quantum processes? BTW, I can't get the system to translate my tildes. Idealist707 90.233.162.243 (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Size and layout of apparatus

A line buried deep in the article mentions a "50 cubic centimeter container". It would be good to give some idea in the lead section of the general size and layout of the apparatus. 86.179.2.163 (talk) 01:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this would belong in the lede, but in any case, we can only work from what reliable sources tell us - and frankly, there isn't a lot to go on. Some of the links have photographs, though how much they really tell anyone is questionable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

No, actually you're probably right, probably this topic should be expanded in the "Demonstrations and investigations" section. Maybe at the start of that section could be a quick explanation of the most salient features of the apparatus demonstrated. At the moment it's hardly clear if it's a test tube or an industrial-sized setup. In fact, at the moment it's also not clear even if all the demonstrations used the same equipment... 86.179.2.163 (talk) 01:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The snag is that we don't know what the 'salient features' are. It purportedly consists of a pump to drive cold water into the 'catalyzer', where it heats up and exits. There is some sort of electrical heating system involved to 'start' it, and 'regulate' the system, and there seems to be some sort of temperature monitoring equipment. The really salient part is the 'catalyzer' section itself (the 50 cc part), but we have next-to-no information on what is in there - assuming that it isn't a hoax, in which case the salient part may be somewhere else entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I think exactly that info, almost just as you've written it, would be very useful in the article. "The apparatus [appears to] consist of a pump to drive cold water into a 50 cc 'catalyser'..." etc. etc." 86.179.2.163 (talk) 02:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, though this is derived from several different sources, and I'm going from memory. We really need a concise description from a single source. I see your point though - I'll see if I can find at least a minimal description of the device's physical characteristics to add, though there may not be one that actually provides the necessary information. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

...And before anyone else jumps in, there is a hydrogen supply too, apparently. Fusion needs something to fuse. Of course, if it is doing what it purports too, it won't need much, what with E = MC² or whatever... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Andy, if you have time to root out that information and work it into the article, I think it would benefit the article. 86.183.129.83 (talk) 22:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I think, given the latest 'New Energy Times' report on the 'catalyzer', [12] that things may evolve rapidly - the article actually has a nice diagram of the cat, as well as some good photo's - but more to the point, it also presents a great deal of evidence to suggest that it doesn't do what Rossi claims at all... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

A very very concise extract from the latest 'New Energy Times' report on the 'catalyzer':

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/37/3705report3.shtml#hoax

A Hoax?

...Few people have seen as many new, strange and innovative ideas as Tony Tether has. Tether is the president of the Sequoia Group.... He met Rossi and saw one of his demonstrations, last year in New Hampshire: "it wasn't one of his best experiments, according to Rossi, but it went on for a long time," Tether said. "The weight of the hydrogen bottle was being measured, and it wasn't decreasing. The input power was being measured, and it was what he said it was... If it is a hoax, it is a damn good one."

Verdict? Puzzling: IMHO until now there is no damn good reason for coming to any conclusion, if I can say so...

--79.10.163.39 (talk) 08:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Post Scriptum: Andy, according to your opinion, it is possible to report the above mentioned statement of Tony Tether in the article?

--79.10.163.39 (talk) 08:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is more of what Krivit says...

...Last year, Rossi and Focardi claimed an energy gain of 213 times. This year, Rossi downgraded that to six. Our analysis shows a possible energy gain of one to two times. In other words, Rossi’s device probably produces Watts, not kilowatts, of power. It may, in fact, produce zero excess heat. We cannot know with confidence because of the poor data collection and reporting.
The validity, or lack of validity, of Rossi's claim has not been easy for the lay public and even some scientific observers to assess.
For example, even an expert in advanced technology told me that he was not able to make a clear, initial decision about Rossi's claim.
That expert is Tony Tether. Few people have seen as many new, strange and innovative ideas as he has. He is the president of the Sequoia Group, a consulting firm, and he served as director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency from June 18, 2001, until February 20, 2009.
"If it is a hoax, it is a damn good one," Tether said.

[13] Emphasis added - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 10:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It is interesting: you showed perfectly the distinction between the relata refero of the words of Tony Tether (in your intervention) and the pristine statement of Tony Tether (in my intervention). Of course the less Tether's statement is manipulated the better is.

--79.6.9.235 (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Just pointing out that the Tether quote does not exist in a vacuum. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok '79.6.9.235', how about also including this extract from the 'Hoax' section instead: "Rossi has claimed, many times and in many reports, that he is not asking anybody for money until he delivers a working product for sale... Rossi's Greek licensee, Defkalion Green Technologies, however, is asking for money and asking investors to bear the risk. For 40.4 million Euros, one company per country can have the exclusive rights to manufacture and sell Rossi's device...". Cherry-picking works both ways. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Andy: my opinion? No problem.

If there are references about it, why not? Put both: the 40.4 million Euros & the stament of mr. Tony Tether.

--79.10.161.15 (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC) Francesco (my name)

Which statement by Tether? Just the one where he says that "If it is a hoax, it is a damn good one", or the previous part where he says "I did have a chance to talk to him [Rossi], and he was evasive when I directly asked him what was going on. He complained why we needed to take separate measurements. I told him that, if he didn't want to disclose how it worked, then there was no other choice but to make sure there wasn't a person behind the curtain. (I don't think he understood my Wizard of Oz reference.)" Like I said, cherry-picking. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The entire statement.

ps

A brief moment of smile: concerning the Energy Catalyzer, a very well-known Italian sceptic journalist said:

"nickel and hydrogen producing copper? If we add blood of bat and tail of lizard then we can get gold too..."

--79.10.161.15 (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

(Dedenting a whole bunch) Are we opening up the Krivit Report as a RS? He has 36 appendices, of varying quality, and of which about 5 make serious calculations (eg Nasa). They all confirm that steam-calorimetry is difficult and unreliable, but we still have the February 18-hour water-test, and the Defkalion Hyperion which uses a closed glycol loop. Plus Rossi's non-RS statements that he's now using self-sustaining eCats in the planned 1MW reactor. I don't think anything significant is going to happen until October. Alanf777 (talk) 18:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The '18 hour' test wasn't public, and Krivit points out in the report that he "asked about their steam measurements. I asked to see scientific evidence for their 18-hour sub-boiling test. I asked to see scientific evidence for their self-sustaining claim. Rossi had the opportunity to show me the volume and velocity of steam exiting directly from his device. Either he did not understand these facts, or he did not want me to see them...". Furthermore we have nothing in the article referring to 'a closed glycol loop'. I see no reason to wait until October to report that serious doubts have been raised about the 'Catalyzer' in a source that one would not expect on the face of it to be hostile, and with a great deal of scientific detail to back up these doubts - together with other issues (the Miami Beach 'factory' etc) which tend to indicate that all is not as it seems. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

"The '18 hour' test wasn't public" ... but it was reported in a RS (Nyteknik). I've put a draft of the Defkalion Press release in User:Alanf777#Defkalion_Press_Conference -- perhaps we can get agreement there on what to post. Some of the issues Krivit raises are pure snark -- such as the Miami factory, and the plumber's tools (Here's a link to my comments on those http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg49768.html ).and he has been known to get into feuds before. Alanf777 (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Neither the Defkalon press release nor your own comments are anything other than opinion. We don't base articles on press releases, and we certainly don't base them on contributors blogs. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

What Tony Tether stated is important IMHO. Thanks to him, now we can add relevant information:

• 1) that there were demonstrations in the United States by Andrea Rossi about the Energy Catalyzer;
• 2) that measurements were taken during these demonstrations;
• 3) that these measurements were coherent with what it was expected to be as if everything were set up properly and indeed working;
• 4) that Tony Tether was not able to detect any sort of scam/hoax therefore.

According to the information we have about mr. Tether, he seems to be a scientist of pivotal importance in his field and therefore the information he collected appears to be significant and germane.

--80.180.63.143 (talk) 00:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but Tether also states that "[Rossi] was evasive when I directly asked him what was going on". Yes, Tether states that ""If it is a hoax, it is a damn good one". This isn't a statement that it isn't a hoax. And nothing Tether says indicates that all the necessary measurements were taken to show that the device was producing excess heat.

Furthermore, I think that it is the comments of Francesco Celani (a nuclear physicist) that are more germane to discussions as to whether the 'Cat' does what is claimed. As the appendix in the NET report regarding his findings notes, [14] he suggests that the measurements taken are useless for determining if excess heat is being produced: "A conceptual mistake is present in the experiment design". AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it is quite the opposite!!! Francesco Celani repeatedly stated the there is no mistake whatsoever concerning the measurements:

--- Messaggio inoltrato da francesco.celani@[omissis] ---

Data: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 19:15:26 +0100

Da: Francesco Celani

Rispondi-A:Francesco Celani

Oggetto: Declaration of Dr. Galantini (In Italian). [Fwd: sonda]

• A: [omissis]@googlegroups.com
• Cc: [omissis]

Dear Colleagues,

as anticipated, I am sending copy of the "Declaration" of Dr. Galantini about the instrumentation used.

