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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
"In 1998 a similar system, but yielding considerably less power, was described in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Il Nuovo Cimento A by Focardi et al." Judging that they are similar seems like OR to me. IRWolfie- ( talk) 15:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
http://www.tecnosophia.org/documenti/Articoli/SessioneI/Focardi.pdf PRODUZIONE DI ENERGIA E REAZIONI NUCLEARI IN SISTEMI NI-H A 400 C (translation: PRODUCTION OF ENERGY AND NUCLEAR REACTIONS IN NI-H SYSTEMS AT 400 C)
http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/search/en/WO2009125444 METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CARRYING OUT NICKEL AND HYDROGEN EXOTHERMAL REACTIONS
- S. Focardi, R. Habel, F. Piantelli: Anomalous heat production in Ni-H systems, Nuovo Cimento Vol. 107, pp 163-167, 1994
- S. Focardi, V. Gabbiani, V. Montalbano, F. Piantelli, S. Veronesi: Large excess in heat production in Ni-H systems, Nuovo Cimento Vol. Ill A pp. 1233-1241, 1998
A. Battaglia, L. Daddi, S. Focardi, V. Gabbiani, V. Montalbano, F. Piantelli, P. G. Sona, S. Veronesi: Neutron emission in Ni-H systems, Nuovo Cimento Vol. 112 A pp 921-931, 1999
- S. Focardi, V. Gabbiani, V. Montalbano. F. Piantelli, S. Veronesi: On the Ni-H systems, Asti Workshop in Hydrogeldeuterium loaded metals, pp 35-47, 1997
(All these documents are cited in the patent, and the patent stated that it is a nuclear reaction)
-- 79.6.8.194 ( talk) 16:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
It is not OR. There is no need to provide a secondary source making the link, but as you are both refuse to use common sense, here it is:
Interview with Focardi, published by Focus.it: [1] "...Today as then, the cold fusion or LENR (as it was then called to try to clean up the reputation) or condensed matter physics, is still considered the "Fairy of physics" by mainstream science. But not by researchers who have suggested the existence of a new territory to explore and interpret, such as Sergio Focardi. ... Sergio Focardi, born in 1932, Professor Emeritus of Experimental Physics of Bologna Alma Mater, from the early 90's investigates the "abnormal processes in the metal-hydrogen systems" at temperatures of 300 ° C, ie the "territory "cold fusion. In this summary of a long interview with Mario at the conference Menichella Cold fusion has become a reality? (Viareggio, July 23, 2011) Focardi says of his research in the field of low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR, Low Energy Nuclear Reactions), until the first results from collaboration with Andrea Rossi and E-Cat."
-- POVbrigand ( talk) 12:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Please note: IRWolfie- and Andy claim that the mentioning is OR. Then Andy demands that somebody should find him a secondary source that mentions the relation and when I provide such a source he changes to complaints about FRINGE. There was never a consensus about the deletion, it was discussed before Talk:Energy_Catalyzer#Il_Nuovo_Cimento_is_the_most_well_respected_Italian_scientific_journal_since_1855. And the last revert merely had the edit comment "per ATG", I guess that means that editor supports Andy's tactic. -- POVbrigand ( talk) 14:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Find the answers and sources for these 3 questions, then dump it in "Design" section or something. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 18:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Is there any source discussing the reason for limiting the test to a few hours (rather than running for days or weeks)? It seems like the obvious way to rule out conventional explanations. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
there is a very tedious list of demonstrations that doesn't add up to much information. I think this should be just reduced to a small summary Bhny ( talk) 20:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes of course; if we can't get rid of this irritating and irksome subject/article entirely, let's at least work to minimize informative details -- hate to see all those poor bits wasted... Seriously, just let it be for now. Come back in a year and trim it down as appropriate when it is possible to be objective, with the wise perspective of time/distance.- 96.237.13.111 ( talk) 21:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I've tagged this as having WP:UNDUE issues because, well, it does. There's way too much emphasis on a lot of primary source data to the point of obscuring the fundamental doubt that this thing actually works. Mangoe ( talk) 21:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I put extra disclaimers to the demonstration section to clarify that the demonstrations do not indicate scientific proof [5]. Andy reverted it. -- POVbrigand ( talk) 22:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
@Mangoe UNDUE has nothing to do with PRIMARY. The UNDUE tag is not appropriate. -- POVbrigand ( talk) 22:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
To be precise, Mangoe feels that the sections on the demonstrations are written to leave open the possibility that the device worked, by drowning the reader in a lot of really quite irrelevant detail. Mangoe ( talk) 17:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
This is
not a forum for general debate on the E-Cat
|
---|
You know, if you ever get involved in purchasing of a moderately large (megawatt or so) diesel engine/generator set, the manufacturer will offer to let you attend at the factory and witness all the standard tests - you can, for very little extra change, bring your own meters if you like and don't believe the calibration stickers on the manufactuer's test equipment. It's not deep science, people have been making accurate standardized tests of power sources since James Watt's day. This is why I call "scam" on this topic and consider it to be unworthy of an independent Wikiedia article; it's the same old flim-flam that every inventor of a perpetual motion machine has tried to pull, telling us to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 16:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
|
The article at present contains a long section on demonstrations of the this cold fusion-like device; the science behind the device, however, says that it almost certainly doesn't work, so it seems to me that the lengthy discussion of the details of each demo places undue weight on the possibility that the device might actually function, by presenting a lot of almost certainly spurious "data". Readers have to decode why all this data is spurious, or simply disregard it; but in the latter case there's no reason to include it, and in the former case the effect is to confuse readers who aren't equipped to analyze the test setup and its various faults. Mangoe ( talk) 18:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Article from Foxnews about the event of 28 October 2011:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/11/02/andrea-rossi-italian-cold-fusion-plant/
-- 79.6.145.208 ( talk) 18:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
An editor is trying to make drastic changes to the lede, and I thing that these changes should be discussed here due to their imponrtance.-- 79.6.145.208 ( talk) 18:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
This article should not be using the unreliable New Energy Times as a source. IRWolfie- ( talk) 20:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
The problem, really, is that no source for this is really actually reliable. The guy behind the Forbes article, for example, is unqualified. Mangoe ( talk) 21:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
In that case it is a matter concerning Forbes, not a matter concerning us.-- 79.6.145.208 ( talk) 21:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
It is all well sourced:
Patents
An application in 2008 to patent the device internationally had received an unfavorable
preliminary report on patentability at the
World Intellectual Property Organization
International Preliminary Report on Patentability. Wipo.int. Retrieved on 2011-07-10.
from the European Patent Office, noting that the description of the device was based on "general statements and speculations" and citing "numerous deficiencies in both the description and in the evidence provided to support its feasibility" as well as incompatibilities with current scientific theories.
However, on 6 April 2011 an application was approved by the Italian Patent and Trademark Office, which issued a patent for the invention, valid only in Italy.
The patent granted 6 April, 2011, by the Ufficio Italiano Brevetti e Marchi.
Ny Teknik: Patent granted for the energy catalyzer
International, European, and U.S. patent applications are still pending.
-- 79.6.145.208 ( talk) 21:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok: so the Italian Patents and Trademarks Office is not an independent source according to you?-- 79.6.145.208 ( talk) 21:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
It is reliable, so stop arguing aganst the reliability of Ny Teknik.-- 79.6.145.208 ( talk) 21:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
In case of any language barrier I suggest Primary_sources is checked so you understand the unrelatedness in this case of primary sources and reliable sources. IRWolfie- ( talk) 22:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Rhetorical gotchyas like the above are not tolerated in polite society. Hipocrite ( talk) 22:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
If they are reliable sources then we keep the references to their webisites, if they are not reliable sources then we delete all the references to they website.
--
79.6.145.208 (
talk)
22:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
If we can then we keep the references to their webisites, if we cannot then we delete all the references to their websites.
--
79.6.145.208 (
talk)
22:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Gentlemen: The internal link "Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction" redirects to Cold fusion, a process which is described as occurring at room temperature. The Energy Catalyzer does not operate at room temperature. If you were to touch an Energy Catalyzer while it is operating you would get third-degree burns. I therefore believe that the link to cold fusion/LENR is inappropriate.
