![]() | 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 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
January to April demonstrations
Held in Bologna, January 14, 2011, the demonstration was monitored by independent scientific representatives of the University of Bologna, including a researcher in physics, Giuseppe Levi. Levi concluded that the power and energy produced was "impressive," and that the Energy Catalyzer might be working as a new type of energy source. Discovery Channel analyst Benjamin Radford wrote that "If this all sounds fishy to you, it should,"[13] and that "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."[14]
Another demonstration was performed in Bologna, from February 10–11, 2011, by Levi and Rossi, but was not conducted in public.[16]
On March 29, 2011 two Swedish physicists, Hanno Essén, associate professor of theoretical physics and a lecturer at the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology and former chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society and Sven Kullander, Professor Emeritus at Uppsala University and also chairman of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences’ Energy Committee, participated as observers in a demonstration.[17] Essen and Kullander reported, "Any chemical process should be ruled out for producing 25 kWh from whatever is in a 50 cubic centimeter container. The only alternative explanation is that there is some kind of a nuclear process that gives rise to the measured energy production."[19] In a later conversation, a few months after the test, Essén stated "I want to wait for more facts. The facts I know add up to make this interesting and worth pursuing, but I am still very uncertain about this."[20]
On April 19[22] and April 28[23] two more demonstrations were held. The first of them[24] was also covered by the Italian 24-hour all-news State-owned television channel Rai News.[25] This time a Ny Teknik author attended and tested for some previously noted possibilities of fraud. [24]
-- POVbrigand ( talk) 11:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
It's clear POV and I disagree on this section and it's inclusion. Might I just ask IRWolfie, Andy and others, what are your views on the demonstrations section as a whole, and can you think of any rationale why it should be included? Thanks Khu kri 17:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
LYNE ATOMIC HYDROGEN FURNACE
This invention is obviously a version of my LYNE ATOMIC HYDROGEN FURNACE derived from my Chapter VI from my 1997-98 second edition of Occult Ether Physics as in http://asse.altervista.org/lahg.pdf , published with my permission in 2003. The illustration which is included near the last page of my book shows that a "catalytic metal" is used to trigger the re-association of atomic hydrogen,though this is unnecessary. The reaction chamber of the Rossi-Focardi device however is completely filled with powdered nickel rather than using a catalytic metal trigger device at the entrance of the atomic hydrogen into the chamber as shown by my 1996 drawing. In the place of using a stream of H2 passing through an electric arc as in my drawing, Rossi-Focardi apparently used Nichrome resistance heating wire to disociate the H2 to H1 similar to how Irving Langmuir did with the exception that "no tungsten was used" as Rossi said, since Nichrome is not tungsten. There have been several other tests of this device but this is the first version of my furnace by other researchers which is industrial-grade, other than my re-design over the past 15 years which is not yet disclosed. In 2003 I was made an honorary member of a Rome group of gentlemen researchers, http://asse.altervista.org.altrascienza.html year 4, Number 20, Sept.-Oct. 2003, to which group I gave permission to distribute copies of my work to its members and associates in Italy. It is presumed that this is how the two University of Bologna professors eventually obtained copies of my work and began their experiments as did members of that Rome group did beginning in 2003.
William R. Lyne
75.104.30.83 (
talk)
18:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I think that this section will need a new title - with the Defkalion agreement falling through, and now the U.S. deal apparently doing the same, there seems to be no sourced evidence for any remaining 'commercial plans' at all. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 21:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
My proposal: "claims of commercialization" or one step further: "claims of planned commercialization". -- POVbrigand ( talk) 06:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Published by the
Italian Physical Society.
Fermi wrote on it,
Majorana wrote on it, hence please STOP writing deceptive humbugs about IL NUOVO CIMENTO.
--
79.16.137.6 (
talk)
04:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
@IRWolfie, you write "It should be noted as well that Il Nuovo Cimento is also a cold fusion journal". What are you trying to imply with that ? Do you mean that you as a WP-editor can decide that the peer reviewed journal "Il Nuovo Cimento" which is published by the Italian physical society is no good, because they have published cold fusion papers ? Does that mean the other numerous well respected peer reviewed journals that have published cold fusion articles are also no good ? -- POVbrigand ( talk) 20:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes it is closely related, but we might as well use the wording from the lead of the article: "Claims of a similar system, but yielding considerably less power, had previously been advanced by Focardi et al." -- POVbrigand ( talk) 16:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Before the tone of this discussion deteriorates any further, may I point out that the subject of this article is not a journal, but a device? The only reasonable place for a discussion of how to describe Il Nuovo Cimento would be Talk:Il Nuovo Cimento. We don't normally characterize serials in the text of articles that are not about them, and we only mention them with in-text attributions when they are being quoted. Otherwise we simply use citation footnotes as normal. If there are serious questions as to whether a specific cited article in that journal is sufficiently reliable to support a specific text in our Energy Catalyzer article, please provide a wp:diff that shows the questionable insertion. If we cannot find consensus on the reliability for the purpose of that insertion, we can then refer the matter to wp:RSN to get other opinions. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece
--
79.11.2.146 (
talk)
11:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Uh??? If I remember right, I did just four new sections concerning online mentions of the Energy Catalyzer in the last two months: the first for a website named "ecat", the second for the article of Wired of yesterday, the third for the report of Stremmenos, the fourth for the article of Ny Teknik of today.
--
79.11.2.146 (
talk)
Post Scriptum
Just to be precise, I wrote this phrase: "it is a small step for a cat, but a giant leap for mankind"
with a smiley spirit AND NOT with a sort of "hype" intention whatsoever.
--
79.11.2.146 (
talk)
14:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok, there is the list:
http://www.focus.it/fileflash/energia/fusionefredda/ecat/ECAT_Presenze6ott11.pdf
Andrea Rossi, Sergio Focardi ( UNIBO - Professor Emeritus), Enrico Billi, Christos Stremmenos ( OMRI), Paolo Soglia, Damiana Aguiari, Enrico Campari ( UNIBO), Ennio Bonetti ( UNIBO), Stefan Helgesson, Paul Swanson ( SPAWAR), Niclas Sandstrom, Hahn Magnus, Stefano Riva ( CONFINDUSTRIA), Nicola Parenti ( CONFINDUSTRIA), Tomas Johansson, Giuseppe Levi ( UNIBO), Roland Pettersson ( Uppsala University - retired Professor), Loris Ferrari ( UNIBO), Pierre Clauzon ( CEA), Koen Vandenwalle, Alessandro Passi, Daniele Passerini, Roberto Sgherri, Domenico Fioravanti, Mats Lewan ( Ny Teknik), David Bianchini ( UNIBO), Sebastiano Zannoli, Edward Jobson ( University of Gothenburg), Maurizio Melis ( Il Sole 24 Ore), Andrea Granatiero ( Focus), Massimo Brega ( Focus), Raymond Zreick ( Focus), Irene Zreick ( Focus) -- 79.20.142.155 ( talk) 05:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I see no surprises, but I wonder why Christos Stremmenos was there. -- POVbrigand ( talk) 11:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
(Sub-section in order to avoid 3000 threads over the same argument)
http://www.radio24.ilsole24ore.com/main.php?articolo=ecat-fusione-fedda-bologna-andrea-rossi
Written by scientific journalist Maurizio Melis who was present at the event.-- 79.11.2.146 ( talk) 16:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok
TenOfAllTrades: I can do it.
SUMMARY OF THE ARTICLE OF MAURIZIO MELIS:
1) Melis tells us that Swedish and American representatives of the industrial world were present, but they refused to reveal which corporations they work for
2) Melis tells us that representatives from the Universities of Uppsala and Bologna were present. The University of Bologna ordered its representatives not to talk with the press
3) Melis states that this time, although margins of error were still present, the measurements were more solid compared to the the ones taken during the previous tests thanks to the new setting for the experiment
4) In particular, the uncertainties concerning the measurement of the produced energy were eliminated (before there was the problem of the quality of the steam. This problem was completely eliminated by using a secondary circuit)
5) however, critical points remain, because the test was not performed in neutral field. Melis hopes that soon university tests will be performed in order to eliminate the problem
--
79.11.2.146 (
talk)
17:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Written by scientific editor in chief Raymond Zreick who was present at the event
-- 79.10.132.219 ( talk) 19:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
http://www.focus.it/scienza/e-cat-test-6102011-la-relazione-di-christos-stremmenos_C12.aspx
-- 79.16.165.34 ( talk) 10:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Apologies if this has been posted before (I've only recently become aware of this topic) but I didn't see it linked; there is an article from it:Radio Città del Capo ( Original Italian) ( Google Translate) "Cold fusion, the E-Cat works? Let's look inside ... the full video of the test on 6 October" that has a couple of YouTube videos of the event embedded in it. -- Limulus ( talk) 14:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I think we have a serious problem regarding the use we are putting material from Ny Teknik to in the article: in as much as it is writing about tests it conducts itself, it is clearly a primary source - and as such it should not be used as the sole cited source for statements. Indeed, given that the detailed reports are not only primary, but written on a 'scientific' topic, while describing tests carried out by unqualified persons, and totally lacking any peer review, I suggest that they arguably should not be used at all. Ny Teknik is now just too closely involved with the E-Cat to be seen as an independent third-party source. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 20:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I report here what I have already wrote before:
IMHO there was also another relevant thing that Maurizio Melis wrote in his article:
"misure indipendenti, effettuate da alcuni dei presenti, per quanto imprecise, hanno di fatto confermato le letture di Rossi"
TRANSLATION:
"independent measurements, as far as unaccurate could be, taken by some of the participating people, do in fact have confirmed the reading made by Rossi."
So it would be possible to assume that other sources, beyond Ny Teknik, are able to publish independent measurements concerning the event.
If the assumption is right then other sources, like
Focus for example, should have taken measurements and hence it is reasonable to suppose they will publish these measurements.
In the end, we should have at least three sources: Mats Lewan of
Ny Teknik, Maurizio Melis of
Il Sole 24 Ore, and Raymond Zreick of
Focus.
Therefore, let's wait Focus and then compare the sources in order to skim off possible "misprints".--
79.16.137.6 (
talk)
05:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
@Andy, your 'not peer-reviewed journal' defence is not even necessary, why use so strong words :-). For me it is clear that the analysis by those gentlemen is not going to improve the WP-article. I really do not see a reasonable need to use any of it, because what these assessments essentially state is already in our article. What I do like about it is that these gentlemen (who post regularly on the Vortex-l forum) undoubtedly gave it their best to perform an analysis on the collected data and could only make qualitative conclusions varying from "negative excess heat" to "significant excess heat" and all stated that the measurements were not reliable enough. We already knew that. -- POVbrigand ( talk) 12:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I read these two articles by Mark Gibbs in Networkworld and Forbes and I wondered if they are useable for our article.
The Networkworld article seems to be a "column", I personally think that that could count as a RS, but he author links a few times to WP. Is that a problem ?
The Forbes article is more or less a summary of the Networkworld article. The author's status is mentioned as "contributor". What does that mean for RS ? It appears to be a regular article.
btw, both articles mention the October 28th demonstration announcement. (offtopic: I just found out that the world will come to an end on october 28, 2011. Oh no)
-- POVbrigand ( talk) 11:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Raymond Zreick of Focus wrote:
Rossi ha appena annunciato che il 28 ottobre si terrà il test dell'impianto da 1 MW: oltre a questo non so nulla, tranne il fatto che siamo invitati.
TRANSLATION:
Rossi announced that the test concerning the 1MW plant will be held on 28 October: beside that I do not know anything else, except that we are invited.
http://www.focus.it/community/cs/forums/6/466418/ShowThread.aspx
-- 79.20.142.155 ( talk) 19:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
So Rossi says he is giving yet another pointless 'demonstration' at the end of the month? See WP:CRYSTALBALL - we base articles on published material, not endless waffle and hype. Please do not spam this talk page with every last morsel from Focus - unless it is directly relevant to article content, we don't need it. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 20:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I made some edits and all these edits were reverted by AndyTheGrump.
So let's descuss the edits, and see if there is consensus about these edit.
On October 17, 2011, Mark Gibbs of Forbes wrote: "the problem with Rossi’s system is that it is too good to be true."
REF http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2011/10/17/hello-cheap-energy-hello-brave-new-world/ ENDofREF
NOTE: fair use of a quote from Forbes.
On October 6, 2011, around 30 to 40 invited guests witnessed a demonstration.
REF
http://www.focus.it/fileflash/energia/fusionefredda/ecat/ECAT_Presenze6ott11.pdf ENDofREF
Roland Pettersson, retired Associate Professor from the University of Uppsala, who was present, said: "I'm convinced that this works, but there is still room for more measurements".
REF
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece ENDofREF
Among the guests were reporters and scientific journalists, several of which noted that the accuracy of the measurements was fairly low.
REF
http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962.ece/BINARY/Test+of+E-cat+October+6+%28pdf%29 ENDofREF
A delegation from
Confindustria, the Italian
employers' federation, was also present.
REF http://www.focus.it/scienza/e-cat-e-fusione-fredda-la-confindustria-incontra-andrea-rossi-864_C12.aspx "E-Cat: la Confindustria incontra Andrea Rossi" TRANSLATION: "E-Cat: Confindustria meets Andrea Rossi" ENDofREF
The device has been demonstrated to an invited audience several times, and has been commented on positively by Bologna physics professor Giuseppe Levi, and by the Swedish technology magazine
Ny Teknik, together with the Italian
popular science magazine
Focus.
REF http://www.focus.it/scienza/e-cat-fusione-fredda-andrea-rossi-il-test-del-6-ottobre/come-interpretare-i-risultati_PC12.aspx "Tutto ciò dovrebbe portarci alla conclusione che l'idea di Rossi funziona" TRANSLATION: "All this might lead us to conclude that the idea of Rossi works" ENDofREF
Are these edits ok?-- 79.24.134.75 ( talk) 22:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Attempting to be a little more diplomatic here, I think it is by far and away better to talk thing out than to be so quick with hitting the "undo" button or "revert" button (depending on what options are available to you as an editor). Yes, I disagree with Andy in terms of how he seems to be treating other editors, where I tend to
assume good faith and act under the presumption that anything added to an article which isn't blatant vandalism tends to be for the improvement of the article and should generally be included, if perhaps reworked a bit for grammar. I understand the issues of trying to maintain a
neutral point of view, and with the kinds of sources which are currently available for this article they will tend to be very favorable to the topic until many others have been able to look at it.
In terms of submitting this article for deletion, I would ask Andy to do that today if he really wants to get it out of his system, or simply shut up about it. For myself and what I've seen, there clearly are several sources which indicate the notability of this particular topic so far as meriting a Wikipedia article, and if Andy wants to raise the issue so other editors can investigate the claim of notability, let them try. Waiting a few more weeks in terms of seeing if the upcoming "test" is a dud and Rossi is "proven" to be a fraud might be useful, but I think the notability might even be enhanced as I'm pretty sure there will be several news stories written about that issue as well. Like it or not, this topic has fixed itself into world culture and it being reported on by others, where I believe notability is firmly established. Rossi may be a crank or scam artist, or he could be one of the greatest inventors of all time to be ranked with the Wright Brothers and Thomas Edison. I don't know what to make of all this right now, but either way he certainly is going to be notable for something even if it is for scamming a million dollars or more out of some "alternative energy" investors. There may be specific points within the article that are speculative and don't deserve to be put into the article because the sources aren't reliable nor can the information be verified as accurate. Then again, that is what these talk pages are all about.
If you want to go off quoting Wikipedia policies, I've been around the block on those discussions and don't go calling me a Johnny come lately here. I've been working on this project since it was Nupedia and Larry Sanger was supposedly running the show, and I've seen all kinds of crap happen. Lay off the high horse of trying to protect Wikipedia and let some people who know a thing or two about this topic the chance to contribute without you trying to make a mess of things here. Have faith that people will act reasonable if you give them a chance, and I do see some article ownership happening that is very much against the basic pillars of what makes Wikipedia work. Constant reverting of somebody's contributions to the point that editor can't making a meaningful edit is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia and that simply must stop. If they are blatant vandals, you can revert that stuff, but what I am seeing here is not vandalism. Please give it a rest!
BTW, if you think I am a sock puppet here, I am not. Indeed, I haven't even contributed to the main body of this article, and with very few exceptions (mainly forgetting to log in or something silly) I have never contributed to Wikipedia or any other Wikimedia project (or Wikia project for that matter) except under the account I am using right now. I don't know how much of an outsider you can get other than myself coming in right now, as somebody very well versed in Wikipedia policies and knowing you, Andy, are using those policies to further a point of view.
BTW, I think you would be surprised about what I think of E-cat in all of this, and what I'm complaining about is not the topic itself but how this edit war has been going on. If you want a flame war, I'm ready to start a flame war royale, but I refuse to get pulled into your petty games with an edit war and I will stand here to defend other editors to contribute to Wikipedia when you seem hell bent to kick them off this project! There are enough people who have left Wikipedia that it is becoming a major problem, and this kind of hostile attitude towards would-be new contributors is precisely the problem that Wikipedia has been facing for some time now. I'm standing up in this case and saying enough is enough and drawing the line here. -- Robert Horning ( talk) 20:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleting the "demonstration" section would be an improvement. Currently it is just repeating Rossi's unsupported claims and gives the impression actual testing is going on. ArtifexMayhem ( talk) 11:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted this edit about a proposal of George Miley, already for reason of inappropriate wording. A main basis for that (reverted) edit is a presentation which refers to Rossi and which is published in [6]; however at least a reliable source for the presentation should found, then it could be discussed further whether the mention of the proposal of George Miley is valid input for this article. I wanted to mention it here nonetheless, as I did the revert. -- Chris Howard ( talk) 10:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I felt the last sentence was incomplete to the point of being misleading. It originally read "The demonstration would be performed under the control of this unidentified customer who could acquire the plant, provided that the power consumption can be verified by the customer."
The referenced article mentions the ratio of heat output to heat input. Since it is the ratio of the two that matters I corrected the sentence to read: "The demonstration would be performed under the control of this unidentified customer who could acquire the plant, provided that the power consumption to heat output ratio can be verified by the customer."
It is unfortunate that the original quote itself is a bit misleading as they mention power and heat as if they are equivalent but are not as power is energy/(unit of time) and heat is a measure of energy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zedshort ( talk • contribs) 17:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Apparently the customer accepted the test of friday oct 28th. Any references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.234.214.108 ( talk) 22:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Re this edit, it looks like I'm the one who placed the dead link tag for this link, in this edit. The edit fixed/clarified several cites, and I'm guessing that I misunderstood the Italian language web page to which that link navigates. That web page presents, I see after a closer look, the result of a search for "Mr. Kilowatt" on the linked website. That search result is a page of Italian text containing a link to this other page which appears to be a short article in Italian about a radio interview relating to fraudsters in the power industries in Italy. It contains a link to the audio of the interview here. This was apparently my mistake, but this could have been clearer. I don't understand Italian and can't be of much help in clarifying it, but see WP:NONENG. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:51, 29 October 2011 (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 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
January to April demonstrations
Held in Bologna, January 14, 2011, the demonstration was monitored by independent scientific representatives of the University of Bologna, including a researcher in physics, Giuseppe Levi. Levi concluded that the power and energy produced was "impressive," and that the Energy Catalyzer might be working as a new type of energy source. Discovery Channel analyst Benjamin Radford wrote that "If this all sounds fishy to you, it should,"[13] and that "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."[14]
Another demonstration was performed in Bologna, from February 10–11, 2011, by Levi and Rossi, but was not conducted in public.[16]
On March 29, 2011 two Swedish physicists, Hanno Essén, associate professor of theoretical physics and a lecturer at the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology and former chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society and Sven Kullander, Professor Emeritus at Uppsala University and also chairman of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences’ Energy Committee, participated as observers in a demonstration.[17] Essen and Kullander reported, "Any chemical process should be ruled out for producing 25 kWh from whatever is in a 50 cubic centimeter container. The only alternative explanation is that there is some kind of a nuclear process that gives rise to the measured energy production."[19] In a later conversation, a few months after the test, Essén stated "I want to wait for more facts. The facts I know add up to make this interesting and worth pursuing, but I am still very uncertain about this."[20]
On April 19[22] and April 28[23] two more demonstrations were held. The first of them[24] was also covered by the Italian 24-hour all-news State-owned television channel Rai News.[25] This time a Ny Teknik author attended and tested for some previously noted possibilities of fraud. [24]
-- POVbrigand ( talk) 11:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
It's clear POV and I disagree on this section and it's inclusion. Might I just ask IRWolfie, Andy and others, what are your views on the demonstrations section as a whole, and can you think of any rationale why it should be included? Thanks Khu kri 17:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
LYNE ATOMIC HYDROGEN FURNACE
This invention is obviously a version of my LYNE ATOMIC HYDROGEN FURNACE derived from my Chapter VI from my 1997-98 second edition of Occult Ether Physics as in http://asse.altervista.org/lahg.pdf , published with my permission in 2003. The illustration which is included near the last page of my book shows that a "catalytic metal" is used to trigger the re-association of atomic hydrogen,though this is unnecessary. The reaction chamber of the Rossi-Focardi device however is completely filled with powdered nickel rather than using a catalytic metal trigger device at the entrance of the atomic hydrogen into the chamber as shown by my 1996 drawing. In the place of using a stream of H2 passing through an electric arc as in my drawing, Rossi-Focardi apparently used Nichrome resistance heating wire to disociate the H2 to H1 similar to how Irving Langmuir did with the exception that "no tungsten was used" as Rossi said, since Nichrome is not tungsten. There have been several other tests of this device but this is the first version of my furnace by other researchers which is industrial-grade, other than my re-design over the past 15 years which is not yet disclosed. In 2003 I was made an honorary member of a Rome group of gentlemen researchers, http://asse.altervista.org.altrascienza.html year 4, Number 20, Sept.-Oct. 2003, to which group I gave permission to distribute copies of my work to its members and associates in Italy. It is presumed that this is how the two University of Bologna professors eventually obtained copies of my work and began their experiments as did members of that Rome group did beginning in 2003.
William R. Lyne
75.104.30.83 (
talk)
18:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I think that this section will need a new title - with the Defkalion agreement falling through, and now the U.S. deal apparently doing the same, there seems to be no sourced evidence for any remaining 'commercial plans' at all. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 21:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
My proposal: "claims of commercialization" or one step further: "claims of planned commercialization". -- POVbrigand ( talk) 06:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Published by the
Italian Physical Society.
Fermi wrote on it,
Majorana wrote on it, hence please STOP writing deceptive humbugs about IL NUOVO CIMENTO.
--
79.16.137.6 (
talk)
04:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
@IRWolfie, you write "It should be noted as well that Il Nuovo Cimento is also a cold fusion journal". What are you trying to imply with that ? Do you mean that you as a WP-editor can decide that the peer reviewed journal "Il Nuovo Cimento" which is published by the Italian physical society is no good, because they have published cold fusion papers ? Does that mean the other numerous well respected peer reviewed journals that have published cold fusion articles are also no good ? -- POVbrigand ( talk) 20:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes it is closely related, but we might as well use the wording from the lead of the article: "Claims of a similar system, but yielding considerably less power, had previously been advanced by Focardi et al." -- POVbrigand ( talk) 16:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Before the tone of this discussion deteriorates any further, may I point out that the subject of this article is not a journal, but a device? The only reasonable place for a discussion of how to describe Il Nuovo Cimento would be Talk:Il Nuovo Cimento. We don't normally characterize serials in the text of articles that are not about them, and we only mention them with in-text attributions when they are being quoted. Otherwise we simply use citation footnotes as normal. If there are serious questions as to whether a specific cited article in that journal is sufficiently reliable to support a specific text in our Energy Catalyzer article, please provide a wp:diff that shows the questionable insertion. If we cannot find consensus on the reliability for the purpose of that insertion, we can then refer the matter to wp:RSN to get other opinions. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece
--
79.11.2.146 (
talk)
11:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Uh??? If I remember right, I did just four new sections concerning online mentions of the Energy Catalyzer in the last two months: the first for a website named "ecat", the second for the article of Wired of yesterday, the third for the report of Stremmenos, the fourth for the article of Ny Teknik of today.
--
79.11.2.146 (
talk)
Post Scriptum
Just to be precise, I wrote this phrase: "it is a small step for a cat, but a giant leap for mankind"
with a smiley spirit AND NOT with a sort of "hype" intention whatsoever.
--
79.11.2.146 (
talk)
14:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok, there is the list:
http://www.focus.it/fileflash/energia/fusionefredda/ecat/ECAT_Presenze6ott11.pdf
Andrea Rossi, Sergio Focardi ( UNIBO - Professor Emeritus), Enrico Billi, Christos Stremmenos ( OMRI), Paolo Soglia, Damiana Aguiari, Enrico Campari ( UNIBO), Ennio Bonetti ( UNIBO), Stefan Helgesson, Paul Swanson ( SPAWAR), Niclas Sandstrom, Hahn Magnus, Stefano Riva ( CONFINDUSTRIA), Nicola Parenti ( CONFINDUSTRIA), Tomas Johansson, Giuseppe Levi ( UNIBO), Roland Pettersson ( Uppsala University - retired Professor), Loris Ferrari ( UNIBO), Pierre Clauzon ( CEA), Koen Vandenwalle, Alessandro Passi, Daniele Passerini, Roberto Sgherri, Domenico Fioravanti, Mats Lewan ( Ny Teknik), David Bianchini ( UNIBO), Sebastiano Zannoli, Edward Jobson ( University of Gothenburg), Maurizio Melis ( Il Sole 24 Ore), Andrea Granatiero ( Focus), Massimo Brega ( Focus), Raymond Zreick ( Focus), Irene Zreick ( Focus) -- 79.20.142.155 ( talk) 05:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I see no surprises, but I wonder why Christos Stremmenos was there. -- POVbrigand ( talk) 11:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
(Sub-section in order to avoid 3000 threads over the same argument)
http://www.radio24.ilsole24ore.com/main.php?articolo=ecat-fusione-fedda-bologna-andrea-rossi
Written by scientific journalist Maurizio Melis who was present at the event.-- 79.11.2.146 ( talk) 16:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok
TenOfAllTrades: I can do it.
SUMMARY OF THE ARTICLE OF MAURIZIO MELIS:
1) Melis tells us that Swedish and American representatives of the industrial world were present, but they refused to reveal which corporations they work for
2) Melis tells us that representatives from the Universities of Uppsala and Bologna were present. The University of Bologna ordered its representatives not to talk with the press
3) Melis states that this time, although margins of error were still present, the measurements were more solid compared to the the ones taken during the previous tests thanks to the new setting for the experiment
4) In particular, the uncertainties concerning the measurement of the produced energy were eliminated (before there was the problem of the quality of the steam. This problem was completely eliminated by using a secondary circuit)
5) however, critical points remain, because the test was not performed in neutral field. Melis hopes that soon university tests will be performed in order to eliminate the problem
--
79.11.2.146 (
talk)
17:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Written by scientific editor in chief Raymond Zreick who was present at the event
-- 79.10.132.219 ( talk) 19:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
http://www.focus.it/scienza/e-cat-test-6102011-la-relazione-di-christos-stremmenos_C12.aspx
-- 79.16.165.34 ( talk) 10:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Apologies if this has been posted before (I've only recently become aware of this topic) but I didn't see it linked; there is an article from it:Radio Città del Capo ( Original Italian) ( Google Translate) "Cold fusion, the E-Cat works? Let's look inside ... the full video of the test on 6 October" that has a couple of YouTube videos of the event embedded in it. -- Limulus ( talk) 14:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I think we have a serious problem regarding the use we are putting material from Ny Teknik to in the article: in as much as it is writing about tests it conducts itself, it is clearly a primary source - and as such it should not be used as the sole cited source for statements. Indeed, given that the detailed reports are not only primary, but written on a 'scientific' topic, while describing tests carried out by unqualified persons, and totally lacking any peer review, I suggest that they arguably should not be used at all. Ny Teknik is now just too closely involved with the E-Cat to be seen as an independent third-party source. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 20:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I report here what I have already wrote before:
IMHO there was also another relevant thing that Maurizio Melis wrote in his article:
"misure indipendenti, effettuate da alcuni dei presenti, per quanto imprecise, hanno di fatto confermato le letture di Rossi"
TRANSLATION:
"independent measurements, as far as unaccurate could be, taken by some of the participating people, do in fact have confirmed the reading made by Rossi."
So it would be possible to assume that other sources, beyond Ny Teknik, are able to publish independent measurements concerning the event.
If the assumption is right then other sources, like
Focus for example, should have taken measurements and hence it is reasonable to suppose they will publish these measurements.
In the end, we should have at least three sources: Mats Lewan of
Ny Teknik, Maurizio Melis of
Il Sole 24 Ore, and Raymond Zreick of
Focus.
Therefore, let's wait Focus and then compare the sources in order to skim off possible "misprints".--
79.16.137.6 (
talk)
05:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
@Andy, your 'not peer-reviewed journal' defence is not even necessary, why use so strong words :-). For me it is clear that the analysis by those gentlemen is not going to improve the WP-article. I really do not see a reasonable need to use any of it, because what these assessments essentially state is already in our article. What I do like about it is that these gentlemen (who post regularly on the Vortex-l forum) undoubtedly gave it their best to perform an analysis on the collected data and could only make qualitative conclusions varying from "negative excess heat" to "significant excess heat" and all stated that the measurements were not reliable enough. We already knew that. -- POVbrigand ( talk) 12:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I read these two articles by Mark Gibbs in Networkworld and Forbes and I wondered if they are useable for our article.
The Networkworld article seems to be a "column", I personally think that that could count as a RS, but he author links a few times to WP. Is that a problem ?
The Forbes article is more or less a summary of the Networkworld article. The author's status is mentioned as "contributor". What does that mean for RS ? It appears to be a regular article.
btw, both articles mention the October 28th demonstration announcement. (offtopic: I just found out that the world will come to an end on october 28, 2011. Oh no)
-- POVbrigand ( talk) 11:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Raymond Zreick of Focus wrote:
Rossi ha appena annunciato che il 28 ottobre si terrà il test dell'impianto da 1 MW: oltre a questo non so nulla, tranne il fatto che siamo invitati.
TRANSLATION:
Rossi announced that the test concerning the 1MW plant will be held on 28 October: beside that I do not know anything else, except that we are invited.
http://www.focus.it/community/cs/forums/6/466418/ShowThread.aspx
-- 79.20.142.155 ( talk) 19:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
So Rossi says he is giving yet another pointless 'demonstration' at the end of the month? See WP:CRYSTALBALL - we base articles on published material, not endless waffle and hype. Please do not spam this talk page with every last morsel from Focus - unless it is directly relevant to article content, we don't need it. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 20:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I made some edits and all these edits were reverted by AndyTheGrump.
So let's descuss the edits, and see if there is consensus about these edit.
On October 17, 2011, Mark Gibbs of Forbes wrote: "the problem with Rossi’s system is that it is too good to be true."
REF http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2011/10/17/hello-cheap-energy-hello-brave-new-world/ ENDofREF
NOTE: fair use of a quote from Forbes.
On October 6, 2011, around 30 to 40 invited guests witnessed a demonstration.
REF
http://www.focus.it/fileflash/energia/fusionefredda/ecat/ECAT_Presenze6ott11.pdf ENDofREF
Roland Pettersson, retired Associate Professor from the University of Uppsala, who was present, said: "I'm convinced that this works, but there is still room for more measurements".
REF
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece ENDofREF
Among the guests were reporters and scientific journalists, several of which noted that the accuracy of the measurements was fairly low.
REF
http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962.ece/BINARY/Test+of+E-cat+October+6+%28pdf%29 ENDofREF
A delegation from
Confindustria, the Italian
employers' federation, was also present.
REF http://www.focus.it/scienza/e-cat-e-fusione-fredda-la-confindustria-incontra-andrea-rossi-864_C12.aspx "E-Cat: la Confindustria incontra Andrea Rossi" TRANSLATION: "E-Cat: Confindustria meets Andrea Rossi" ENDofREF
The device has been demonstrated to an invited audience several times, and has been commented on positively by Bologna physics professor Giuseppe Levi, and by the Swedish technology magazine
Ny Teknik, together with the Italian
popular science magazine
Focus.
REF http://www.focus.it/scienza/e-cat-fusione-fredda-andrea-rossi-il-test-del-6-ottobre/come-interpretare-i-risultati_PC12.aspx "Tutto ciò dovrebbe portarci alla conclusione che l'idea di Rossi funziona" TRANSLATION: "All this might lead us to conclude that the idea of Rossi works" ENDofREF
Are these edits ok?-- 79.24.134.75 ( talk) 22:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Attempting to be a little more diplomatic here, I think it is by far and away better to talk thing out than to be so quick with hitting the "undo" button or "revert" button (depending on what options are available to you as an editor). Yes, I disagree with Andy in terms of how he seems to be treating other editors, where I tend to
assume good faith and act under the presumption that anything added to an article which isn't blatant vandalism tends to be for the improvement of the article and should generally be included, if perhaps reworked a bit for grammar. I understand the issues of trying to maintain a
neutral point of view, and with the kinds of sources which are currently available for this article they will tend to be very favorable to the topic until many others have been able to look at it.
In terms of submitting this article for deletion, I would ask Andy to do that today if he really wants to get it out of his system, or simply shut up about it. For myself and what I've seen, there clearly are several sources which indicate the notability of this particular topic so far as meriting a Wikipedia article, and if Andy wants to raise the issue so other editors can investigate the claim of notability, let them try. Waiting a few more weeks in terms of seeing if the upcoming "test" is a dud and Rossi is "proven" to be a fraud might be useful, but I think the notability might even be enhanced as I'm pretty sure there will be several news stories written about that issue as well. Like it or not, this topic has fixed itself into world culture and it being reported on by others, where I believe notability is firmly established. Rossi may be a crank or scam artist, or he could be one of the greatest inventors of all time to be ranked with the Wright Brothers and Thomas Edison. I don't know what to make of all this right now, but either way he certainly is going to be notable for something even if it is for scamming a million dollars or more out of some "alternative energy" investors. There may be specific points within the article that are speculative and don't deserve to be put into the article because the sources aren't reliable nor can the information be verified as accurate. Then again, that is what these talk pages are all about.
If you want to go off quoting Wikipedia policies, I've been around the block on those discussions and don't go calling me a Johnny come lately here. I've been working on this project since it was Nupedia and Larry Sanger was supposedly running the show, and I've seen all kinds of crap happen. Lay off the high horse of trying to protect Wikipedia and let some people who know a thing or two about this topic the chance to contribute without you trying to make a mess of things here. Have faith that people will act reasonable if you give them a chance, and I do see some article ownership happening that is very much against the basic pillars of what makes Wikipedia work. Constant reverting of somebody's contributions to the point that editor can't making a meaningful edit is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia and that simply must stop. If they are blatant vandals, you can revert that stuff, but what I am seeing here is not vandalism. Please give it a rest!
BTW, if you think I am a sock puppet here, I am not. Indeed, I haven't even contributed to the main body of this article, and with very few exceptions (mainly forgetting to log in or something silly) I have never contributed to Wikipedia or any other Wikimedia project (or Wikia project for that matter) except under the account I am using right now. I don't know how much of an outsider you can get other than myself coming in right now, as somebody very well versed in Wikipedia policies and knowing you, Andy, are using those policies to further a point of view.
BTW, I think you would be surprised about what I think of E-cat in all of this, and what I'm complaining about is not the topic itself but how this edit war has been going on. If you want a flame war, I'm ready to start a flame war royale, but I refuse to get pulled into your petty games with an edit war and I will stand here to defend other editors to contribute to Wikipedia when you seem hell bent to kick them off this project! There are enough people who have left Wikipedia that it is becoming a major problem, and this kind of hostile attitude towards would-be new contributors is precisely the problem that Wikipedia has been facing for some time now. I'm standing up in this case and saying enough is enough and drawing the line here. -- Robert Horning ( talk) 20:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleting the "demonstration" section would be an improvement. Currently it is just repeating Rossi's unsupported claims and gives the impression actual testing is going on. ArtifexMayhem ( talk) 11:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted this edit about a proposal of George Miley, already for reason of inappropriate wording. A main basis for that (reverted) edit is a presentation which refers to Rossi and which is published in [6]; however at least a reliable source for the presentation should found, then it could be discussed further whether the mention of the proposal of George Miley is valid input for this article. I wanted to mention it here nonetheless, as I did the revert. -- Chris Howard ( talk) 10:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I felt the last sentence was incomplete to the point of being misleading. It originally read "The demonstration would be performed under the control of this unidentified customer who could acquire the plant, provided that the power consumption can be verified by the customer."
The referenced article mentions the ratio of heat output to heat input. Since it is the ratio of the two that matters I corrected the sentence to read: "The demonstration would be performed under the control of this unidentified customer who could acquire the plant, provided that the power consumption to heat output ratio can be verified by the customer."
It is unfortunate that the original quote itself is a bit misleading as they mention power and heat as if they are equivalent but are not as power is energy/(unit of time) and heat is a measure of energy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zedshort ( talk • contribs) 17:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Apparently the customer accepted the test of friday oct 28th. Any references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.234.214.108 ( talk) 22:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Re this edit, it looks like I'm the one who placed the dead link tag for this link, in this edit. The edit fixed/clarified several cites, and I'm guessing that I misunderstood the Italian language web page to which that link navigates. That web page presents, I see after a closer look, the result of a search for "Mr. Kilowatt" on the linked website. That search result is a page of Italian text containing a link to this other page which appears to be a short article in Italian about a radio interview relating to fraudsters in the power industries in Italy. It contains a link to the audio of the interview here. This was apparently my mistake, but this could have been clearer. I don't understand Italian and can't be of much help in clarifying it, but see WP:NONENG. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)