I received it just now and it is in Italian language.

Thanks for Your kind attention,

Francesco CELANI

-------- Messaggio originale --------

Oggetto: sonda

Data: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 18:56:41 +0100

Mittente: Greit Service srl <@greitservice.it>

A: <francesco.celani@>

Si certifica che lo strumento con cui è stato effettuata la misura dell'acqua libera nel vapore durante il test svoltosi a Bologna il 14.01.2011 era lo strumento HD37AB1347 della Delta Ohm dotato di sonda mod.HP474AC con campo di risoluzione -40;+150°C.

Galantini dr.Gilberto

• GREIT SERVICE s.r.l.*

via Monsignore di Sotto, 32/A

44040 ALBERONE DI CENTO (FE)

C.F. e P. I.V.A. 02544400373

[omissis]

----- Messaggio inoltrato da [omissis]-----

Data: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 14:02:22 +0200

Da: Greit Service srl

Rispondi-A:Greit Service srl [omissis]

A: [omissis]

Buon giorno, in merito alla richiesta fattami in data odierna, come da me ripetutamente confermato alle numerose persone che me ne hanno fatto richiesta in passato, ripeto che tutte le mie misurazioni effettuate durante le decine di test per misurare la quantità di acqua non evaporata presente nel vapore prodotto dai generatori “E-Cat” sono sempre state effettuate dando i risultati in % di massa poiché lo strumento utilizzato indica i gr. di acqua per mc. di vapore.

Confermo che la temperatura misurata è sempre stata maggiore di 100,1°C.

E che la pressione misurata nel camino è sempre risultata essere pari alla pressione ambiente.

Lo strumento utilizzato durante il test effettuato alla presenza dei professori svedesi è stato il seguente: Testo 176 H2 codice 0572 1766.

Distinti saluti.

Galantini dr. Gilberto

Ordine dei Chimici n.194

Provincia di Ferrara

(TRANSLATION: [omissis], I repeat that all the measurements I did, during tens of tests done to measure the amount of not evaporated water (read liquid water, TN) present in the steam produced by “E-Cat” generators, always was made providing results in “% of mass”, since the used device indicates the grams of water by cubic meter of steam.

I confirm that the measured temperature always was higher than 100,1°C and that the measured pression in the chimney always was equal to the ambient pressure.

[omissis])

----- Messaggio inoltrato da [omissis] -----

Data: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 16:52:39 +0200

Da: Greit Service srl [omissis]

Rispondi-A:Greit Service srl [omissis]

A: [omissis]

Faccio seguito ai contatti intercorsi riconfermando che lo strumento della Delta Ohm utilizzato in gennaio per la verifica della quantità dell’acqua non evaporata presente nel vapore prodotto durante i test rimanda al diagramma psicrometrico e quindi i risultati ottenuti sono espressi in gr. di acqua per mc.di vapore; i risultati ottenuti durante questi test non si sono scostati in maniera significativa da quelli ottenuti con il Testo 176 H2 CODICE 05721766.

Galantini dr.Gilberto

Ordine dei chimici N.194

Provincia di Ferrara

--80.180.63.143 (talk) 01:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Please do not reproduce such documents on article talk pages. They may breach copyright, and are in any case of no relevance whatsoever, as they are not published sources. Can you tell us how you came by this document, and how we can verify that it is of any significance? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Source: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/20/galantini-sends-e-mail-about-rossi-steam-measurements-today/

Source of the source: http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/06/and-now-what.html

Basically: because someone put the steam measurements in doubt, Francesco Celani asked directly to the measurer, i.e. chemist dr Gilberto Galantini, if the measurements regarding steam were made with the appropriate devices, how was the steam, etc.

Galantini answered to Celani, and Celani published the statement made by Galantini i.e. the steam measurer.

Therefore there is no doubt at all from Francesco Celani about the suitability and satisfatoriness of the measurements.

--80.180.63.143 (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The link provided merely indicates that Celani received a message from Galantini. It says nothing more. I think we should remind ourselves that until proper information is provided to allow independent verification of the supposed mechanism by which the 'Cat' produces heat, nobody is in a position to make a definitive statement about whether it does what is claimed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)