Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:34, 28 August 2015

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 Misplaced Pages? 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: 30 days

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 has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Physics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. [REDACTED] Alternative views Low‑importance [REDACTED] This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages'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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. See the description of the sanctions.

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 Misplaced Pages? 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: 30 days

More sources

http://sverigesradio.se/sida/default.aspx?programid=406 and http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2795&artikel=5872724 // Liftarn (talk)

On the Nuclear Mechanisms Underlying the Heat Production by the “E-Cat”

There was a new interesting paper uploaded on Arxiv by Norman D. Cook and Andrea Rossi - http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1504/1504.01261.pdf

Its based on the isotope shifts seen in Lugano Report. As response to the fact that no gamma emission was observed - they conclude that a major source of energy could be a reaction between the first excited-state of 7 Li4 and a proton, followed by the breakdown of 8 Be4 into two alphas with high kinetic energy, but without gamma radiation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.161.248.25 (talk) 09:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

A non-peer reviewed paper by Rossi says that Rossi's device works? Quelle surprise. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, this is a pre-print of a paper to be published in May 2015 or so in a peer reviewed Journal (unless I don't understand the status of this paper). But don't worry - even after publishing (if published), I guess, the editors of[REDACTED] will find good reasons not to mention it in the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.8.6 (talk • contribs)

For the record, I note that it is now August, and there's not a hint of a peer-reviewed journal publication—which is entirely fitting with the usual pattern of announcements in this field and with the "energy catalyzer" in particular. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

(ec, left in just because!) It's August. If it has been published in a peer-reviewed journal, I've been unable to find it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Not 'interesting' for the purposes of Misplaced Pages unless discussed in detail in third-party reliable sources. And I note that neither author appears to have any relevant academic credentials regarding the subject matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear Andy, this article is not about CF in general, its about the "Energy Catalyzer".

I think its highly interesting for people interested in that topic - how the inventor tries to explain that impossible operation.

As there was no statement for a long period of time I think its notable and should be included.143.161.248.25 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I am well aware of what this article is about. I am also well aware of Misplaced Pages policy. We aren't here to provide a blog for Rossi's endless self-serving and contradictory claims. If the paper is of any significance, it will be discussed in credible secondary sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that this unpublished paper is of little use to this article. One of the reasons we rely on secondary sources is to get independent analysis. The only thing that we could possible say here is that Rossi and Cook wrote an unpublished paper on the subject. Adding the citation to the article does not improve the article, but may serve Rossi's interests which of course is not our purpose. We should at least wait until the paper is published in a journal.- MrX 17:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Aug 2015 patent: better reference

Re the question of reference, agreed the reference I cited is a blog, so not ideal. It does however include a link a copy of the patent application itself, included on the Impossible Invention web site, at https://animpossibleinvention.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/us9115913b1.pdf. I assume this is a copy of the actual patent, and in principle available from the USPO somehow, probably by sending them some $$$, so in principle verifiable in this way.

Anyway, I've edited in a link to that copy, which maybe is some improvement to the article, but it would be better style if it used the 'cite patent' template used for ref. 1. I can't see any way to do this short of copying the code for ref. 1, pasting it in and editing. Unlike 'cite web', 'cite journal' etc. available by clicking on 'cite' in the editor, this seems to be one of these wp secrets that you can't look up; how is it done? --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The patent can be found on the U.S. patent office website: It is probably worth noting though that all it amounts to is "An apparatus for heating fluid" - which it will undoubtedly do, given that passing a current through a resistor will produce heat. There doesn't seem to be anything in the patent which suggests that it generates more heat than one would expect. Which is probably why the patent was approved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for the link, which I'll incorporate in the article in the morning if no-one else has done it. The patent will be just as effective from the patenting point of view if it does not mention cold fusion, and it has been suggested that now it has been approved Rossi can be more open than he has been.
It's curious by the way that the article makes no reference to the company Industrial Heat who have bought up the E-cat, surely a important development. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Or you could wait until there is some objective verified evidence that the device does what it says. Oh, wait, you're a fan of pseudoscientific claims - you won't want to wait until the heat death of the universe before adding a promotional claim to an article on a fraudulent device, will you? Rossi flew this under the radar by not mentioning that it is a perpetual motion machine. He will now capitalise on the existence of a patent to imply that it is not a perpetual motion machine, because they are not patentable. The man is utterly transparent (and a charlatan, naturally). Guy (Help!) 23:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Under the radar? Hmmm ... . Given that the USPO automatically refuses patents mentioning CF, it seems to me that this ia s case of the end justifying the means. And on a point of physics, it is not a perpetual motion machine, as it requires refuelling when the nickel is used up; nothing perpetual about it. --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It's probably worth pointing out that not only is Lewan's website a blog, but that it is promoting his book - which makes it even less appropriate as a source. As for Industrial Heat, all we know is that Rossi sold them something vaguely referred to as 'rights' - there is no reliable source stating that they have 'bought up the E-cat'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll accept your correction on that detail. There is an interview with the CEO of Industrial Heat at http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/DardenInterview.pdf that explains IH's support of Rossi. Objecting to Lewan's site on the basis of it promoting the book is a little precious IMHO -- the article doesn't refer to tbe book. I suppose you might object to the fact that the book's title is at the top of the page, if you are the objecting type, but you'll find that many academics do similar things if they have a book they want to bring to people's attention. If you prefer a different source that gives the same information as in the article, it would be fine by me to replace the reference. --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I've read the patent and it's not at all clear that it has anything to do with the E-Cat. The patent mentions heating by "an electrical resistor" and discusses a lithium-based fuel that undergoes conventional chemical reactions. There's absolutely no mention of LENR/cold fusion in the patent. Surely Rossi isn't trying to pull a fast one on the Patent Office. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I wonder how carefully you have read the patent? On page 7 I read 'another aspect of the invention ... composition of matter for generating heat, the composition including ... nickel powder ...'. In which electrical shop can you buy that kind of resistor, whereas the E-cat does use nickel? It sure looks like the E-cat to me! --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Admittedly a little off topic but nickel alloys are a common choice for the resistance element in electrical heaters, particularly those in which the element is directly exposed to a liquid working fluid. VQuakr (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

This reminds me of nothing so much as the "Zapper", a fraudulent medical device that is sold by quacks as "licensed and approved" but when you check the approval, it's licensed as a TENS machine.

This is a patent for a water heater - clearly a very deliberate choice, as the USPTO do not approve patents for free energy devices or perpetual motion machines. The core claim made by Rossi is unpatentable in the US. There is no way we should include this until it's discussed in reliable independent secondary sources which provide context. That is, after all, Misplaced Pages's default approach to any questionable claim. Guy (Help!) 08:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

There'd be some merit in your point were it not the fact that there is mention in the article of a previous patent application that was rejected. To remove mention of the accepted patent while keeping the rejected one would be a blatent case of bias. The section 'patents' would be visibly incomplete if your suggestion were carried out. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Terminology

Re JzG's "LENR is a term of art used by cold fusionists to appear sciencey" is a typical disparaging remark (far too prevalent in these parts, I have to say) that's a bit far from the truth. Cold fusion was the invention of journalists, I believe, thus the 'popular' term, and furthermore it has a number of alternative uses. In formal contexts, scientists prefer more scientific terminology. --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Bart Simon disagrees. You should check out his book on the sociology of cold fusion. jps (talk) 12:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

So what does he say then? I'm afraid I don't have the time to get hold of the book! --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

He basically says that the understanding of the community, as it were, of people who support these ideas of excess heat in certain electrolytic experiments is that "cold fusion" is simultaneously a poisoned term because of the controversies surrounding the Pons and Fleischmann announcement as they announced a "cause" before they knew, but also a term that serves as an "identity marker" for the community. jps (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Fine, I don't have any problem with that. And of course avoiding bad impressions can be a reason for avoiding the term. I would guess that Simon did not use the phrase 'appearing sciency', the problem with which basically is that it would seem to refer to non-scientists using the term to make it look as if they are doing science, whereas in point of fact most people involved in LENR are scientists (Rossi being a notable exception). --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

What makes a scientist? The problem here is that when people accuse cold fusion adherents of being "pathological scientists" what they're saying is that they're engaging in a fruitless outcome. The comparison is to someone who continually looks for evidence that the sun will not rise in the morning. There are ways to do many different scientific experiments to test to see whether the sun will not rise tomorrow. You could, for example, measure the rate at which the sun appears to traverse the sky or you could look for historical trends in data to see if there might be some secular variation in solar flux that will eventually allow for a random walk away from sunrise. There are all sorts of experiments and scientific investigations one can do to try to see whether the sun will rise, but the question becomes, eventually, at what point do we stop wasting our time with such questions and move on to other things? At what point does one stop being a "scientist" and start being a crank (in the most plain form of the term — literally someone who turns the crank over and over without any forward progress)? There is a credentialism that people fall back on in such scenarios because, sure, old scientists with degrees and positions and accolades and tenure can pursue whatever their hearts desire and they don't stop being scientists just because they are chasing rabbits down holes. But the final question seems to lie on whether null hypothesis rejection is possible. Cold fusion proponents tend to say that they have good null hypothesis rejection for excess heat, but the question that other scientists ask is whether such results are consistently replicable and plausibly explained. For 25 years cold fusion proponents have argued vociferously about whether they have been able to come up with replicable schema and haven't begun to broach the next very necessary question. Their lack of consistent agreement causes the rest of the scientific community to look with skepticism on whether replicability has actually occurred. I certainly am unimpressed with the progress that has (not) occurred since I first investigated this story seriously in 2004 after the now infamous DOE report. The choice one has is that either there is a conspiracy against cold fusion or that the experiments actually don't work in the way the proponents think they do. Could there be weird effects we don't understand in electrolytic cells? Sure, why not? But it is a far cry from anomalous results and scalable applicability: a far cry that has eluded this idea for a quarter of a century. When does an N-ray become an N-ray? jps (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Very briefly: I think things are changing. The fact that the Japanese government is going to fund CF research again (see http://news.newenergytimes.net/2015/08/24/japanese-government-will-fund-lenr-research-again/) is typical of this shift. --Brian Josephson (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

This is an old story, though. The Japanese Government has canceled and restarted research into cold fusion at least twice before in the last two decades. India has done it four times that I can recall. What happens is that the old reviewers and bureaucrats retire and the new ones come in not knowing the history. I just called the patent office that Rossi got his patent from and asked if they knew about the ruling that cold fusion patents cannot be given in the US. They were unaware of it. :) jps (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

But of course Rossi doesn't mention cold fusion (or "LENR") anywhere in the patent. A simple oversight on his part, I'm sure... people are forgetful sometimes. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Boris, I've explained why a number of times. It would be boring to repeat the reason yet again to those that will not learn, and I will not waste time doing so. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I found it -- "a case of the end justifying the means". Thanks, that explains a great deal. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Synthesis

Quote: 'A later patent for an "apparatus for heating fluid", making no mention of LENR or cold fusion, but specifying the use of nickel and other substances for this process, was granted by the US Patent Office in August 2015'. This is clear and unambiguous WP:SYNTHESIS in my opinion. The 'but' implies that there is a logical connection between LENR/cold fusion and the later patent, when the patent makes no such claim. And what 'process' is being referred to? The patent doesn't even use the word. I suggest that rather than edit-warring, Brian Josephson self-reverts and discusses the content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, I think emphasizing the purported nuclear chemistry that was de-emphasized in the patent goes against the letter and spirit of WP:SYN, WP:PRIMARY, and WP:REDFLAG. VQuakr (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

(@AndyTheGrump) Thanks for raising it in Talk first. Why don't we just delete the bit saying 'no mention of LENR and cold fusion' as well as the text you want to be deleted yourself, and then we can all go home? The only reason for that text getting in in the first place appears to be through a bit of OR, viz. the absence of such reference being used to infer (incorrectly) that the patent is about something different from the E-cat (I can't see any other reason for that otherwise rather boring bit of information being included in the article), and as far as OR fanatics are concerned should not have been put in at all. And, as I have said, the reference to the materials used, which someone seems not to have noticed through not reading as far as page 7, disproves (sorry about the OR/synthesis, but it is allowed on talk pages) the idea that it is something different from the E-cat, making the text irrelevant in any case. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Patents are primary sources that describe devices that may or may not actually work. Using patents as sources to imply that the device actually works in any matter is OR. In the case of a device like this, a FRINGE violation as well. --Ronz (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course! And as far as I can see, the article does not suggest that; it certainly should not do.
But there is a section on patents, and including information about the latest application is merely bringing that section up to date. And, in agreement with the point that you have made, Lewan merely reports the situation and doesn't make the implication that acceptance of the patent proves anything (and I don't think anyone else would think that either). --Brian Josephson (talk) 07:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Lewan is clearly not a reliable source - he is promoting his book. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Faulty argument -- the article concerned makes no mention of his book. People do promote their books, quite often, and this proves nothing. Look for example at the home page of the head of the Theory of Condensed Matter Group at the Cavendish, Prof. Ben Simons. Some people promote their books rather visibly, others more discreetly. If that is the best argument you can produce for not allowing the quote, I suggest it would be preferable for you to remain silent on this point. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding change https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Energy_Catalyzer&diff=next&oldid=678147693

For the above change this reason is given: "Mats Lewan is neither a scientific expert nor an expert in patent law and so his opinion on what the patent is should not be included". Again, a very poor excuse for removing a quote from the article. In fact Lewan has a Master of Science degree in engineering physics, and it would be surprising if Ny Teknik would have him as its technology reporter if they did not consider he had the necessary expertise and objectivity.

And if you actually read through the patent application (and have the appropriate expertise, which I suppose you may not have) you will see that to compare the qualifications and the E-cat requires no legal training at all, and fairly minimal physics. --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Lewan's website is promoting his book. It is clearly in his interest to promote the E-Cat. It is not a reliable source, end of story. As for 'minimal physics', this is an irrelevance - the patent does not discuss the E-Cat, LENR, or any related field, and accordingly cannot be cited as a source making any such connection. Rossi has patented a heater for fluids, and that is all that Misplaced Pages will describe it as. Clearly Rossi intended that the patent would give the gullible an impression that he'd patented something he hadn't, but there is nothing compelling Misplaced Pages to assist him in this flimflammery. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

As my adviser has said, "A Master's Degree and $2 will get you a cup of coffee." Even if he had a PhD in Physics and won a Nobel Prize, however, that does not excuse the violation of the WP:FRIND issue. jps (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

http://fcnp.com/2015/08/27/the-peak-oil-crisis-cold-fusion-gets-a-u-s-patent/ (source: Falls Church News-Press)
Is this source more suitable than Mats Lewan's website?--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 12:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't ask! Within 5 minutes of anyone inserting that reference it will be declared unreliable and reverted. Mark my words -- editors can do this kind of thing in their sleep -- for that matter some of them probably have routines set up to do it automatically! --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes it will, because it's a minor provincial newspaper that has no obvious expertise in the field of nuclear physics. There is also the problem that NUMB3RN7NE seems to devote most of xyr time here these days to pimping Rossi. Guy (Help!) 14:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

"...09:13, 26 August 2015 JzG (talk | contribs) protected "Talk:Energy Catalyzer"‎ ‎ (expires 09:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC))‎ (expires 09:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)) (Persistent sock puppetry: Banned cold fusionists linking usual promotional stuff, disruptive.) (hist)..."

(see here)

Because it seems to me that we are all registered users, where is this kind of "persistent sock puppetry" you have talked about? --NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The article (in the minor provincial newspaper) doesn't connect the patent with E-cat; only with cold fusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The article connects the patent with Rossi (his name features 9 times in all), and the article features Rossi as the inventor (his name is mentioned 4 times in the first paragraph). It is hardly OR or SYNTH to spot the connection, even if you yourself seem to have overlooked it. By the way, I see that one Mr. G. Chapman is making comments of a familiar kind on the FCNP article. Interesting! --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Another mention here:

So what? We spent years fighting off cold fusion cranks, but members of the reality-based community are not supposed to comment on news articles? I hardly think so. Guy (Help!) 23:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-h-bailey/post_10010_b_8052326.html
"...Rossi was just granted a patent by the U.S. Patent Office. The patent includes some heretofore unknown details, such as the contents of the "fuel" in Rossi's reactors: it is a powder of 50% nickel, 20% lithium and 30% lithium aluminum hydride..." (plus, there is also a small recap of the whole story too) --NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm... It says Rossi's reactors, not precisely E-Cat. It also accepts Rossi's unconfirmed claim that there is a commercial installation. Although HuffPo is not very reliable, there is enough here for a comment in Rossi's article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class physics articles
• Mid-importance physics articles
• C-Class physics articles of Mid-importance
• C-Class Skepticism articles
• Unknown-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• C-Class Alternative views articles
• Low-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions