This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Energy Catalyzer article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23Auto-archiving period: 1 month

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: keep, 10 September 2012 (UTC), see discussion. keep, 30 October 2011 (UTC), see discussion.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Physics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative Views Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

this addition seems unessessary and confusing, doesn't seem to add anything concrete and is essentially unverifiable if it is trying to imply some sort of outcome of the settlement. Have reverted for now per BRD. Please discuss (mobile edit or I would write more and ping user who made the edit). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)} 00:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC) reply

got to agree with this: I couldn't figure out what the heck it was supposed to mean. 'Somebody says something hopelessly vague about someone else' doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. 86.130.97.50 ( talk) 20:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply

I'm not really very keen on the Josephson link. We have enough content showing him to be credulous (e.g. supporting homeopathy, of all things) without rubbing his nose in this bit of bullshit. Guy ( Help!) 12:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC) reply

You mean the EL Andrea Rossi's 'E-cat' nuclear reactor: a video FAQ correct? Considering topic, the people involved and the publisher, I think it's a pretty good fit for a WP:EL, and IMO things like

"NB: the Wikipedia entry for 'Rossi reactor', cited in the video as a source of information regarding the reactor, can no longer be recommended as a reliable source, since the page concerned has been taken over by an editor group hostile to the reactor, resulting in a highly biased account of the history. " add a bit of humor.

I don't understand how having this link here is rubbing Josephson's nose in bullshit, though. I did notice that he had edited the Judith Driscoll article quite a bit, that made me worry a little about COI. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 12:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC) reply

He's never really understood the COI rule, or WP:FRINGE :-( Guy ( Help!) 13:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC) reply

It appears to fail WP:ELNO #2. This article is about a cold fusion generator, not a particular viewpoint. VQuakr ( talk) 15:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC) reply

I find that argument somewhat weak. Reading the transcript, Josephson is obviously a proponent, presenting what Rossi said/his own salespitch, but that is not the same as "misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research". What proponents has/had to say is an interesting part of the whole, especially since Josephson is an interesting voice and the url has cam.ac.uk in it. But that is my view, and we're obviously in editorial discretion territory, an article doesn't stand or fall on the EL's.

But see WP:PROFRINGE. Having a Nobel laureate give a credulous presentation of a fraudulent device does neither us nor the Nobelist any favours. Guy ( Help!) 20:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC) reply

A agree, and removed the other for similar reasons. Rossi doesn't appear a reliable source for anything other than his own opinions. -- Ronz ( talk) 20:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Arguing just because, I can see these two links under EL as giving due weight to a significant minority (in the article as a whole). Anyway, I'm a lone voice here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 21:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC) reply

External links sections are no place to address other problems in the article, like POV concerns. -- Ronz ( talk) 21:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC) reply

"Having a Nobel laureate give a credulous presentation of a fraudulent device does neither us nor the Nobelist any favours." On the other hand, if the Nobel laureate is at Cambridge, are we saying that the scandal should be swept under the carpet? The same way we ignore the existence of a dangerous lunatic when he is from a "good" family? Gråbergs Gråa Sång has a very good point. Josephson's nose is not being rubbed in BS, he dived into it himself, head-first. If a person from say, Coventry University, believes, say, that he is a cyborg, would we pretend this is not happening to spare them the embarrssement? 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:4127:DE6E:81BB:3184 ( talk) 09:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC) reply

There is ample journal and patent literature describing chemical reactions with Nickel and high temp and high pressure Hydrogen (routinely 60 atmospheres); many of these are industrial reactions typically hydrogenations using powdered nickel catalyst. Copper degrades these catalysts but spent catalyst (used for a long time) does not show miracle metals contamination. Shjacks45 ( talk) 01:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Please update the article to include the independent verification of the Ecat as documented in this review: https://coldfusion3.com/blog/%E2%80%9C independent-report%E2%80%9D-verifies-ecat-as-nuclear-device-confirms-it-generates-excess-heat 47.208.13.217 ( talk) 18:09, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

How is that, or even the research report it's based upon, reliable? -- Hipal ( talk) 20:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Bollocks from 2014. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 22:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply