This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
We can use this info in our article: [1]
"According to Sen. Bruce Tarr, Andrea Rossi, "the Italian scientist who claims to have developed the world's first nuclear cold fusion reactor is coming to the State House tomorrow to explore the prospects of developing the device and producing it in Massachusetts." Tarr's office says Rossi plans to visit Tuesday morning for two days of meeting with government officials and representatives of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University Massachusetts and Northeastern University. "Mr. Rossi's reactor, if successfully proven and developed, has the potential to change the way the world deals with energy," Tarr said in a statement. "
-- POVbrigand ( talk) 11:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Secondary source:
Rossi is today in the USA where he plans to meet Sen. Bruce Tarr and the representatives of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Massachusetts and Northeastern University, to «explore the prospects of developing the device and producing it in Massachusetts», Tarr states: «Mr. Rossi's reactor, if successfully proven and developed, has the potential to change the way the world deals with energy».
-- NUMB3RN7NE ( talk) 19:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I changed the recent edit to the BG article to clarify that it's Tamarin who said the audience was mostly skeptical. We already have a quote from Tamarin under "Evaluation", so no need to explain again who he is. Alanf777 ( talk) 18:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
This is interesting. Defkalion plan to make their own version of the e-cat. It's not clear if it's reverse engineered or not. They plan on making an announcement tomorrow (Wednesday) // Liftarn ( talk) 12:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the link (recently added to 'External links') to this for now, as it seems to have been posted by Sterling Allan (of PESN), not Rossi. [3] I think we need evidence from elsewhere that it is actually 'official', and that Allan is now running the Leonardo website - of course, if he is, it makes any statements from PESN even less 'independent' - and they were never 'reliable' by Wikipedia standards.
BTW, those interested in convoluted lawyerspeak may like to peruse the disclaimer prominantly displayed: "Cautionary Statement for Purposes of the "Safe Harbor" Provisions of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995... Any disclosure and analysis on this website may contain forward-looking information that involves risks and uncertainties... You can identify these statements by the fact that they do not relate strictly to historic or current facts and often use words such as "anticipate", "estimate", "expect", "believe," "will likely result," "outlook," "project" and other words and expressions of similar meaning. No assurance can be given that the results in any forward-looking statements will be achieved ...". I think they are trying to tell us something... AndyTheGrump ( talk) 04:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
The enom.com "whois" database indicates that Leonardo Corporation is the registrant of the domain name Leonardo-ECat.com —
So please put the link back into the "External links" section of the article. AnnaBennett ( talk) 05:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, so what just happened here? Sterling Allan set up an 'official' Leonardo website, someone linked to it, I queried its authenticity and removed it, but someone (using WP:OR) unilaterally decided it was genuine and restored the link, and now it turns out that Rossi is saying it isn't official? Can I suggest that we all learn some lessons from this. Firstly, there is no rush - accuracy is more important than immediacy in an encyclopaedia. Secondly, if you don't want to end up looking stupid, don't restore questionable items while there is still discussion going on, and finally, don't ever rely on non-RS sources just because they make claims you want to believe. This is policy. It is also common sense. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Andy, Rossi's blog contains a question from A. Goumy, which reads,
Rossi responded to Goumy's question as follows:
So Rossi is aware of and has not disowned the new website "leonardo-ecat.com". AnnaBennett ( talk) 15:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Enough of this crap!
We are NOT going to add a link to the 'official' website until we have a proper reliable source which explicitly states that it is official, end of story. THIS IS POLICY. IT IS NON-NEGOTIABLE. Please stop wasting everyone's time with guesswork based on blogs and other meaningless sources. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Can we get back on topic? Anyway, the website in question has now withdrawn any claims to being 'official', so the issue is resolved. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 00:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
25.11 "Today, in a mutual agreement with Andrea Rossi and Leonardo Corporation, ECAT.com has been appointed the Official ECAT Website."
If they claim they have a mutual agreement and we haven't heard any contrary news since 25.11. We can regard this as reliable and use it in our article -- POVbrigand ( talk) 10:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
hi,
I didn't find any reference to motl's articles about e-cat:
thought it could be of some use - MIRROR ( talk) 09:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Instead of "Lubos the entertainer"'s quacking you might want to read this critique [6]. It looks like RS to me, but I'm not sure. -- POVbrigand ( talk) 14:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, so this guy has 20,000 edits in 4 1/2 years. 68000 / (4.5 * 365) = 41.4003044 edits per day.
I'm impressed by his use of the ctrl-a ctrl-x keys -- although he still needs to up his quota by 700,000 to get to the top of the list.
Alanf777 (
talk) 19:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Seriously, the demonstrations which do not result in any comment by known scientists are just marketing fluff. This article cannot be used as a marketing tool, listing all the various in-universe high-fives rather than limiting it to on-the-record comments from noted scientists. Binksternet ( talk) 21:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The edit is this: should the word "test" be used for describing the alledged sale of the 1 MW plant on 28th october? I'd prefer the word "demonstration".-- NUMB3RN7NE ( talk) 21:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't look constructive at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Energy_Catalyzer&action=historysubmit&diff=463683782&oldid=463675205
Kindly explain how WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS justifies such deletions.
84.106.26.81 ( talk) 18:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
"US Military: A Credible Candidate As eCat Customer". ecatnews.com. December 16, 2011.
One presentation by one scientist working for SPAWAR doesn't change the fact that cold fusion is still viewed as pathological/mistaken/etc by most scientists. Cold_fusion#Ongoing_scientific_work already reflects that there are some scientists working inside SPAWAR. There is no official SPAWAR announcement saying that cold fusion should now be considered an established science. Let's not confuse the position of research institutions with the position of individual people inside those institutions. And let's not confuse "we are researching this" with "this research is now accepted by the scientific community as reputable". -- Enric Naval ( talk) 11:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Irrelevant Forum discussion WP:NOT#FORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Its existence was first proven theoretically by Hans Bethe in 1929 (Bethe 1929). H− is unusual because it has no bound excited states, as was finally proven in 1977 (Hill 1977). It has been studied experimentally using particle accelerators (Bryant 1977). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.88.53.202 ( talk) 17:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
|
-- 62.30.137.128 ( talk) 18:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
"The Physics of why the e-Cat's Cold Fusion Claims Collapse". See here: [8]. As for whether this meets WP:RS standards, I'm not entirely sure as yet. Any thoughts? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 23:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Science blog article: is it a joke? Are we pondering on using blogs as references now? Anyway,we probably need more theoretical astrophysicists like him:
[14]
--
Insilvis (
talk) 22:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump ( talk) 22:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Since there appears to be argument about blogs being allowed, what about this:
http://blog.thephoenix.com/BLOGS/talkingpolitics/archive/2011/12/08/romney-hot-for-cold-fusion.aspx
62.30.137.128 ( talk) 18:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I have now added a section on the Siegel and Thieberger article to the 'Evaluation of the device' section. Can I suggest that anyone wishing to question the suitability of the source does so at WP:RS/N - there is little point in going over the same ground here. Policy and practice seems clear, and per Wikipedia:PARITY#Parity_of_sources, there is no requirement for stronger sourcing of mainstream science responses to fringe 'science' claims, and that indeed, WP:FRINGE requires such material to correct an otherwise unbalanced article. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 00:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Having read the blog in question it clearly demonstrates how and why Nickel-Hydrogen fusion does not occur in stars, not leaving room for any thoughts that the reaction may be a low energy one as LENR suggests. Other research indicates that ultra low momentum neutrons may be at the heart of low energy nuclear reactions [16] I know that this article can in no way be used here (as it does not reference the e-cat or rossi specifically). However I think that it is a demonstration that these scientists may be nuclear physicists, yet they have no background in an understanding of many of the explanations that have begun to surface that explain how LENR works. Basically a blog by scientists who, despite being nuclear physicists, have little or no background in the actual field of LENR, should not be reviewed as a reliable source. 118.93.230.190 ( talk) 11:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
This [17] quotes from to Siegel's Blog. -- POVbrigand ( talk) 18:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I have added the preprint paper from Yeong E. Kim. As per parity of sources. If we lower the standard to allow a blog to illustrate to mainstream view, then there cannot be an objection to using a preprint to at least illustrate that theoretical explanations are in work, without going into detail. Comparison of the amount of text between the mainstream view and the fringe view should make arguing undue weight impossible, after all this article is about a fringe topic. So before you delete this section, also bring the whole package to WP:RS/N -- POVbrigand ( talk) 07:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
So, in the article about the device, we cannot mention that preliminary theoretical explanations are proposed ? -- POVbrigand ( talk) 15:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Just wondering why James Randi's video is considered a reliable source and linked from the article, where Prof. Kim's is not? Although Mr Randi is certainly notable, why put more value on his opinion? 62.30.137.128 ( talk) 18:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry Bhny, but where does Yeong E. Kim on his website have that disclaimer ? -- POVbrigand ( talk) 22:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Why was the paragraph I added regarding US patent prosecution deleted? It was a series of statemented facts. What does "OR/synthesis" mean? What qualifies a 'non-notable blog'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.137.19 ( talk) 22:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, I see these points you're making, but I did try to be careful to remain precisely factual. It is a fact that he is claiming catalytic materials in the processes, and it is a fact that he has said he will not reveal this. Is that not OK to put so far? So, then, is it not also germane to mention that US applications require a 'best mode requirement' [this is above most other patent jurisdictions' requirements]. It is a matter of fact that he has committed himself to a patent application procedure that will require him to reveal the formulation of his catalysts. There must be some sensible way of saying this, as it is germane to the position he has adopted, which is that he has stated he does not see any reason to reveal the catalyse formulations. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
84.13.137.19 (
talk) 23:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
see this list of "fan" web sites which should NOT be used in this article. Oh, very, very, inconvenient that the list is hosted at new energy times, which is frequently accused of not being reliable itself. Well, except for ecat.com, because that seems to be the current official web site -- POVbrigand ( talk) 22:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Text reads: Skeptic James Randi, discussing the E-Cat in the context of previous cold fusion claims, predicts that it will eventually be revealed to not function as advertised.[25]
As I understand it James Randi is a high school drop out. He may be bright but I doubt he has the perspective that enables him to assess whether a system such as the e-cat is working as advertised. The injection of his opinion opens the door to virtually anyone with some amount of notoriety rather than notability. I appreciate his effort to debunk but does his opinion really matter so much that it belongs here? I propose the line be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.30.232.50 ( talk) 20:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted this [19].
"providing important metrics" yes, but no. Measurement data was provided, but there is no reliable source to verify that these measurements are correct. On the many web forums there was (and still is) a lot of debate how these measurement data could have been faked or misread.
"independently thoroughly tested" not correct, they have not been independently tested at all.
"... without receiving a patent" no need to make excuses for Rossi's conduct in the lead section.
-- POVbrigand ( talk) 13:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, yes. Because all the important metrics are here: http://db.tt/wu4OLbgk
Why they are important - because they show that : - it is not possible that a chemical reaction is occurring, - they show the amount of the input and output energy - they describe what has been measured and not how ( the inner core of the device )
And this was what I meant - the whole apparatus has NOT been independently thoroughly tested
Ok the people from Ny Teknik , Wired.com and PESN wiki with the italian professors were attending and inspecting the measurements, so Rossi somehow full them all ... and Mark Gibbs, which obviously does not have physics background nor has he been attending the measurements is worth mentioning ...
I guess that makes wikipedia trusting Forbes more that Ny Teknik and Wired com .... which is SO wikipedian style .. YordanGeorgiev ( talk) 20:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Y — Preceding unsigned comment added by YordanGeorgiev ( talk • contribs) 20:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia endeavours to be a "Encyclopedia" and such it follows the current (American) mainstream view of science and technology. It has no proper internal structures for showing the probable veracity of a claimed discovery or scam. On the other hand the PesWiki does have such structures and considers this a likely candidate for being a real device. This, however, doesn't prove anything either way. Is Wikipedia expanding into this region of science now? 78.86.114.74 ( talk) 12:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
The following text has been removed three times by different people.
And I've been sent a message that I'm in danger of breaking a three times revert rule!
The latest Undo comment us utterly laughable 'TenOfAllTrades (talk | contribs) (38,515 bytes) (Undid revision 467077845 by Solmil (talk) Wikipedia isn't the place to promulgate your personal "Truth and Real Science")
This statement is a totally emotive ridiculous illogical statement. How can promulgation of my personal "Truth and Real Science" be in anyway associated with completely unrelated and independent scientific information supplied from SPAWAR and other agencies.
It would appear that Truth and Real Science are something very few people want to hear in this particular Wikipedia community.
It appears that the subject of 'Cold Fusion' in their minds is Religious, since these people removing this information seem unwilling to admit hard true independent scientific evidence into this article.
I would ask any sane intelligent human being to watch the video, particularly from 46.0 onwards to obtain hard evidence of repeatable experiments by numerous scientific communities as to the reality of 'Cold Fusion'.
Solmil ( talk) 20:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Just because we don't fully understand the Universe, is not sufficient a reason for the Universe not to exist.
What may be currently missing is a theory that explains these scientifically proven facts.
Solmil ( talk) 20:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Has any one of you guys who continually debase my addition of knowledge into this forum actually bothered to watch the video that I suggest? I actually doubt it. I doubt it because your comments don't stand up logically. If you did (watch the video) you would find your own comments are baseless. Why? Because numerous INDEPENDENT reliable scientific institutions have confirmed the existence of Cold Fusion.
Your religion of disbelief is a funny thing. Rossi is actually delivering Cold Fusion while you all religiously tell us it doesn't exist. He has the correct strategy. Time will tell.
Solmil ( talk) 22:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I'll give you guys 24 hours to watch the video and report back. If there is no message in this forum by then, my assumption of your emotive religious unscientific thought processes will statistically (in all probability) be proved correct. If you do watch it (the video) there is hard scientific evidence of multiple independent consistent repeatable proof of Cold Fusion. If you're short of time, just go directly to 46.3 on the video. If you don't watch it, I'll just give up on you mob and stop wasting my time and let you continue with your faery stories. To Truth and the Golden Age of Humanity I drink! Solmil ( talk) 22:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I wish that that "ban hammer" would be put away. About the only legitimate reason for wielding that particular tool is to stop blatant vandalism on an account which can't be dealt with in another manner. I've banned users before without discussion, but only when there is an account which is not producing any useful edits and isn't even trying to cooperate. Otherwise, at least here on en.wikipedia it goes through several steps including potentially an arbitration review. All in all, it is better if we just got along. If anything, Wikipedia has become too acrimonious and this kind of talk needs to stop.
All this said, I think those who are pushing for "the TRUTH" are doing themselves a massive disservice here. I am getting very frustrated with many of those who have what I perceive to be a religious devotion to Andrea Rossi, where whatever may or may not be happening with the E-cat is accepted to be fusion without even knowing the first thing about nuclear physics or understanding what possible objections there might be. If you think it works, fine! Study up on the concept, do you homework, write up a paper, and submit it to the proper journals which publish content of this nature. The largest problem isn't some grand conspiracy that I assert really doesn't exist, but that you need somebody who is literate and can form some coherent sentences together to actually explain the concept. If you have done some more journalistic research instead, there are many media outlets that would let you get published including some editors who would review whatever it is that you wrote.... thus producing even a secondary source we could use for this article. At that point there might be some people screaming conflict of interest, but at least it could be deemed a reliable source.
So far, I haven't seen anybody who is interested in "the TRUTH" putting forth that extra bit of effort. Yes, that is hard work, which is one of the reasons why journalists get paid to write, and why real scientist get paid too. It is indeed hard work and it is a skill that can take a lifetime to learn. The point that I think Andy is trying to make and certainly the point that many of those who have written up the guidelines for Wikipedia has made is that Wikipedia is not the place to publish primary material or original research. Don't use Wikipedia to write sales brochures, but instead try to understand we are trying to put together an encyclopedia... a collection of hopefully neutral and balanced articles which explain the scope of human knowledge. If you are here, please help us to write these article. There are plenty of obscure topics that really do need some help and attention. -- Robert Horning ( talk) 15:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I find it amazing that all this (some well intentioned) verbage is directed at myself, in essence chastise-ing me for being a 'naughty emotive unruly' contributor to Wikipedia, While all of the these people are themselves breaking all of these Wikipedia rules.
In the small sentences I added to this article is contained all the information asked for by these people, the proof, the evidence, the peer review, the 100's of reference sites, the science... the list goes on.
The only problem? None of you will read the information, it appears because you have preconceived ideas.
Sad.
Solmil ( talk) 01:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
personal attack |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I personally am confused... discussion aside i find your attitude (andy) to be disrespectful. A-liking this topic to unicorn poop and magic beans is very, VERY unobjective, exactly the sort of thing that wikipedia strives NOT to be. There is no citable proof that this device works, nor is there citable proof saying that it does not. So your attitude is very uncalled for. As for the discussion by Solmil, sorry mate we can't print things here (about the ecat) that don't have reputable sources, and due to Rossi's choices we aren't likely to get those, one way or another, for quite some time. 203.97.104.206 ( talk) 02:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Oh and by the way the reason he can't get a patent for it is not because he won't describe it, it's because the patent office refuses point blank to even look at anything they see as linked with cold fusion, having a similarly non objective view as you. 203.97.104.206 ( talk) 02:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Use of Yeong E. Kim as a reliable source is being discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Few_body_systems. IRWolfie- ( talk) 15:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
POVbrigand, you clearly have no concensus for the addition, why are you re-inserting it? IRWolfie- ( talk) 14:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I'd add it again, but there is no point as it would be removed. I think it should be in the article, as it gives the correct impression that academics do take the LENR effect that takes place between Nickel and Hydrogen seriously Tmccc ( talk) 19:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I have reverted this [20] edit by Stephan Schulz, because the WP-reader might misunderstand that Kim's theory was first proposed for the Fleischman-Pons experiment and later everything was discredited. "..had previously.." and "..now discredited..". It's a semantics issue. -- POVbrigand ( talk) 10:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
We can use this info in our article: [1]
"According to Sen. Bruce Tarr, Andrea Rossi, "the Italian scientist who claims to have developed the world's first nuclear cold fusion reactor is coming to the State House tomorrow to explore the prospects of developing the device and producing it in Massachusetts." Tarr's office says Rossi plans to visit Tuesday morning for two days of meeting with government officials and representatives of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University Massachusetts and Northeastern University. "Mr. Rossi's reactor, if successfully proven and developed, has the potential to change the way the world deals with energy," Tarr said in a statement. "
-- POVbrigand ( talk) 11:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Secondary source:
Rossi is today in the USA where he plans to meet Sen. Bruce Tarr and the representatives of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Massachusetts and Northeastern University, to «explore the prospects of developing the device and producing it in Massachusetts», Tarr states: «Mr. Rossi's reactor, if successfully proven and developed, has the potential to change the way the world deals with energy».
-- NUMB3RN7NE ( talk) 19:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I changed the recent edit to the BG article to clarify that it's Tamarin who said the audience was mostly skeptical. We already have a quote from Tamarin under "Evaluation", so no need to explain again who he is. Alanf777 ( talk) 18:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
This is interesting. Defkalion plan to make their own version of the e-cat. It's not clear if it's reverse engineered or not. They plan on making an announcement tomorrow (Wednesday) // Liftarn ( talk) 12:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the link (recently added to 'External links') to this for now, as it seems to have been posted by Sterling Allan (of PESN), not Rossi. [3] I think we need evidence from elsewhere that it is actually 'official', and that Allan is now running the Leonardo website - of course, if he is, it makes any statements from PESN even less 'independent' - and they were never 'reliable' by Wikipedia standards.
BTW, those interested in convoluted lawyerspeak may like to peruse the disclaimer prominantly displayed: "Cautionary Statement for Purposes of the "Safe Harbor" Provisions of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995... Any disclosure and analysis on this website may contain forward-looking information that involves risks and uncertainties... You can identify these statements by the fact that they do not relate strictly to historic or current facts and often use words such as "anticipate", "estimate", "expect", "believe," "will likely result," "outlook," "project" and other words and expressions of similar meaning. No assurance can be given that the results in any forward-looking statements will be achieved ...". I think they are trying to tell us something... AndyTheGrump ( talk) 04:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
The enom.com "whois" database indicates that Leonardo Corporation is the registrant of the domain name Leonardo-ECat.com —
So please put the link back into the "External links" section of the article. AnnaBennett ( talk) 05:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, so what just happened here? Sterling Allan set up an 'official' Leonardo website, someone linked to it, I queried its authenticity and removed it, but someone (using WP:OR) unilaterally decided it was genuine and restored the link, and now it turns out that Rossi is saying it isn't official? Can I suggest that we all learn some lessons from this. Firstly, there is no rush - accuracy is more important than immediacy in an encyclopaedia. Secondly, if you don't want to end up looking stupid, don't restore questionable items while there is still discussion going on, and finally, don't ever rely on non-RS sources just because they make claims you want to believe. This is policy. It is also common sense. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Andy, Rossi's blog contains a question from A. Goumy, which reads,
Rossi responded to Goumy's question as follows:
So Rossi is aware of and has not disowned the new website "leonardo-ecat.com". AnnaBennett ( talk) 15:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Enough of this crap!
We are NOT going to add a link to the 'official' website until we have a proper reliable source which explicitly states that it is official, end of story. THIS IS POLICY. IT IS NON-NEGOTIABLE. Please stop wasting everyone's time with guesswork based on blogs and other meaningless sources. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Can we get back on topic? Anyway, the website in question has now withdrawn any claims to being 'official', so the issue is resolved. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 00:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
25.11 "Today, in a mutual agreement with Andrea Rossi and Leonardo Corporation, ECAT.com has been appointed the Official ECAT Website."
If they claim they have a mutual agreement and we haven't heard any contrary news since 25.11. We can regard this as reliable and use it in our article -- POVbrigand ( talk) 10:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
hi,
I didn't find any reference to motl's articles about e-cat:
thought it could be of some use - MIRROR ( talk) 09:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Instead of "Lubos the entertainer"'s quacking you might want to read this critique [6]. It looks like RS to me, but I'm not sure. -- POVbrigand ( talk) 14:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, so this guy has 20,000 edits in 4 1/2 years. 68000 / (4.5 * 365) = 41.4003044 edits per day.
I'm impressed by his use of the ctrl-a ctrl-x keys -- although he still needs to up his quota by 700,000 to get to the top of the list.
Alanf777 (
talk) 19:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Seriously, the demonstrations which do not result in any comment by known scientists are just marketing fluff. This article cannot be used as a marketing tool, listing all the various in-universe high-fives rather than limiting it to on-the-record comments from noted scientists. Binksternet ( talk) 21:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The edit is this: should the word "test" be used for describing the alledged sale of the 1 MW plant on 28th october? I'd prefer the word "demonstration".-- NUMB3RN7NE ( talk) 21:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't look constructive at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Energy_Catalyzer&action=historysubmit&diff=463683782&oldid=463675205
Kindly explain how WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS justifies such deletions.
84.106.26.81 ( talk) 18:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
"US Military: A Credible Candidate As eCat Customer". ecatnews.com. December 16, 2011.
One presentation by one scientist working for SPAWAR doesn't change the fact that cold fusion is still viewed as pathological/mistaken/etc by most scientists. Cold_fusion#Ongoing_scientific_work already reflects that there are some scientists working inside SPAWAR. There is no official SPAWAR announcement saying that cold fusion should now be considered an established science. Let's not confuse the position of research institutions with the position of individual people inside those institutions. And let's not confuse "we are researching this" with "this research is now accepted by the scientific community as reputable". -- Enric Naval ( talk) 11:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Irrelevant Forum discussion WP:NOT#FORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Its existence was first proven theoretically by Hans Bethe in 1929 (Bethe 1929). H− is unusual because it has no bound excited states, as was finally proven in 1977 (Hill 1977). It has been studied experimentally using particle accelerators (Bryant 1977). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.88.53.202 ( talk) 17:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
|
-- 62.30.137.128 ( talk) 18:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
"The Physics of why the e-Cat's Cold Fusion Claims Collapse". See here: [8]. As for whether this meets WP:RS standards, I'm not entirely sure as yet. Any thoughts? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 23:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Science blog article: is it a joke? Are we pondering on using blogs as references now? Anyway,we probably need more theoretical astrophysicists like him:
[14]
--
Insilvis (
talk) 22:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump ( talk) 22:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Since there appears to be argument about blogs being allowed, what about this:
http://blog.thephoenix.com/BLOGS/talkingpolitics/archive/2011/12/08/romney-hot-for-cold-fusion.aspx
62.30.137.128 ( talk) 18:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I have now added a section on the Siegel and Thieberger article to the 'Evaluation of the device' section. Can I suggest that anyone wishing to question the suitability of the source does so at WP:RS/N - there is little point in going over the same ground here. Policy and practice seems clear, and per Wikipedia:PARITY#Parity_of_sources, there is no requirement for stronger sourcing of mainstream science responses to fringe 'science' claims, and that indeed, WP:FRINGE requires such material to correct an otherwise unbalanced article. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 00:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Having read the blog in question it clearly demonstrates how and why Nickel-Hydrogen fusion does not occur in stars, not leaving room for any thoughts that the reaction may be a low energy one as LENR suggests. Other research indicates that ultra low momentum neutrons may be at the heart of low energy nuclear reactions [16] I know that this article can in no way be used here (as it does not reference the e-cat or rossi specifically). However I think that it is a demonstration that these scientists may be nuclear physicists, yet they have no background in an understanding of many of the explanations that have begun to surface that explain how LENR works. Basically a blog by scientists who, despite being nuclear physicists, have little or no background in the actual field of LENR, should not be reviewed as a reliable source. 118.93.230.190 ( talk) 11:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
This [17] quotes from to Siegel's Blog. -- POVbrigand ( talk) 18:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I have added the preprint paper from Yeong E. Kim. As per parity of sources. If we lower the standard to allow a blog to illustrate to mainstream view, then there cannot be an objection to using a preprint to at least illustrate that theoretical explanations are in work, without going into detail. Comparison of the amount of text between the mainstream view and the fringe view should make arguing undue weight impossible, after all this article is about a fringe topic. So before you delete this section, also bring the whole package to WP:RS/N -- POVbrigand ( talk) 07:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
So, in the article about the device, we cannot mention that preliminary theoretical explanations are proposed ? -- POVbrigand ( talk) 15:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Just wondering why James Randi's video is considered a reliable source and linked from the article, where Prof. Kim's is not? Although Mr Randi is certainly notable, why put more value on his opinion? 62.30.137.128 ( talk) 18:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry Bhny, but where does Yeong E. Kim on his website have that disclaimer ? -- POVbrigand ( talk) 22:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Why was the paragraph I added regarding US patent prosecution deleted? It was a series of statemented facts. What does "OR/synthesis" mean? What qualifies a 'non-notable blog'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.137.19 ( talk) 22:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, I see these points you're making, but I did try to be careful to remain precisely factual. It is a fact that he is claiming catalytic materials in the processes, and it is a fact that he has said he will not reveal this. Is that not OK to put so far? So, then, is it not also germane to mention that US applications require a 'best mode requirement' [this is above most other patent jurisdictions' requirements]. It is a matter of fact that he has committed himself to a patent application procedure that will require him to reveal the formulation of his catalysts. There must be some sensible way of saying this, as it is germane to the position he has adopted, which is that he has stated he does not see any reason to reveal the catalyse formulations. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
84.13.137.19 (
talk) 23:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
see this list of "fan" web sites which should NOT be used in this article. Oh, very, very, inconvenient that the list is hosted at new energy times, which is frequently accused of not being reliable itself. Well, except for ecat.com, because that seems to be the current official web site -- POVbrigand ( talk) 22:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Text reads: Skeptic James Randi, discussing the E-Cat in the context of previous cold fusion claims, predicts that it will eventually be revealed to not function as advertised.[25]
As I understand it James Randi is a high school drop out. He may be bright but I doubt he has the perspective that enables him to assess whether a system such as the e-cat is working as advertised. The injection of his opinion opens the door to virtually anyone with some amount of notoriety rather than notability. I appreciate his effort to debunk but does his opinion really matter so much that it belongs here? I propose the line be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.30.232.50 ( talk) 20:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted this [19].
"providing important metrics" yes, but no. Measurement data was provided, but there is no reliable source to verify that these measurements are correct. On the many web forums there was (and still is) a lot of debate how these measurement data could have been faked or misread.
"independently thoroughly tested" not correct, they have not been independently tested at all.
"... without receiving a patent" no need to make excuses for Rossi's conduct in the lead section.
-- POVbrigand ( talk) 13:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, yes. Because all the important metrics are here: http://db.tt/wu4OLbgk
Why they are important - because they show that : - it is not possible that a chemical reaction is occurring, - they show the amount of the input and output energy - they describe what has been measured and not how ( the inner core of the device )
And this was what I meant - the whole apparatus has NOT been independently thoroughly tested
Ok the people from Ny Teknik , Wired.com and PESN wiki with the italian professors were attending and inspecting the measurements, so Rossi somehow full them all ... and Mark Gibbs, which obviously does not have physics background nor has he been attending the measurements is worth mentioning ...
I guess that makes wikipedia trusting Forbes more that Ny Teknik and Wired com .... which is SO wikipedian style .. YordanGeorgiev ( talk) 20:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Y — Preceding unsigned comment added by YordanGeorgiev ( talk • contribs) 20:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia endeavours to be a "Encyclopedia" and such it follows the current (American) mainstream view of science and technology. It has no proper internal structures for showing the probable veracity of a claimed discovery or scam. On the other hand the PesWiki does have such structures and considers this a likely candidate for being a real device. This, however, doesn't prove anything either way. Is Wikipedia expanding into this region of science now? 78.86.114.74 ( talk) 12:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
The following text has been removed three times by different people.
And I've been sent a message that I'm in danger of breaking a three times revert rule!
The latest Undo comment us utterly laughable 'TenOfAllTrades (talk | contribs) (38,515 bytes) (Undid revision 467077845 by Solmil (talk) Wikipedia isn't the place to promulgate your personal "Truth and Real Science")
This statement is a totally emotive ridiculous illogical statement. How can promulgation of my personal "Truth and Real Science" be in anyway associated with completely unrelated and independent scientific information supplied from SPAWAR and other agencies.
It would appear that Truth and Real Science are something very few people want to hear in this particular Wikipedia community.
It appears that the subject of 'Cold Fusion' in their minds is Religious, since these people removing this information seem unwilling to admit hard true independent scientific evidence into this article.
I would ask any sane intelligent human being to watch the video, particularly from 46.0 onwards to obtain hard evidence of repeatable experiments by numerous scientific communities as to the reality of 'Cold Fusion'.
Solmil ( talk) 20:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Just because we don't fully understand the Universe, is not sufficient a reason for the Universe not to exist.
What may be currently missing is a theory that explains these scientifically proven facts.
Solmil ( talk) 20:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Has any one of you guys who continually debase my addition of knowledge into this forum actually bothered to watch the video that I suggest? I actually doubt it. I doubt it because your comments don't stand up logically. If you did (watch the video) you would find your own comments are baseless. Why? Because numerous INDEPENDENT reliable scientific institutions have confirmed the existence of Cold Fusion.
Your religion of disbelief is a funny thing. Rossi is actually delivering Cold Fusion while you all religiously tell us it doesn't exist. He has the correct strategy. Time will tell.
Solmil ( talk) 22:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I'll give you guys 24 hours to watch the video and report back. If there is no message in this forum by then, my assumption of your emotive religious unscientific thought processes will statistically (in all probability) be proved correct. If you do watch it (the video) there is hard scientific evidence of multiple independent consistent repeatable proof of Cold Fusion. If you're short of time, just go directly to 46.3 on the video. If you don't watch it, I'll just give up on you mob and stop wasting my time and let you continue with your faery stories. To Truth and the Golden Age of Humanity I drink! Solmil ( talk) 22:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I wish that that "ban hammer" would be put away. About the only legitimate reason for wielding that particular tool is to stop blatant vandalism on an account which can't be dealt with in another manner. I've banned users before without discussion, but only when there is an account which is not producing any useful edits and isn't even trying to cooperate. Otherwise, at least here on en.wikipedia it goes through several steps including potentially an arbitration review. All in all, it is better if we just got along. If anything, Wikipedia has become too acrimonious and this kind of talk needs to stop.
All this said, I think those who are pushing for "the TRUTH" are doing themselves a massive disservice here. I am getting very frustrated with many of those who have what I perceive to be a religious devotion to Andrea Rossi, where whatever may or may not be happening with the E-cat is accepted to be fusion without even knowing the first thing about nuclear physics or understanding what possible objections there might be. If you think it works, fine! Study up on the concept, do you homework, write up a paper, and submit it to the proper journals which publish content of this nature. The largest problem isn't some grand conspiracy that I assert really doesn't exist, but that you need somebody who is literate and can form some coherent sentences together to actually explain the concept. If you have done some more journalistic research instead, there are many media outlets that would let you get published including some editors who would review whatever it is that you wrote.... thus producing even a secondary source we could use for this article. At that point there might be some people screaming conflict of interest, but at least it could be deemed a reliable source.
So far, I haven't seen anybody who is interested in "the TRUTH" putting forth that extra bit of effort. Yes, that is hard work, which is one of the reasons why journalists get paid to write, and why real scientist get paid too. It is indeed hard work and it is a skill that can take a lifetime to learn. The point that I think Andy is trying to make and certainly the point that many of those who have written up the guidelines for Wikipedia has made is that Wikipedia is not the place to publish primary material or original research. Don't use Wikipedia to write sales brochures, but instead try to understand we are trying to put together an encyclopedia... a collection of hopefully neutral and balanced articles which explain the scope of human knowledge. If you are here, please help us to write these article. There are plenty of obscure topics that really do need some help and attention. -- Robert Horning ( talk) 15:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I find it amazing that all this (some well intentioned) verbage is directed at myself, in essence chastise-ing me for being a 'naughty emotive unruly' contributor to Wikipedia, While all of the these people are themselves breaking all of these Wikipedia rules.
In the small sentences I added to this article is contained all the information asked for by these people, the proof, the evidence, the peer review, the 100's of reference sites, the science... the list goes on.
The only problem? None of you will read the information, it appears because you have preconceived ideas.
Sad.
Solmil ( talk) 01:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
personal attack |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I personally am confused... discussion aside i find your attitude (andy) to be disrespectful. A-liking this topic to unicorn poop and magic beans is very, VERY unobjective, exactly the sort of thing that wikipedia strives NOT to be. There is no citable proof that this device works, nor is there citable proof saying that it does not. So your attitude is very uncalled for. As for the discussion by Solmil, sorry mate we can't print things here (about the ecat) that don't have reputable sources, and due to Rossi's choices we aren't likely to get those, one way or another, for quite some time. 203.97.104.206 ( talk) 02:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Oh and by the way the reason he can't get a patent for it is not because he won't describe it, it's because the patent office refuses point blank to even look at anything they see as linked with cold fusion, having a similarly non objective view as you. 203.97.104.206 ( talk) 02:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Use of Yeong E. Kim as a reliable source is being discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Few_body_systems. IRWolfie- ( talk) 15:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
POVbrigand, you clearly have no concensus for the addition, why are you re-inserting it? IRWolfie- ( talk) 14:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I'd add it again, but there is no point as it would be removed. I think it should be in the article, as it gives the correct impression that academics do take the LENR effect that takes place between Nickel and Hydrogen seriously Tmccc ( talk) 19:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I have reverted this [20] edit by Stephan Schulz, because the WP-reader might misunderstand that Kim's theory was first proposed for the Fleischman-Pons experiment and later everything was discredited. "..had previously.." and "..now discredited..". It's a semantics issue. -- POVbrigand ( talk) 10:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)