The lead should be revised to read: The Energy Catalyzer (sometimes shortened to E-Cat) is a device invented by Andrea Rossi, with support from physicist Sergio Focardi. AnnaBennett ( talk) 22:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
This should be fixed on cold fusion. Talk:Cold_fusion#e-cat_not_room_temperature
The LENR article was deleted for being a fork of cold fusion, there might be some residual inconsistencies in the text. 84.106.26.81 ( talk) 20:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Article from Falls Church News-Press concerning the event of 28 October 2011 and the E-Cat in general:
http://www.fcnp.com/commentary/national/10419-the-peak-oil-crisis-cold-fusion-redux.html
-- 79.20.141.224 ( talk) 17:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Article from msnbc.com about the E-Cat:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45153076/ns/technology_and_science-science/#.TrLv5PTz2So
-- 79.20.141.224 ( talk) 19:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Same article on CBS News:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57318762/cold-fusion-debate-heats-up-after-latest-demo/
( also here http://m.cbsnews.com/fullstory.rbml?feed_id=4&catid=57318762&videofeed=40 )
-- 79.20.141.224 ( talk) 20:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I know that Italy has a reputation for somewhat uneven application of laws (though I'll not suggest that this reputation is necessarily deserved), but it occurs to me that even there one would presumably need planning permission for a nuclear power plant - particularly if one proposed to discharge cooling water into the drains, as Rossi seems to suggest he has done. Have any sources (even unreliable ones, which might at least give us a clue where to look for better ones) actually mentioned this? Do we know what the legal position is, and whether Rossi has actually taken any steps to ensure compliance? Has he been in contact with the IAEA regarding plans to export his device - one would think that they might take an interest... AndyTheGrump ( talk) 23:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
There was mention Defkalion (former Greek customer) did have to follow the laws for Nuclear Reactors. One of the things involved in that is no visitors and no press! If you can source it it would be an interesting thing to add to the controversy. 84.107.153.57 ( talk) 00:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
but improve; Please. Thanks. -- Wda ( talk) 00:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Dr. Rainer W. Kühne has written, "The nickel included 30% of copper, where the ratio of the copper isotopes was Cu-63 / Cu-65 = 1.6, whereas the natural ratio of the isotopes is Cu-63 / Cu-65 = 2.2" ( http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/257667 ). Kühne's report differs from that of Peter Ekström, who wrote, "The detection of 10% of copper isotopes[2] in the residue from the E-Cat is difficult to understand, especially since only stable copper isotopes (63Cu and 65Cu) are detected. The isotope ratios of the stable copper isotopes in the residue are the same as that of natural copper" ( http://www.fysik.org/WebSite/fragelada/resurser/cold_fusion.pdf ).
Who is right: Kühne or Ekström? Should the article be revised to cite Kühne's article? AnnaBennett ( talk) 14:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I think we can easily get consensus about the clean up of the demonstrations section.
Currently the demonstrations section is a large text of very detailed information. The section grew as new demonstrations were performed and the relevant and interesting data was added.
Now is a good time to sift through that large text and cut out all the stuff that won't have an encyclopedic relevance in the long run.
For those editors that don't like the idea of cutting out data, please keep in mind that the data is not lost, but is available at Ny Teknik website.
So what do you think about it ? -- POVbrigand ( talk) 20:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't know why the article is locked but if there is so much wrong with it it seems a nice idea to let people edit it. 84.106.26.81 ( talk) 02:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a forum |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The 1MW demo is most suspicious, because no observer made remarks about extraordinary heat at the radiators behind the pressboard fence. The area inside was about 25 square meters. 470 kW is enough to heat a cathedral with a footprint of some 100 squaremeters. Hot flimmering air like this above a tin roof in summer should have been there. Why was the temperature 1-2 metres above the pressboard jail not measured? 470 kW is roughly equivalent to an air stream of 4 cubic metres per second, heated from 20 centigrade to 100 centigrade. 470 kW is equivalent to 300 litres of dry saturated steam per second at air pressure. Releasing the steam into the sky at the end of the demo could have given more evidency
This would have been an impressive scenario and worldwide attention and sensational videos published would have been sure. |
Since nobody else seems to have taken the trouble to point this out, per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy Catalyzer, the prematurely-closed AfD has now been reopened. Of course, this foul-up more or less guarantees that there will be a review of any closing decision, and most likely a whole new AfD discussion in a few weeks. Farcical... AndyTheGrump ( talk) 03:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Andy, Castaflor added an "external link to scientific consortium that studies and has developed cold fusion devices". IRWolfie deleted that external link on the ground that, "There doesn't seem to be any relevance or link to the Energy Catalyzer". I improved Castaflor's external link to show how it is relevant to Rossi and his E-Cat and to thereby satisfy IRWolfie's objections. You removed my revised external link on the ground that Dr. Miley's claim is "ridiculous" and that there is "no scientific proof for 'cold fusion'." I am going to revise and repost the external link to include a link to Dr. Miley's impeccable credentials and his publications in the field of cold fusion. Please review Dr. Miley's credentials and publications before you decide that he is making a ridiculous claim. His e-mail address is posted on that page. Please take the time to correspond with Dr. Miley before you again assert that his claim is ridiculous. Thank you. AnnaBennett ( talk) 01:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Andy, in reply to your question, I believe that Paul Burns is a "reliable source". I added his name to the the reference about nickel melting and stopping E-Cat fusion reactions. AnnaBennett ( talk) 19:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
A reminder to all contributors. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion, editing in this topic area requires particular care. Specifically, it states that "Encyclopedias are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with current mainstream scientific thought". As noted at the top of this page, the article and its editors are subject to Wikipedia:General sanctions - I advise all contributors to bear this in mind. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 19:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
The first line has two references that seem either useless or misleading.
The Energy Catalyzer (sometimes shortened to E-Cat) is a supposed Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) thermal power source[1][2] built by inventor Andrea Rossi,[3][4][5]
The first reference leads to "World Intellectual Organization" and the second to an article that rebuts the devices usefulness. I understand the article should be written in a neutral manner but every sentence need not contain a counter argument or caveat. I doubt the usefulness of the first and feel the second should be about the invention, perhaps an article about Rossi's discovery of a net heat output from another experiment he was conducting would be more appropriate. The present second reference should be used later. Zedshort ( talk) 21:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Focardi (et al. of which Piantelli) has done a lot of work on Ni-H excess energy system in the past 20 years. This should be mentioned in the article -- POVbrigand ( talk) 23:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Link 36 does not support the line to which it is attached better to find a link that supports the quote.
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."[36]
The purpose of a link here should be to reference the quote not provide a rebuttal in an effort to provide a balanced view. Zedshort ( talk) 03:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
The reference should be to one that supports the quote in this line not to some article that rebuts the quote as if in some backhanded way of providing a balanced view.
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."[36]
Provide a link to the quote not a counter argument. Zedshort ( talk) 03:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I found some quotes from Peter L. Hagelstein from last April in this article:
"They've been keeping the technical details under wraps because they aren't patent protected, so it's hard to tell what they're doing from the photos and written descriptions. There is essentially no information that's useful to ascertain whether they've done it."
"There are a lot of other researchers who've been exploring technologies that are related and they've reported similar results," Hagelstein said. "[Rossi and Focardi] reported an immediate power gain of a factor of 10 and a long-term one of 20. There are other researchers who have reported the same power gain, so it's not out of line with the cutting-edge state of the art in the field."
For those who don't know, Hagelstein is the principal investigator of the "Energy Production and Conversion Group" of Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Research Laboratory of Electronics.
I would like to use these quotations if there are no objections. -- POVbrigand ( talk) 10:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
outdent - It appears to me that you don't know what WP:IDHT is all about. As far as I understand IDHT is for editors that refuse to accept the consensus long after it has been reached by the community. Your use here to discredit me is laughable.
Hagelstein is one of the CF researchers that was asked to prepare the DOE 2004 presentation. I think we don't need any "website" to safely assume that he is indeed an expert on the subject regardless of what the standing of this subject in mainstream science has.
The rest of your comment puzzles me even more.
There is no predominance of informed opinion that CF doens't really exist. There is a predominance of ignorant opinion that CF was debunked in the early 1990s and that nothing has happened since then.
But let's remind ourselves that Wikipedia is not about truth :"Truth is not the criterion for inclusion of any idea or statement in a Wikipedia article, even if it is on a scientific topic (see Wikipedia:Science). The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."
Now if I understand you correctly you say: Hagelstein may or may not be an expert on CF and the Rossi device is not a CF device. And with that you try to convince us that Hagelstein's quotes on the Rossi device are meaningless. Sorry, but if your comment truly reflects your knowledge about this subject then I suggest you read a few sources first. I don't say that you should believe CF claims afterward, but at least our discussion would be more efficient. -- POVbrigand ( talk) 22:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
New quotes from Hagelstein from Natalie Wolchover's article in CBSnews. :
"There is not sufficient reliable information available about the E-cat for a rational opinion to be made yet, in my view," Hagelstein told Life's Little Mysteries, a sister site to LiveScience. But because of these consistencies, "I am of the view that Rossi's claims probably should be taken seriously until such time as we have sufficient information that provides confirmation or refutation."
"Are physicists generally, and DoE in particular, so sure that excess power in such experiments is impossible that the very large number of experimental results which show an excess heat effect clearly should continue to be ignored?"
I think we could use the first one. -- POVbrigand ( talk) 10:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Article from the Daily Mail, similar to the one from Foxnews:
-- 79.20.141.224 ( talk) 20:42, 4 November 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
"In 1998 a similar system, but yielding considerably less power, was described in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Il Nuovo Cimento A by Focardi et al." Judging that they are similar seems like OR to me. IRWolfie- ( talk) 15:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
http://www.tecnosophia.org/documenti/Articoli/SessioneI/Focardi.pdf PRODUZIONE DI ENERGIA E REAZIONI NUCLEARI IN SISTEMI NI-H A 400 C (translation: PRODUCTION OF ENERGY AND NUCLEAR REACTIONS IN NI-H SYSTEMS AT 400 C)
http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/search/en/WO2009125444 METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CARRYING OUT NICKEL AND HYDROGEN EXOTHERMAL REACTIONS
- S. Focardi, R. Habel, F. Piantelli: Anomalous heat production in Ni-H systems, Nuovo Cimento Vol. 107, pp 163-167, 1994
- S. Focardi, V. Gabbiani, V. Montalbano, F. Piantelli, S. Veronesi: Large excess in heat production in Ni-H systems, Nuovo Cimento Vol. Ill A pp. 1233-1241, 1998
A. Battaglia, L. Daddi, S. Focardi, V. Gabbiani, V. Montalbano, F. Piantelli, P. G. Sona, S. Veronesi: Neutron emission in Ni-H systems, Nuovo Cimento Vol. 112 A pp 921-931, 1999
- S. Focardi, V. Gabbiani, V. Montalbano. F. Piantelli, S. Veronesi: On the Ni-H systems, Asti Workshop in Hydrogeldeuterium loaded metals, pp 35-47, 1997
(All these documents are cited in the patent, and the patent stated that it is a nuclear reaction)
-- 79.6.8.194 ( talk) 16:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
It is not OR. There is no need to provide a secondary source making the link, but as you are both refuse to use common sense, here it is:
Interview with Focardi, published by Focus.it: [1] "...Today as then, the cold fusion or LENR (as it was then called to try to clean up the reputation) or condensed matter physics, is still considered the "Fairy of physics" by mainstream science. But not by researchers who have suggested the existence of a new territory to explore and interpret, such as Sergio Focardi. ... Sergio Focardi, born in 1932, Professor Emeritus of Experimental Physics of Bologna Alma Mater, from the early 90's investigates the "abnormal processes in the metal-hydrogen systems" at temperatures of 300 ° C, ie the "territory "cold fusion. In this summary of a long interview with Mario at the conference Menichella Cold fusion has become a reality? (Viareggio, July 23, 2011) Focardi says of his research in the field of low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR, Low Energy Nuclear Reactions), until the first results from collaboration with Andrea Rossi and E-Cat."
-- POVbrigand ( talk) 12:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Please note: IRWolfie- and Andy claim that the mentioning is OR. Then Andy demands that somebody should find him a secondary source that mentions the relation and when I provide such a source he changes to complaints about FRINGE. There was never a consensus about the deletion, it was discussed before Talk:Energy_Catalyzer#Il_Nuovo_Cimento_is_the_most_well_respected_Italian_scientific_journal_since_1855. And the last revert merely had the edit comment "per ATG", I guess that means that editor supports Andy's tactic. -- POVbrigand ( talk) 14:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Find the answers and sources for these 3 questions, then dump it in "Design" section or something. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 18:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Is there any source discussing the reason for limiting the test to a few hours (rather than running for days or weeks)? It seems like the obvious way to rule out conventional explanations. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
there is a very tedious list of demonstrations that doesn't add up to much information. I think this should be just reduced to a small summary Bhny ( talk) 20:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes of course; if we can't get rid of this irritating and irksome subject/article entirely, let's at least work to minimize informative details -- hate to see all those poor bits wasted... Seriously, just let it be for now. Come back in a year and trim it down as appropriate when it is possible to be objective, with the wise perspective of time/distance.- 96.237.13.111 ( talk) 21:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I've tagged this as having WP:UNDUE issues because, well, it does. There's way too much emphasis on a lot of primary source data to the point of obscuring the fundamental doubt that this thing actually works. Mangoe ( talk) 21:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I put extra disclaimers to the demonstration section to clarify that the demonstrations do not indicate scientific proof [5]. Andy reverted it. -- POVbrigand ( talk) 22:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
@Mangoe UNDUE has nothing to do with PRIMARY. The UNDUE tag is not appropriate. -- POVbrigand ( talk) 22:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
To be precise, Mangoe feels that the sections on the demonstrations are written to leave open the possibility that the device worked, by drowning the reader in a lot of really quite irrelevant detail. Mangoe ( talk) 17:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
This is
not a forum for general debate on the E-Cat
|
---|
You know, if you ever get involved in purchasing of a moderately large (megawatt or so) diesel engine/generator set, the manufacturer will offer to let you attend at the factory and witness all the standard tests - you can, for very little extra change, bring your own meters if you like and don't believe the calibration stickers on the manufactuer's test equipment. It's not deep science, people have been making accurate standardized tests of power sources since James Watt's day. This is why I call "scam" on this topic and consider it to be unworthy of an independent Wikiedia article; it's the same old flim-flam that every inventor of a perpetual motion machine has tried to pull, telling us to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 16:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
|
The article at present contains a long section on demonstrations of the this cold fusion-like device; the science behind the device, however, says that it almost certainly doesn't work, so it seems to me that the lengthy discussion of the details of each demo places undue weight on the possibility that the device might actually function, by presenting a lot of almost certainly spurious "data". Readers have to decode why all this data is spurious, or simply disregard it; but in the latter case there's no reason to include it, and in the former case the effect is to confuse readers who aren't equipped to analyze the test setup and its various faults. Mangoe ( talk) 18:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Article from Foxnews about the event of 28 October 2011:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/11/02/andrea-rossi-italian-cold-fusion-plant/
-- 79.6.145.208 ( talk) 18:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
An editor is trying to make drastic changes to the lede, and I thing that these changes should be discussed here due to their imponrtance.-- 79.6.145.208 ( talk) 18:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
This article should not be using the unreliable New Energy Times as a source. IRWolfie- ( talk) 20:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
The problem, really, is that no source for this is really actually reliable. The guy behind the Forbes article, for example, is unqualified. Mangoe ( talk) 21:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
In that case it is a matter concerning Forbes, not a matter concerning us.-- 79.6.145.208 ( talk) 21:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
It is all well sourced:
Patents
An application in 2008 to patent the device internationally had received an unfavorable
preliminary report on patentability at the
World Intellectual Property Organization
International Preliminary Report on Patentability. Wipo.int. Retrieved on 2011-07-10.
from the European Patent Office, noting that the description of the device was based on "general statements and speculations" and citing "numerous deficiencies in both the description and in the evidence provided to support its feasibility" as well as incompatibilities with current scientific theories.
However, on 6 April 2011 an application was approved by the Italian Patent and Trademark Office, which issued a patent for the invention, valid only in Italy.
The patent granted 6 April, 2011, by the Ufficio Italiano Brevetti e Marchi.
Ny Teknik: Patent granted for the energy catalyzer
International, European, and U.S. patent applications are still pending.
-- 79.6.145.208 ( talk) 21:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok: so the Italian Patents and Trademarks Office is not an independent source according to you?-- 79.6.145.208 ( talk) 21:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
It is reliable, so stop arguing aganst the reliability of Ny Teknik.-- 79.6.145.208 ( talk) 21:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
In case of any language barrier I suggest Primary_sources is checked so you understand the unrelatedness in this case of primary sources and reliable sources. IRWolfie- ( talk) 22:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Rhetorical gotchyas like the above are not tolerated in polite society. Hipocrite ( talk) 22:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
If they are reliable sources then we keep the references to their webisites, if they are not reliable sources then we delete all the references to they website.
--
79.6.145.208 (
talk)
22:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
If we can then we keep the references to their webisites, if we cannot then we delete all the references to their websites.
--
79.6.145.208 (
talk)
22:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Gentlemen: The internal link "Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction" redirects to Cold fusion, a process which is described as occurring at room temperature. The Energy Catalyzer does not operate at room temperature. If you were to touch an Energy Catalyzer while it is operating you would get third-degree burns. I therefore believe that the link to cold fusion/LENR is inappropriate.
The lead should be revised to read: The Energy Catalyzer (sometimes shortened to E-Cat) is a device invented by Andrea Rossi, with support from physicist Sergio Focardi. AnnaBennett ( talk) 22:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
This should be fixed on cold fusion. Talk:Cold_fusion#e-cat_not_room_temperature
The LENR article was deleted for being a fork of cold fusion, there might be some residual inconsistencies in the text. 84.106.26.81 ( talk) 20:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Article from Falls Church News-Press concerning the event of 28 October 2011 and the E-Cat in general:
http://www.fcnp.com/commentary/national/10419-the-peak-oil-crisis-cold-fusion-redux.html
-- 79.20.141.224 ( talk) 17:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Article from msnbc.com about the E-Cat:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45153076/ns/technology_and_science-science/#.TrLv5PTz2So
-- 79.20.141.224 ( talk) 19:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Same article on CBS News:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57318762/cold-fusion-debate-heats-up-after-latest-demo/
( also here http://m.cbsnews.com/fullstory.rbml?feed_id=4&catid=57318762&videofeed=40 )
-- 79.20.141.224 ( talk) 20:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I know that Italy has a reputation for somewhat uneven application of laws (though I'll not suggest that this reputation is necessarily deserved), but it occurs to me that even there one would presumably need planning permission for a nuclear power plant - particularly if one proposed to discharge cooling water into the drains, as Rossi seems to suggest he has done. Have any sources (even unreliable ones, which might at least give us a clue where to look for better ones) actually mentioned this? Do we know what the legal position is, and whether Rossi has actually taken any steps to ensure compliance? Has he been in contact with the IAEA regarding plans to export his device - one would think that they might take an interest... AndyTheGrump ( talk) 23:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
There was mention Defkalion (former Greek customer) did have to follow the laws for Nuclear Reactors. One of the things involved in that is no visitors and no press! If you can source it it would be an interesting thing to add to the controversy. 84.107.153.57 ( talk) 00:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
but improve; Please. Thanks. -- Wda ( talk) 00:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Dr. Rainer W. Kühne has written, "The nickel included 30% of copper, where the ratio of the copper isotopes was Cu-63 / Cu-65 = 1.6, whereas the natural ratio of the isotopes is Cu-63 / Cu-65 = 2.2" ( http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/257667 ). Kühne's report differs from that of Peter Ekström, who wrote, "The detection of 10% of copper isotopes[2] in the residue from the E-Cat is difficult to understand, especially since only stable copper isotopes (63Cu and 65Cu) are detected. The isotope ratios of the stable copper isotopes in the residue are the same as that of natural copper" ( http://www.fysik.org/WebSite/fragelada/resurser/cold_fusion.pdf ).
Who is right: Kühne or Ekström? Should the article be revised to cite Kühne's article? AnnaBennett ( talk) 14:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I think we can easily get consensus about the clean up of the demonstrations section.
Currently the demonstrations section is a large text of very detailed information. The section grew as new demonstrations were performed and the relevant and interesting data was added.
Now is a good time to sift through that large text and cut out all the stuff that won't have an encyclopedic relevance in the long run.
For those editors that don't like the idea of cutting out data, please keep in mind that the data is not lost, but is available at Ny Teknik website.
So what do you think about it ? -- POVbrigand ( talk) 20:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't know why the article is locked but if there is so much wrong with it it seems a nice idea to let people edit it. 84.106.26.81 ( talk) 02:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a forum |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The 1MW demo is most suspicious, because no observer made remarks about extraordinary heat at the radiators behind the pressboard fence. The area inside was about 25 square meters. 470 kW is enough to heat a cathedral with a footprint of some 100 squaremeters. Hot flimmering air like this above a tin roof in summer should have been there. Why was the temperature 1-2 metres above the pressboard jail not measured? 470 kW is roughly equivalent to an air stream of 4 cubic metres per second, heated from 20 centigrade to 100 centigrade. 470 kW is equivalent to 300 litres of dry saturated steam per second at air pressure. Releasing the steam into the sky at the end of the demo could have given more evidency
This would have been an impressive scenario and worldwide attention and sensational videos published would have been sure. |
Since nobody else seems to have taken the trouble to point this out, per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy Catalyzer, the prematurely-closed AfD has now been reopened. Of course, this foul-up more or less guarantees that there will be a review of any closing decision, and most likely a whole new AfD discussion in a few weeks. Farcical... AndyTheGrump ( talk) 03:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Andy, Castaflor added an "external link to scientific consortium that studies and has developed cold fusion devices". IRWolfie deleted that external link on the ground that, "There doesn't seem to be any relevance or link to the Energy Catalyzer". I improved Castaflor's external link to show how it is relevant to Rossi and his E-Cat and to thereby satisfy IRWolfie's objections. You removed my revised external link on the ground that Dr. Miley's claim is "ridiculous" and that there is "no scientific proof for 'cold fusion'." I am going to revise and repost the external link to include a link to Dr. Miley's impeccable credentials and his publications in the field of cold fusion. Please review Dr. Miley's credentials and publications before you decide that he is making a ridiculous claim. His e-mail address is posted on that page. Please take the time to correspond with Dr. Miley before you again assert that his claim is ridiculous. Thank you. AnnaBennett ( talk) 01:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Andy, in reply to your question, I believe that Paul Burns is a "reliable source". I added his name to the the reference about nickel melting and stopping E-Cat fusion reactions. AnnaBennett ( talk) 19:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
A reminder to all contributors. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion, editing in this topic area requires particular care. Specifically, it states that "Encyclopedias are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with current mainstream scientific thought". As noted at the top of this page, the article and its editors are subject to Wikipedia:General sanctions - I advise all contributors to bear this in mind. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 19:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
The first line has two references that seem either useless or misleading.
The Energy Catalyzer (sometimes shortened to E-Cat) is a supposed Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) thermal power source[1][2] built by inventor Andrea Rossi,[3][4][5]
The first reference leads to "World Intellectual Organization" and the second to an article that rebuts the devices usefulness. I understand the article should be written in a neutral manner but every sentence need not contain a counter argument or caveat. I doubt the usefulness of the first and feel the second should be about the invention, perhaps an article about Rossi's discovery of a net heat output from another experiment he was conducting would be more appropriate. The present second reference should be used later. Zedshort ( talk) 21:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Focardi (et al. of which Piantelli) has done a lot of work on Ni-H excess energy system in the past 20 years. This should be mentioned in the article -- POVbrigand ( talk) 23:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Link 36 does not support the line to which it is attached better to find a link that supports the quote.
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."[36]
The purpose of a link here should be to reference the quote not provide a rebuttal in an effort to provide a balanced view. Zedshort ( talk) 03:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
The reference should be to one that supports the quote in this line not to some article that rebuts the quote as if in some backhanded way of providing a balanced view.
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."[36]
Provide a link to the quote not a counter argument. Zedshort ( talk) 03:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I found some quotes from Peter L. Hagelstein from last April in this article:
"They've been keeping the technical details under wraps because they aren't patent protected, so it's hard to tell what they're doing from the photos and written descriptions. There is essentially no information that's useful to ascertain whether they've done it."
"There are a lot of other researchers who've been exploring technologies that are related and they've reported similar results," Hagelstein said. "[Rossi and Focardi] reported an immediate power gain of a factor of 10 and a long-term one of 20. There are other researchers who have reported the same power gain, so it's not out of line with the cutting-edge state of the art in the field."
For those who don't know, Hagelstein is the principal investigator of the "Energy Production and Conversion Group" of Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Research Laboratory of Electronics.
I would like to use these quotations if there are no objections. -- POVbrigand ( talk) 10:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
outdent - It appears to me that you don't know what WP:IDHT is all about. As far as I understand IDHT is for editors that refuse to accept the consensus long after it has been reached by the community. Your use here to discredit me is laughable.
Hagelstein is one of the CF researchers that was asked to prepare the DOE 2004 presentation. I think we don't need any "website" to safely assume that he is indeed an expert on the subject regardless of what the standing of this subject in mainstream science has.
The rest of your comment puzzles me even more.
There is no predominance of informed opinion that CF doens't really exist. There is a predominance of ignorant opinion that CF was debunked in the early 1990s and that nothing has happened since then.
But let's remind ourselves that Wikipedia is not about truth :"Truth is not the criterion for inclusion of any idea or statement in a Wikipedia article, even if it is on a scientific topic (see Wikipedia:Science). The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."
Now if I understand you correctly you say: Hagelstein may or may not be an expert on CF and the Rossi device is not a CF device. And with that you try to convince us that Hagelstein's quotes on the Rossi device are meaningless. Sorry, but if your comment truly reflects your knowledge about this subject then I suggest you read a few sources first. I don't say that you should believe CF claims afterward, but at least our discussion would be more efficient. -- POVbrigand ( talk) 22:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
New quotes from Hagelstein from Natalie Wolchover's article in CBSnews. :
"There is not sufficient reliable information available about the E-cat for a rational opinion to be made yet, in my view," Hagelstein told Life's Little Mysteries, a sister site to LiveScience. But because of these consistencies, "I am of the view that Rossi's claims probably should be taken seriously until such time as we have sufficient information that provides confirmation or refutation."
"Are physicists generally, and DoE in particular, so sure that excess power in such experiments is impossible that the very large number of experimental results which show an excess heat effect clearly should continue to be ignored?"
I think we could use the first one. -- POVbrigand ( talk) 10:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Article from the Daily Mail, similar to the one from Foxnews:
-- 79.20.141.224 ( talk) 20:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)