Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:40, 28 September 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)

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)

Can you provide a RS verifying the fact that a Master's Degree can get you a reduction in the price of coffee? --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:23, 29 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)

That article connects the patent with Rossi (his name features 9 times in all), and the w'pedia 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. --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)

Yes, he has a patent on a water heater. No doubt this will help him raise more capital, using bait-and-switch. Guy (Help!) 23:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

HeHe/LOL! --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The non-mention of CF/LENF: 'above all, do no harm'

At present the article includes the statement 'The patent made no mention of LENR or cold fusion'. That is true, but there are many other things that the patent does not mention, so why refer to that specifically? As far as I can see, the statement was included because a number of editors inferred from it that the device concerned does not make use of LENR, which they think is important.

It would indeed be important if this inference were valid. But it is not. In the first place (as I have mentioned elsewhere), such mention was excluded from the patent quite simply because if it had been included that would have been enough for the application to be refused, and obviously they did not want that to happen. At the same time, there was no compelling reason to include this information. A patent has to specify how to make a device, but not necessarily the reasoning behind its functioning (unless a successful device cannot be made without understanding how it works). The Rossi patent does precisely this, saying how it is made. Making useful amounts of heat may require a nuclear process, but if just assembling the device in accord with the details in the patent is sufficient to induce the nuclear process then it is not necessary to mention this process for a potential manufacturer to be able to make the device work, so this information does not need to be included in the patent.

The bottom line then is that the inference that the device that is the subject of the patent does not make use of LENR is incorrect. The problem though is that people reading the article in the present form may come to that incorrect conclusion. After all, editors here have come to this conclusion through a confused understanding of what patents are about, and others similarly uninformed may do the same.

It is of crucial importance that the article be reworded to stop this (on the principle of 'do no harm'). One way would just to be to delete the misleading text. Alternatively the Lewan reference could be restored. But it does need to be one or the other (or of course both). We should do whatever is the least problematic. --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

We do not base article content on a contributor's 'inference'. The patent describes a device for heating fluids. Not a LENR device. That is what has been patented. Nothing more, nothing less. Accordingly, we will describe the patent as a patent for a device for heating fluids. Not a LENR device. Per Misplaced Pages policy, this isn't open to negotiation. And please stop creating multiple sections on the same topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

AtG: Either you have not followed my analysis, or you do not subscribe to the principle of 'do no harm'. I wonder which? It is true that a device for heating fluids has been patented, no-one will dispute that, but simply to repeat that statement is to miss the point. It is depressing to be writing things that people obviously refuse to take the trouble to read and digest before coming up with an irrelevant, tired old response. --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I certainly subscribe to the principle of 'do no harm' - and I accordingly oppose the harmful inclusion of misleading statements about a patent for heating advice for fluids being included based on your promotional 'analysis'. Your apparent inability to comprehend the simple fact that Misplaced Pages follows the scientific mainstream, and isn't here to act as an unpaid shill for every purveyor of pseudoscientific flimflam is more than a little depressing itself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I see you're shifting grounds now. Fine, let's leave out both the Lewan reference and the potentially misinterpretable sentence I have referred to, and then we can all go home with minimal risk of harm, the one you refer to and the one I referred to. Excellent! --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Your assertion that we should include a charitable interpretation in order not to harm Rossi, begs the question. If Rossi is a scammer, as many sources agree he is (and we have evidence of past criminal convictions to support this), then giving credence to his claims is actually doing harm, because the article may (read: will) be used to support further scamming. Guy (Help!) 08:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

A description of the fluid heater

I composed a description of the fluid heater. Given the arguments going on here, it may be best to propose it here first.

The fluid heater described in the patent is a cylindrical vessel containing a slot for a rectangular fuel wafer. The wafer described consists of three main layers, separated from each other by electrical insulators. The middle layer would consist of an electrical heating element, specified to initiate and "reinvigorate" the fuel. The fuel layers above and below the heating element are specified to be a mixture of nickel, lithium metal and LiAlH₄ (lithium aluminum hydride, "LAH"). The patent suggests a ratio of 50% Ni, 20% Li and 30% LAH. It is stated that the ratio is not critical, that high-porosity nickel is desirable but not necessary, and also that other Group 10 elements (platinum or palladium) as well as nickel can participate as catalysts. In operation, according to the patent, a controller monitors the temperature of the fluid and applies a voltage to the electrical heating element in the fuel wafer as necessary. It is claimed that the voltage is necessary to regenerate the fuel after the lithium aluminum hydride undergoes thermal decomposition. ¶ The means by which the LAH is "reinvigorated" is not stated in the patent. Because the fluid heater contains an electric heating element, it would function as an ordinary electric heater even if no lithium fuel were present.

Everything in the first paragraph is directly from the patent. The second paragraph (after the ¶ in the block quote) is intended to include whatever conclusions can be acceptably made from the patent; the two sentences above are only part of what I initially had written.

I do not believe this device works. I think it is a functional electric water heater, and I think it probably will provide an initial burst of extra heat as the lithium compounds undergo thermal decomposition. But I do not think that heat or electricity will cause nickel to regenerate a lithium hydride from LiAl and H₂. Not chemically, and certainly not by a nuclear process. The intent of the above description is to describe how it is claimed that it works, including the bit about the temperature sensor, controller and heating element, to make it clear that the device may simply work as an electric heater that is no more or less efficient than an identical heater with, say, powdered iron in place of the nickel.

The decomposition of LAH is very exothermic and very entropically favorable. Catalysis cannot change the enthalpy or entropy of the reactions or starting materials. It only can alter the energy of the transition state. Per the principle of microscopic reversibility, all reactions are reversible, but the equilibrium in the case of the decomposition of LAH is enormously in favor of the products — and a catalyst can change the rate of a reaction but not the equilibrium.

So, in other words, I think the patented fluid heater is much like the E-cat HT described in the arXiv paper: it does generate heat, and its thermal output exceeds its stated electrical consumption, but not its actual electrical consumption. Roches (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE: given that the patent is for a water heater, and says nothing about the E-Cat, I can't see any reason why an article on the E-Cat should go into such detail. As for your personal analysis, and whether you think it 'works' or not, it isn't relevant to article content: we have to go by what reliable sources say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Roches' theoretical argument ignores the possibility that nuclear processes are involved, and I have heard that preliminary attempts to replicate the process described in the patent have found 'statistically significant isotope changes'. Further, the conclusion of the paper you cite is 'Even by the most conservative assumptions as to the errors in the measurements, the result is still one order of magnitude greater than conventional energy sources'. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Can I remind AtG that the E-cat is also a water heater and that Mats Lewan, who has given considerable attention to the E-cat for a number years, has stated that the patent appears to be of the E-cat. I can see no reason why the patent should have mentioned the E-cat, and bringing into the discussion the fact that it does not is a purely and simply a red herring. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I am well aware of what the promoters of the E-Cat (including Lewan, who is currently plugging a book on the it) have claimed about the device. The only relevant fact about the patent is however that it is for a fluid heater, not an 'energy catalyzer' - and accordingly, we will not describe it as anything but a patent for a fluid heater. If we need to discuss it at all, which seems open to debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The conclusion of the arXiv paper is based on the stated energy consumption of the E-cat HT. It is evident from some of the sources quoted in the article that the E-cat HT actually consumes more energy than it says it does, probably by an order of magnitude. I'm referring to the observations about the incorrectly connected ground wire, Rossi's refusal to allow the device to be unplugged, and so on. Dorigo's comment that the observers may have overlooked a simple trick also applies.

The description of the 'fluid heater' might be more detailed than is necessary for the article. It contains lithium, LAH and nickel, and Rossi's other publications are based on claims relating to nickel. The patent says that the fluid heater contains a heating element that is required to initiate the reaction and "reinvigorate" the fuel. I thought it was a really straightforward conclusion that the device would produce heat. As long as it is plugged in, it would be able to heat fluids. For several hours after it is first plugged in, the thermal decomposition of the lithium compounds will produce more heat than the electric heating element would ordinarily produce.

The arXiv paper describes how the E-cat was already set up when they began the test, and describes a steel tube containing a mystery powder and a heating element. The device was shut down after a number of hours. The patent describes a device that contains a 'fuel' with a stated composition and a heating element. If that fuel is heated, it will decompose and release a lot more heat. It will also release a lot of heat if it contacts water, or anything that can be reduced. It's interesting that the arXiv paper mentions a crack in the device, because the hydrogen produced will generate enough pressure to crack a closed container and the hydrogen will react with oxygen to form water.

I tried to write a summary that uses only the description in the patent, and then make the statement that the device will function as a fluid heater because it contains a heating element. That then has to be connected with the observations that the device uses more electricity than it says it does. I haven't followed this for years. I had read this article before, I saw the discussion on the fringe noticeboard, and just now read the arXiv paper and the patents. I can't avoid personal analysis on the talk page, but I think my conclusion is fairly straightforward given the chemistry involved in the claim. (The nuclear reaction is impossible and not happening. It releases a gamma ray and none are detected; that's stated several times in the article.) It should be possible to describe that conclusion using only the patents and the known reactions of LAH. That can't happen in the presence of anyone who doesn't want the mainstream science conclusion (I don't mean everyone who has discussed this here). So, it will probably be necessary for someone to test the present claim, which will result in a paper that's publishable in a peer-reviewed journal, and that could go in the article.

I don't want this comment to be misrepresented; I don't want to put anything in the article that is original research. I don't necessarily want to put the description of the fluid heater in the article. But the fluid heater and the E-cat are essentially the same device. The composition of the fuel described in the patent makes it evident how the E-cat HT actually operated in the test described in the arXiv paper. It is not possible to explain exactly how the observations were achieved, because a simple trick is being overlooked.

One last thing: at least two patents have been issued in China that are based on Rossi's theories and do mention cold fusion. Why aren't they mentioned here? Roches (talk) 11:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you add the information about the Chinese patents to the article? But the information about governmental funding support in Japan being restarted was removed with some excuse or other, and no doubt they'll find a way to remove that information similarly ('not notable', 'original research' or whatever — you name it!). --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Please don't change previous comments; a statement has been removed there is an addition about how I didn't say anything about a possible nuclear reaction. The 2015 patent doesn't say anything about a nuclear reaction. When the earlier application was rejected, it was stated that there is no evidence that the nuclear reaction described can occur. If a nuclear reaction did occur, even if somehow there was no gamma radiation, the products would include some that were radioactive, primarily beta emitters, and that could be observed after the reaction. And if the process ever made copper with natural isotopic abundance, that copper was not produced by a nuclear reaction. If the device previously produced natural-abundance copper and suddenly produces copper enriched in a certain isotope, then something is being overlooked. Likewise if copper was previously the product of interest and it has been shifted to a lighter element. Roches (talk) 12:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I can see that a statement of mine has disappeared though I can't link it to what you are saying but anyway I'm having problems tracking down the change. Perhaps you can indicated it using the history process -- click on 'view history', then click on the radio buttons for the before and after items, and then on the 'compare selected revisions', and then put in a link to the URL of the comparison page. --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Reliability of Mats Lewan as a source on the E-cat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

It ought to go without saying that merely having a degree in physics does not confer infallibility (or even much credibility) in all things physics-related. If Mats Lewan wishes to be taken seriously in his reports on the Energy Catalyzer, he need only publish results of his experiments on the device in credible, independent, peer-reviewed, scientific journals. A long history of self-publishing credulous nonsense is not a basis for asserting reliability as a source for Misplaced Pages's use. (As for Ny Teknik—how long has it been since they've let Lewan dribble more E-cat cheerleading on to their website? Lewan is a 'technology' reporter who blogs about new Apple products and such; any 'science' reporting is a sideline at best.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

It is not possible for Lewan to be an 'expert' in the E-Cat. There is no recognised field of expertise here. To open up Misplaced Pages to self-published sources whose sole claim to 'expertise' lies in fields unrecognised by academia and recognised scholarship would be to open it up to every purveyor of snake-oil, free-energy flim-flam and secrets of eternal life that appears. And I can only suggest that the fact that Professor Josephson made such a proposal is clear and unequivocal evidence of just how utterly at odds with the fundamental ethos of Misplaced Pages - as an encyclopaedic reflection of contemporary mainstream scientific and academic knowledge - he is. If he wants to promote Rossi's circus act, he can do so elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Lewan is a reasonable source for the news and business aspects of the E-Cat but for the scientific aspects we need much better sources (see WP:REDFLAG). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The problem with Lewan as a source regarding the 'news and business aspects of the E-Cat' is that like most sources he merely repeats Rossi's claims. The 'news' consists of reports of Rossi's performances, based on Rossi's version of events, and the 'business aspects' amount to unsubstantiated claims about undefined deals. Deals which have a history of simply disappearing from view when the next one comes along. Lewan is 'reliable' in as much as he reliably reports what Rossi says - no more, no less. Furthermore, the website he is being cited from is set up with the express purpose of selling a book which is only credible as long as the E-Cat is - he is not, accordingly, an uninvolved source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

It would be good to avoid wording that suggests a lack of objectivity on the part of the writer, all too common in these parts. There are lots of things wrong with the item by ATG; for example, if you look at the book you'll see that he does not simply repeat what Rossi says. Have you studied the book, by the way?
And let's get real, folks. What we are talking about isn't advanced science -- only school physics and chemistry should be needed to tell whether or not the patent looks like it refers to the e-cat. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed -- in fact, not even that level of scientific background is necessary to tell whether or not the patent refers to the E-Cat. The simple ability to parse written English shows that the patent says nothing whatsoever about the E-Cat, cold fusion, LENR, or nuclear processes more generally. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

You misunderstand me, Boris. There's a difference between 'referring to' and 'mentioning'. You are only referring to the latter. Let me explain the difference by an example. I may say 'there was a thunderstorm last week'. I would then be referring to a specific event at a specific time, but you won't see those details in my actual words. Get it? --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to add that I don't appreciate what appears to be a deliberate misunderstanding of my words (but if you tell me that it was unintentional I will accept your apology). --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I took what you said literally. In American English "refer to" is indeed a synonym for "mention." Apparently there is a British-English sense in which "refers to" is a synonym for "relates to" in a much broader sense; being a colonial that is not familiar to me. Whether the patent "relates to" the E-Cat is of course the very issue we are trying to sort out, so this seems like circular reasoning. (As an aside your example leaves me puzzled but we needn't delve further into the nuances of language.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Fine, I guess we are in agreement now over this particular point at least. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

A patent only has any validity in as much as it explicitly makes claims. The fact that those familiar with the E-Cat think that it is 'referring to' it has no bearing whatsoever on whether it actually patents anything other than a device for heating fluids in a conventional manner - though no doubt Rossi intends it to give that impression. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

It really should not be so difficult to understand (but apparently it is in your case) that if (contrary to what I know is your firm belief, but you should accept that it is at least possible that you are wrong in regard) the E-cat actually works as claimed, then if anyone copies the recipe and tries to market the result, what he will be selling is something that, regardless of whether or not there is reference to CF or whatever in the patent, will be heating a fluid in accord with the terms of the patent, and therefore violating the patent. The patent therefore provides a degree of protection. I suggest, with due respect, that you spend a little time thinking about the logic of this argument so we won't be bothered with your ill-informed objection once again in the future. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

'Protection' for a process (so far unexplained by science) which will only work in a device exactly as described in the patent? Yeah, right... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

No; it is very likely that significantly different processes, not protected by the patent, may also be able to generate significant amounts of heat. But if they don't work as well, Rossi will still have the advantage over competitors who might otherwise for example be able to reverse engineer his product and, in the absence of patent protection, sell their own version freely. In the long run someone may be able to do better, but until that happens Rossi will be making money from his own patent protected device -- if he succeeds in making it reliable enough that it is of practical use. There may be pitfalls on the way, of course, but still he is better off with the patent than without. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing 'very likely' involved here, beyond the high probability that this time next year Rossi will still be engaged in the same circus act, and the same believers will be trying to convince us that Misplaced Pages should abandon core policy in order to promote his magic electric kettle. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

We'll have to differ on this point -- time will tell. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. And when it does, so can Misplaced Pages. Meanwhile, per policy arrived at through community consensus, this article will represent the existing scientific perspective, rather than providing a platform for Rossi's latest purported'cure' for the worlds energy problems - time having already told on his previous efforts... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Meanwhile, things are progressing. Brian Josephson (talk) 14:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

So they say. Meanwhile, I imagine Rossi would have no problem accepting your money if you are so convinced he's right. jps (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

To answer the (obviously largely rhetorical) question at the head of this section. Lewan is a known shill for Rossi so his views on the water heater patent are suspect, and if they are also self-published then there is no way they should be included. Guy (Help!) 23:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a disgraceful slur on Lewan which I do not accept. Guy is missing a pretty obvious point, which that it is quite normal for people to write about the result of their research. Lewan's predominant research has been in regard to Rossi and the e-cat. It is quite natural for him to write about this, and that does not make him a 'shill' -- this is just your own misguided (and misguiding) misinterpretation. Someone, by the way, claimed once on these pages that Lewan was being paid by Rossi, but later admitted that he had got the wrong person. Brian Josephson (talk) 14:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

My objection to Lewan isn't that he is somehow in bed with Rossi but rather that he just isn't very smart and his blog does not pass the reliable sourcing standards we would expect. Let's find serious academics who study the subject, not people with one-off master's degrees who apparently are not too fond of the conservation of energy for whatever reason. jps (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Your own comment on conservation of energy isn't awfully smart itself, if I may say so. If a nuclear process is involved there'd be plenty of energy. --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Read through his blog. He doesn't believe in the conservation of energy. Anyway, I've removed all references to his blog because it's a terrible source. jps (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Conservation of energy

Might we have a source, please, for the statement that Lewan does not believe in the conservation of energy? No OR, please, and no quoting what others may have said, just his own exact words. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)\

Here he claims that 3 or 4 kWhrs of energy generated but doesn't say how it's generated. Magic, presumably. jps (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm ... . So no exact words: Lewan doesn't say that energy is not conserved as you suggested; neither does he refer to 'magic'. Rather dubious WP:OR on your part, it seems to me. Brian Josephson (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

OR is not permitted in articles, but I see this claim is not in the article. There is no prohibition against stating a conclusion from primary sources on Talk pages, only against inserting it into articles. Guy (Help!) 17:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not exactly interested in exposing this particular journalist to articlespace scrutiny. I don't think he's that noteworthy. jps (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

You are missing the point, Guy, not for the first time — I almost get the feeling that you do this deliberately with the aim of wasting my time but will however 'assume good faith'. jps claims that Lewan 'doesn't believe in the conservation of energy', but when pressed can't produce any proof, he merely thinks this is the case on clearly inadequate grounds. If he did rather more work than editors, rushing to get text they don't approve of removed, seem willing to do, he would study Lewan's inexpensive book and see that it is all about nuclear sources, in which case non-conservation of energy does not arise: the claim has no legs. Brian Josephson (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Any claim that Lewan is a credible source will also have to explain why someone pushing a conspiracy theory to the effect that 'big banks' and the U.S. military are engaged in a monumental cover up regarding LENR should be seen as 'reliable'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Reporting it, actually, not pushing it. He only goes as far as saying that the originator makes an 'intriguing case'. Brian Josephson (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Headline: "It seems big banks know about cold fusion". That is 'pushing it' by any reasonable definition. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I think one can put too much emphasis on the precise wording of the headline, which it seems to me does accurately summarise what the article reported is saying, not what Lewan himself believes, in which context it is relevant that in the discussion Lewan says 'I should add that this post is obviously quite speculative'. Brian Josephson (talk) 08:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Investment and commercialization

Re references to investment:

• one source cited is a business PRESS RELEASE service, and the press release contains the name of the authorized person releasing the information for the business, their phone, and their email address;
• the other source cited is a business journal published for the geographic area where the business is located confirming the validity of the press release.

Thus, the citations are proper and reliable. The flag is removed. Robert92107 (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not cite press releases for promotional claims. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is a difference between advertising and announcing. While the former is certainly inappropriate, a business giving news about its actions is certainly news. This news was also confirmed by a reputable news source. Since the press release gave additional useful information, it seems appropriate to give it. I can't give it without citing it, can I? Robert92107 (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

For example, I think I've seen Wiki articles about TV shows, where it says that a network has announced that it is renewing a series. Robert92107 (talk) 21:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Note also the business is not offering a product or service for sale in the announcement. So, there is no immediate financial incentive with this. Robert92107 (talk) 21:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

We do not cite press releases for promotional claims - and any claim regarding a new source of supposed cheap energy hitherto unknown to science made by a business proposing (or claiming) to market such a source is promotional by definition. I am going to remove the 'Investments and commercialization' section, as based entirely on material from the promoters. Please find third-party sourcing, and gain consensus before restoring the section. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

It is important to remember that the person "announcing" this has a past conviction for dishonesty, and is peddling a device which he has failed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of any independent scientific expert. Per WP:FRINGE, we treat questionable and extraordinary claims much more carefully than those which are plausible and mundane. If you like, I can find you an announcement by a homeopath which, if true, would overturn the laws of physics. He's a fraudster too. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

WRONG. The press release came from a real, well-respected company. Again, you don't seem to be reading what is actually said. How can I take what you say seriously when it looks like you don't know the basic data in the citations? Robert92107 (talk) 04:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that you people are NOT neutral!! I cite a business journal which cites an SEC filing. The invest is REAL, and you people are trying to suppress information about the business. GET REAL! You are NOT reading the material, nor looking at the sources I am citing. I don't have time now to get into this further, but you're REALLY wrong here! This is NOT about whether the device works, it's about whether or not a real company is making real investments. It is real, and it is. So, wise up guys!!! Robert92107 (talk)Wiki articles about TV shows, where it says that a network has announced that it is renewing a series

We are not trying to "suppress" information as you are free to discuss it or promote it as you wish on a wide variety of websites other than Misplaced Pages. It does not belong in Misplaced Pages. I read the two sources and they consist of a press release and a local business reporter restating what's in the press release. I oppose including this promotional material from this suspect company and its associates into the article. Cullen Let's discuss it 23:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I think Robert means 'suppress it from the article', which by any reasonable criteria you are doing. Brian Josephson (talk) 08:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

'Reasonable criteria' meaning whatever projects this unproven device in the most favourable light possible, regardless for any concerns towards proper encyclopaedic coverage. The facts of the matter are that there has been a long history of primary-sourced claims about business deals, 'factories' and investors, all of which have conveniently faded from view with little or no explanation when it has become apparent that nothing substantive is going to come of them. The eternal optimism of the E-Cat fan club seems largely contingent on at least a selective amnesia... AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, by 'reasonable' I refer to the way the word is used in the outside world, not as used by[REDACTED] editors. Unreasonable statements can easily be justified by unreasonable arguments, people can do it in their sleep. I'm reminded of the recently announced ruling in the Amanda Knox et al. case, where the judge talked of a 'flawed and hastily constructed' prosecution case. Brian Josephson (talk) 14:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Use of the term "suppression" is a very reliable marker for POV-pushing. According to proponents we suppress homeopathy, clairvoyance, ESP and a number of other claims which are generally agreed to be bullshit. Misplaced Pages has a systemic bias towards scientifically established fact. This is by design. If you want to promote the e-Cat, feel free to take it to one of the free-energy wikis. Guy (Help!) 10:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Really! Brian Josephson (talk) 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Yup. That and cries of "censorship". We old-timers have seen both a very great number of times. Guy (Help!) 14:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's move on. If better sources become available, we can revisit including more information. --Ronz (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe you have addressed Robert92107's 'inconvenient truth' in regard to (promotional) Wiki articles about TV shows, where it says that a network has announced that it is renewing a series, but please don't exert yourself to respond to that point. And I, a moderately old-timer by now, have seen a great number of what look like 'hastily constructed flawed arguments' from you people — one could pretty well fill a book chapter with them, I should imagine. — Brian Josephson (talk) 16:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Yup - and frankly, the comparison is absurd anyway. Routine announcements about future broadcasts are hardly on the same scale as claims that the world's energy problems are solved. Facile comparisons like this rather suggest desperation on the part of those who can't accept that Misplaced Pages follows mainstream science and isn't a platform for announcing its imminent overthrow. The same old arguments get rolled out time and again by people who simply refuse to accept that the consensus of the Misplaced Pages community determines article content policy, and not their personal agenda. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

It would be nice if 'credibility and rationality of the arguments' played a role in determining article content as well, but regrettably there is no effective mechanism for achieving this on w'pedia. Brian Josephson (talk) 08:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

DID YOU READ THE MATERIAL before you commented on it?? Where do you get off completely fabricating what it says? NOTHING that you said relates AT ALL to the material!!! Robert92107 (talk) 04:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I already covered this up there somewhere anyway. Mundane and plausible claims get a much lower bar than extraordinary claims repeatedly mae by a convicted fraudster without benefit of credible evidence - for rather obvious reasons. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

(ditto the above response) Robert92107 (talk) 04:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Once again, I'm seeing people arguing E-cat, but that is not what this section is about!!! I don't see you people saying that patents re E-cat or its components shouldn't be posted. Why then should reputable news organization business announcements be excluded?? It makes no sense! (Or, rather, the only sense it makes is of an overriding negative point of view -- you need to remember you should have a NPOV to edit this article!) Robert92107 (talk) 04:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

What I'm seeing above is blatant bias openly admitted. I'm seeing people saying that my "commercialization" notice is (1) not real because the product is a scam , (2) comes from unreliable sources, , (3) not allowed because it is promotional material , (4) it is not proof the system works , (5) it is a way to say the product works with no proof that it does , and (6) it is one of a series of meaningless business investments which will fail .

Now, if you "editors" want specific alterations because the material needs clarification that would be reasonable, but suppressing the entire section is NOT RIGHT! I want this news to be reasonably timely and accurate. You could say, "Well, we might report it in the future if it seems to be working," but I'm not sure that this is allowed either. I've seen a number of businesses posted in Misplaced Pages in advance of opening for business which ultimately don't work out. Why should this one not be allowed? This has real money being invested in this system. Real legal rights to it are being transferred to the new company. I do not see any serious justification above why this news should not be included here. I'm asking you politely to review your decision. If you can't come up with a serious justification I will request third-party review of this issue.

Personally, I would like to see it succeed, but there is no question it is NOT a workable product at this point. (I don't think anyone disagrees with this!) This company is trying to make a go of it. Ownership rights have been transferred to it. So, I think this is probably the most serious investment in the system. We will see what develops in due course, but prejudging this news is not appropriate. Robert92107 (talk) 03:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is recent exchange I had with with Cullen328. It includes more information about the sources. (Since he posted this on his page, as opposed to being in a private email, I will assume that he doesn't object to cross-posting it here.)

(Me first, I've added a few responses here which were not in the original)

Frankly, I am shocked that you can't see the obvious. If you read the press release (which is from a reputable press release agency) and the journal article, you will see that the article not only contains other information than the press release, it also specifically refers to talks they had with the company executives. One is not a copy of the other, it is a confirmation. The reason I used the press release was because it also had a significant piece of information that the journal article didn't which I considered significant to include.

Furthermore, the journal is a product of a large news company. This is what they say about themselves: "Who We Are: The Business Journals are the premier media solutions platform for companies strategically targeting business decision makers. We deliver a total business audience of over 10 million people via our 42 websites, 64 publications and over 700 annual industry leading events. Our media products provide comprehensive coverage of business news from a local, regional and national perspective. We have more people, publications and websites covering our nation’s business than any other business media organization." (http://www.bizjournals.com/about-us/)

Lastly, I noticed that someone on the web libeled Tom Darden, saying that this business was merely a scam. Unfortunately, Darden is an extremely wealthy investor who has a very strong reputation as an environmentalist and innovative business investor. He has employed scientists to examine the device before he bought the rights to it, so clearly he believes in its potential. The fact that he is throwing serious money at it to see if it can be made into a stable enough product so as to be commercialized is VERY significant. (In fact, they are running continuous tests on a 1 MW E-cat system for a year, with about 6 months to go. I also saw an interview with Rossi in which he said they were learning things about how to better control the process. How this will turn out is not a forgone conclusion, but it seems promising, although of course that can't be said yet.)

Somehow you don't see this business and its effort is significant? To me, NOT reporting this effort is irresponsible. Industrial Heat LLC is also beginning to file patents (since it owns E-cat rights). This is also significant, and this section links Rossi with IH LLC, which is otherwise not explained in the patent information.

So, how can you justify NOT including the information I tried to post? From what I see, what you and the others say makes no sense. (That is, it does make sense, but it simply doesn't apply here.) It looks to me like you either haven't read the information I gave, or properly checked out the sources. Robert92107 (talk) 05:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's Darden's bio on http://sovereignscapital.com/project/tom-darden/ : Tom Darden is the Chief Executive Officer of Cherokee, an environmentally focused investment firm. Cherokee utilizes both private equity and internal venture capital to generate social, environmental and economic returns. Cherokee Ventures began investing in startup and venture-stage companies in 1984 and has since completed more than 70 investments, using internal capital. Cherokee Funds made its first brownfield investment in 1990 and has since raised five private equity funds focused on brownfield remediation: $50 million in 1996, $250 million in 1999, $620 million in 2003, $200 million in 2005 and $1.24 billion in 2006. From 1981 to 1983, he was a consultant with Bain & Company in Boston. Mr. Darden serves on the Board of Governors of the Research Triangle Institute as well as the boards of Crown Financial Ministries, Shaw University and the Environmental Defense Fund. Mr. Darden earned a Masters in Regional Planning from the University of North Carolina, a Juris Doctor from Yale Law School and a Bachelor of Arts from the University of North Carolina, where he was a Morehead Scholar. He and his wife, Jody, have three grown children. Robert92107 (talk) 06:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I will consistently oppose any promotional content whatsoever regarding Rossi's E-Cat, which I really and truly believe to be a scam and a con game. I believe that Darden has wasted his money and his investors' money. Do you really think I care whether he has two, three or four children, and so on? And all that stuff about how rich he is? No, I don't. Not in the slightest. But that is not the main point. What matters is what the highest quality reliable sources say, not a local business journal admittedly repeating a press release.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If the claims about the E-Cat are true, then it will revolutionize the world economy. And Misplaced Pages will document that in abundance as the indisputable evidence pours in, as coal, oil and natural gas companies fold up shop, people stop selling solar panels and wind generators, and as Rossi is awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics plus every medal, award and acclammation imaginable. All of that will be documented in an abundance of the highest quality reliable sources. If I am correct, none of that will happen, and the E-Cat will be just another anecdote in the long history of con games.

Let me say again, this section does not make "extraordinary claims"! It is merely attempting to state the facts of the company formation, that it gained rights to E-cat, over $11 million has been invested in the company, they are attempting to make the E-cat a reliable system, and that they only made the investment after having some scientists look at it. That is most of what it said, and it came from reliable sources. Any other E-cat considerations are immaterial to the question should this news be posted or not.

In the mean time, I will oppose any and all promotional edits to Misplaced Pages regarding the E-Cat until the very highest reliable sources worldwide cover it in detail. Nobel Prize, anyone? Cullen Let's discuss it 06:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Since the press release is not attempting to generate any business, your objection seems irrational and immaterial. Further, the standard you propose I doubt is a valid Misplaced Pages standard. In a word, you seem to be too prejudiced to exercise edit control of this article.

You are missing the obvious. The investment and commercialization section is not about IF IT WORKS OR DOESN'T ... it is about investments in the technology. YOUR BIAS is affecting your judgement. IF THEY CAN'T GET IT WORKING, then that will be reported as well. IF THEY DO, that will be reported as well. However, news of either sort will come out in the future. Right now, this is significant news about someone making significant investment in the system. THAT is what is being reported, and what you are refusing to post. In other words, you are happy to report inconclusive reports about if it works, but not willing to post entirely accurate news about investment and ownership information about the system. Don't you see that this makes no sense? You are clearly showing bias here, and as a result the article is not current and accurate about the system. Robert92107 (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The word "commercialization" is an obvious attempt to imply that this scam or self-delusion is legitimate. You will need to produce vastly better sources than that press release and its repeat in a local business journal to get me to agree with any edits that imply or hint in any way that E-Cat works. If a major, respected peer reviewed physics journal says it is legitimate, followed by major stories in the world's leading newspapers, then I will happily reconsider. Until then, I remain opposed and will not be budged. Cullen Let's discuss it 02:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

You are putting value judgements in play here. Please focus on the facts, present and not imagined. If this attempt is successful or not will come out in the future, but you do not have sufficient knowledge to make the claims you are making. The business gave future goals for marketing the product; that is commercialization, but it is a FUTURE activity. So, I added "commercialization" to the section heading to be thorough. I am perfectly content to change it to "Investment" only if that would help you focus on what is real.

Let me reiterate, I will request a neutral third party review of this matter if you guys don't start acting responsibly. Robert92107 (talk) 04:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

A third party will support an article based either on evidence or on press releases, and so will be "biased" in one direction or the other. The article is about a claimed device that generates energy, not a company that generates patents. Johnuniq (talk) 05:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Apart from the philosophical position that "everyone has some sort of bias", attempting to maintain a NPOV is what is required by all editors. Here what I see is some "long-time editors" not actually responding to the points I'm raising, but rather raising their own agenda. That's provable based on what they are saying. Their approach is wrong. As to the idea that the article cannot contain information about a company involved with the device because the section is not about the operation of the device itself that seems a bit absurd. Are you suggesting that what I really need to do is create a new W article titled something like "Energy catalyzer business"? The only justification for something like that would seem to be article length, but that doesn't apply here. The ownership of E-cat has changed; that is one of the significant news items that is this new section. Robert92107 (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

@Robert92107: there are already more than two parties involved, so a third opinion is not a great choice of dispute resolution. The reliable sources noticeboard is thataway if you want additional opinions. Whether you post here or there, it would be helpful if you worked on brevity and explained why you feel a press release meets the requirements listed at WP:SELFSOURCE for the information it is intended to support. VQuakr (talk) 07:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm certainly not an expert in Misplaced Pages administration, but it seemed to me that it would be good to have a neutral third party (and the numbers involved in each side are not really the issue here, since we're talking about positions) examine the evidence and give their own impartial response. As to why this news is "W newsworthy", I have succinctly said that a serious investor is attempting to make the system a workable product, and has raised a company with over $11 million in funds to attain that goal. THAT is significant news concerning an idea that has lurking around the fringes of the energy sector for decades now. People who say this business is a scam are wrong , and people who say it is impossible to do are prejudging the issue . I see a lot of bias in how these "editors" are responding, and I believe that a neutral third party would see it as well. I am only being factual in my position, they are not. Actually, I have been very brief in the core material. It's just that others don't seem able to focus on point. Robert92107 (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

@Robert92107: You can try, but you might find yourself hit by the WP:BOOMERANG. You have a long-time editors and admins already involved here, and the "keep asking until you get the answer you want" approach is not especially popular on Misplaced Pages (see WP:IDHT). Guy (Help!) 09:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

This is another example of people not reading what I've said. There have been only two points raised that might seem somewhat relevant: (1) W doesn't allow any business-promotional press release data , and (2) the sources have only "press release" data . The other objections raised just do not concern what this section is about. Indeed, it explicitly acknowledges that the E-cat is not a working product! The biases of these "editors" is dreadfully apparent, since they do not want to see anything in this article unless it in some way debunks or disproves it. The investment data does neither. So, why can't these "editors" maintain the required W standard of NPOV? Robert92107 (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Guide for the uninitiated: 'long-term editor' equates to 'more experienced at gaming the system'. Brian Josephson (talk) 17:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. If an "editor" can't reexamine his position when he's called out for lack of NPOV, then shouldn't he recuse himself? It appears to me perhaps this article has been hijacked by those who only want negative information to appear here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert92107 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 10 September 2015‎ Robert92107

Robert92107, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of Misplaced Pages. We are not here to provide promotion for the E-Cat, and we certainly aren't going to state that any investor has provided 'over $11 million in funds' towards it - because we have no source whatsoever for that assertion. Industrial Heat certainly claim to have raised $11 million - but an no point have they ever stated that this is all going towards the E-Cat. We simply don't know what 'rights' they have acquired, what they paid for such 'rights', or what their plans are. And the context for this needs to be understood - this is not the first claimed 'investor' to be discussed in relation to the E-Cat (see the supposed Dekaflon deal) and nor is it the first time that Rossi has talked about the device going into production. The history of the E-Cat is littered with such claims (including a mystery 'factory' in the U.S. which failed to materialise) and we have no reason to consider the latest claims any more credible than past ones - if we were to include Industrial Heat, we would likewise be required to report on Dekaflon, on the mystery 'factory' and on all the other unsubstantiated claims made in regard to supposed commercialisation of the E-Cat. It would be entirely misleading to do otherwise. AS for getting a 'third opinion', this article has been the subject of discussion on Misplaced Pages noticeboards many times, and there is no evidence that the editing of this article is in any way contrary to the wishes of the Misplaced Pages community - per policy, Misplaced Pages reflects mainstream science, maintains a healthy scepticism towards promotional claims of scientific breakthroughs, and resolutely resists the attempts of promoters of questionable 'inventions' whether they be supposed energy-producing devices, unverified 'cures' or whatever. This is an encyclopaedia, reporting the best of contemporary knowledge, as reported within the scientific mainstream - it is not a provider of free advertising for the unproven and unverifiable. If you want to promote the E-Cat, you will have to do so elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it is a poor thing when anybody fails to reappraise their prior position in response to new evidence. If and when Rossi produces some, I am sure we'll look at it and see if we need to change the content, but thus far all he's done is blow smoke, and that is precisely what the content you advocate amounts to. Guy (Help!) 22:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Investment and commercialization section (data and summary arguments for third party review purposes)

(This data is included to provide a quick entry to the item under discussion. The entire discussion, of course, can be read, but you might want to read the below first.)

Investments and commercialization (for review)

On January 24, 2014, Cherokee Investment Partners through its startup Industrial Heat LLC acquired the intellectual property and licensing rights to Rossi’s E-Cat. J. T. Vaughn, manager of Industrial Heat LL, and founder of Cherokee McDonough Challenge (an accelerator for environmental startups), noted that performance validation tests were conducted in the presence of their staff and validated by an independent expert before the rights were purchased.

Terms of the deal were not announced, but a US Securities filing reported that $11.6 million has been invested in the firm. Vaughn said the firm is most interested in making the technology more widely available to universities, non-governmental organizations, and industry partnerships to further its development.

Summary of objections which relate to the above data are: (1) press release materials should not ever be included in W articles, (2) only press release data is included in the section, and (3) the sources used are not reliable, and (4) while investments are clearly included, "commercialization" clearly is not indicated, and it implies acceptance of the E-cat as a workable system.

Response to (4): agreed that the section title goes beyond what is known and proveable, so I think dropping "and commercialization" is reasonable. It does relate to the company's goals, but that is not that significant at this point. If they do get a workable system and are prepared to go beyond demonstration, then it would make sense.

Rebuttals to objections (1) to (3) are as follows:

(no time now, will add later) Robert92107 (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

References

1. "Industrial Heat Has Acquired Andrea Rossi's E-Cat Technology". PR Newswire Association LLC. Retrieved 7 September 2015.
2. "Confirmed: Raleigh's Cherokee buys into controversial nuclear tech device". Triangle Business Journal. Jan. 24, 2014. Retrieved 7 September 2015. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Robert, you need to read, learn and understand WP:RS before you get blocked for your fringe advocacy. Press releases are not independent sources. Scammers' victims rarely realise they have been scammed until some way down the line. What matters - and I mean, here ALL that matters - is Rossi proving his claims via independently replicable tests. Not demonstrations to potential marks, but actual controlled tests monitored and assessed by real scientists. Come back when that's been done. Right now, even the cold fusionists know Rossi is a fraud: http://news.newenergytimes.net/2014/10/12/rossi-handles-samples-in-alleged-independent-test-of-his-device/ Guy (Help!) 23:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Why is it you keep saying things that are not true?

FACT, I am not advocating that E-cat works or not.

FACT, I am not promoting any company (nor do I have any connections with them).

FACT, the press release about the company is only cited because it adds information not included in a business news reporter's article about the company. The latter confirms the former, and both are reputable sources. (If necessary I could ask the principal party directly if you can't accept these sources.)

FACT, the section gives information about a change in legal ownership of the E-cat system, as well as the goals of the company re the system.

FACT, Industrial Heat LLC is not a scam. It is a legally recognized company with SEC filings to prove it.

FACT, you are wrong in saying that the only thing that needs to be proved is Rossi's claims. This section has nothing to do with that, and you do not have the right to arbitrarily determine that this is the only information that is allowed in this article. The article by definition has a more general scope, and legal ownership and business activities logically fit within the topic of the article.

FACT, I have no fears of "being blocked for fringe advocacy" because I AM NOT DOING ANY OF THAT! (I have said this is in a number of ways repeatedly, but you just don't seem to listen.) I think that the world is now facing incredible challenges, and science and engineering are making some incredible advances. So, I am very curious to how this will work out, and think that others who look into this topic should know that this story is ongoing with a new actor. That is the extent of my "commitment" to E-cat, that is, a commitment to the truth. However, you seem to be wedded to a bias, in contravention to Misplaced Pages requirements. I know that, on the other hand, I am not biased; I am merely seeking to get relevant facts into the record. I would welcome any number of independent reviews of what I'm trying to post re this recent news about Industrial Heat LLC. If others who are independent have suggestions to correct problems or improve text, I certainly will welcome their input. By definition Misplaced Pages articles are collaborative affairs. I've updated other articles and never run into such irresponsible "editing" as I've encountered here, and I stand by my characterization of that.

BTW, I know that the past of the E-cat is littered with false starts and failed announcements. Also, Defkalion (I saw it misspelled) is not directly connected with Rossi, since they had a split a long time ago, and they have said in the past that their version differed in some significant ways from Rossi's. I have not been following them lately, and I don't know if they've even survived the Greek financial collapse. However. none of this is relevant to the question under discussion here, is it? Robert92107 (talk) 01:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

FACT: there are no reliably-sourced details whatsoever explaining what 'change in legal ownership of the E-cat system', if any, has taken place - all we know is that IH and Rossi agree that IH has paid Rossi an unspecified sum of money for unspecified 'rights'. There is nothing substantive to report. It isn't 'news', it is PR, in regard to yet more implausible claims made concerning a device that has a long history of such claims, none of which ever come to anything. Misplaced Pages does not base content on regurgetated press releases that tell us nothing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

REBUTTAL: The very first sentence of the news journal says, "Executives at Cherokee Investment Partners in Raleigh have confirmed that its affiliate company, Industrial Heat LLC, has acquired the intellectual property and licensing rights to a nuclear device from Italy that some say could one day replace electric or fossil fuels" (emphasis added). Further, IH LLC also recently filed an international patent. So, the right are NOT unspecified, they are clear, and they are powerful, since IH LLC can file their own patents on the device and its components. What is not clear about that? Robert92107 (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

FACT: Repeatedly shouting FACT underlines the FACT that you are engaged in a campaign to boost this implausible and unproven device which is promoted by a convicted fraudster, and credibly identified in reliable sources as a scam. That FACT means you are on dodgy ground. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

No, saying 'fact' in this context is a purely a means of drawing the attention of readers of this page to the important fact that a number of things that have been stated here, as if they were facts, are in reality not facts. Brian Josephson (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

REBUTTAL: The device will stand or fall by how this development turns out; I cannot make it into something that it isn't. What is news is that a significant capital investment company started a company to basically work on the device. That is news, and ignoring it isn't justifiable. Robert92107 (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

When you say "rebuttal", you appear to mean repeatedly pulling arguments out of your butt. You're right, you can't make it into something it isn't: for example, you can't make it into a legitimate business by citing press releases, even after they have been credulously repeated by a local paper. Read WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. We don't give equal weight to respected popular science journals and the claims of convicted fraudsters, for example. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The press release is by definition promotional, and carries no weight for inclusion. Given the nature of the device, using the press release for additional details would be problematic. The local business journal coverage gives no weight for anywhere beyond the Raleigh area. Until we have better sources, I think it should be kept out, per WP:NOTNEWS especially. --Ronz (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

REBUTTAL: The business journal is one specific to where the companies are located, hence it has direct knowledge of the people involved. The article also mentioned talking with the company officers. So, that is why the article title starts off with CONFIRMED. The journal is also owned by a large business journal organization (as I've indicated above). So, this objection is akin to saying a news article in a local newspaper can't be counted because it isn't national? That makes no sense. The source is credible. Robert92107 (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not base article content on regurgitated press releases. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

NOTNEWS says, "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. " --Ronz (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, one does not want all newsworthy events to be faithfully included: discrimination is needed. The acquistion of rights or whatever by IH is, in my judgement at least, a particularly significant event that ought to be included. It's a pity that some people seem unable to appreciate its significance. Brian Josephson (talk) 19:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

That is the essence of editorial judgment: weighing up if something is actually newsworthy (rather than, as we see here, a press release picked up by one local paper and a magazine that is, albeit gratifyingly skeptical, definitely taking sides), and, if it is newsworthy, is it significant. A significant financial report will be in the financial press. Guy (Help!) 13:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• A single-purpose account (and fan of Josephson) mentions this reality-based commentary: http://www.popsci.com/article/science/dubious-cold-fusion-machine-acquired-north-carolina-company - I still don't think it's significant, given that this happened over 18 months ago and nothing has come of it. Guy (Help!) 12:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

  Seems to indicate significance, as well as supporting the inclusion of even more criticism of the product and claims made about it, especially the "tests". --Ronz (talk) 16:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Guy/JzG seems not to appreciate the timescales frequently needed to develop a product to the point where it can be sold widely. And it is quite an exaggeration to infer that the source is a fan of mine purely on the basis of the fact that he refers to a video on the e-cat made by myself and a staff member in our Materials Science department. What point is being made here? And again, what does Guy/JzG mean calling that account a 'single-purpose' one — the site claims to cover all of 'popular science'? Let me just make the point (re Ronz's comment) that I have no objection to critical comments being included, as long as they are not being used in a sufficiently unbalanced way as to end up pushing a PoV. Brian Josephson (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

18 months with no further discussion of the IP purchase in reliable independent sources, means nothing has yet come if it. We're not in the crystal ball business, and actually the earliest comments describing it as a scam are over four years old (and there is as yet not one single credible piece of evidence to support Rossi's claims). It's also worth remembering that Rossi has a history of dishonesty. I know you believe in this thing, and I don't. That does not matter a hill of beans. What matters, for Misplaced Pages policy, is what the scientific consensus shows (and for cold fusion devices that is not favourable), and what is shown in reliable independent sources. The second word if that triumvirate is particularly important. Guy (Help!) 00:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Just so you know, I am following the discussion on this page and looking at every link. Obviously it would not be appropriate for a DRN volunteer to comment or take sides, but I am paying attention. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

And just so you know, I have withdrawn from the voluntary dispute resolution procedure, since it has become apparent that Guy Macon sees no reason to include himself when issuing (appropriate) instructions to comment on content rather than behaviour (See discussion on the DRN talk page ). I do not consider this to be 'moderation', and I would advise others taking part to likewise consider whether it might be appropriate to withdraw, rather than be faced with accusations of policy violations (concerning those on both sides of this dispute) in a context where they cannot respond. It should be remembered that participation in DRN is voluntary, and that any outcome is non-binding. And DRN discussions cannot overrule policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I wouldn't bother pursuing the issue because people have far too many more pressing problems to deal with, and they won't be interested in this. I notice that despite all the words used, no one has addressed core issues such as what the topic of the article is, and how the proposed text relates to that. It won't get any better. It's a shame because now those supporting the inappropriate edit will be convinced they should keep pushing. If DRN were working, the situation could have been quickly explored, then a firm statement of standard procedures explained. Johnuniq (talk) 07:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you really think that it is appropriate to go to the talk page of an article that is being discussed at DRN and encourage those involved to dig in their heels and not resolve the dispute?

Why not go to DRN and make your argument concerning "core issues such as what the topic of the article is and how the proposed text relates to that"? That seems like a discussion that could change some minds if you were to present a compelling argument. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Guy, I respect your attempt to resolve this, but in sometimes you just have to face the fact that minds aren't going to be changed. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I have avoided the DRN process as well, partly because I have a bunch of commitments outside Misplaced Pages at the moment that would preclude substantive participation, and mostly because what I expected to happen there seems to be happening. (That is, the DRN discussion is just another front in the same filibustering war, where the E-cat's mostly-civil POV promoters are asking the other parent in the hopes of getting a slightly greater edge.)

A possibly instructive comparison is to another, similarly non-functional 'alternative physics' cold-fusion-esque device and company, in the form of BlackLight Power. (See also Talk:BlackLight Power#Did Roosevelt County Electric actually buy anything in 2008, and did BLP actually deliver?.)

• Like this article, that one slowly and steadily accumulated a list of claimed business ventures and collaborations. Generally, the claims were sourced to one-off or passing mentions in a mix of reliable sources, unreliable blogs, local 'business news' outlets, and press releases.
• Like this article, that one suffered from the 'dog that didn't bark' problem—there would be an initial announcement that made a sufficiently (if barely) bright enough flash in the pan to be mentioned (briefly) in a few independent news outlets. There would then be months and years of no additional news on any of the announcements.
• Like this article, that one ended up being a blog that listed news stories as they arrived, but failed to ever look back, fact check, follow up, or otherwise acknowledge that the initial, rosy, highly-speculative stories never really turned into meaningful announcements of real products or scientific publications.

Earlier this year, I and other editors realized that this was a problematic state of affairs. Misplaced Pages was being used as a promotional (or at least highly-credulous) blog of announcements, rather than engaging in any sort of critical analysis or maintaining sensible editorial oversight and judgement. At the time, the article contained a claim that BlackLight Power (BLP) had reached a licensing agreement with an electric utility to supply up to 250 MW of electricity and/or cogenerated heat. Ultimately, it was decided to remove the claim from our article because there was very little information about the deal, and no evidence that anything meaningful had ever resulted from the licensing agreement in terms of energy production, installed equipment, or anything else. (And BlackLight Power is a paragon of openness and transparency compared to the E-Cat, Industrial Heat, and Rossi.)

It looks like the E-Cat is carrying on exactly the same way: announcements followed by silence, over and over again, with no apparent institutional 'memory' of what they've announced before. We should treat their announcements in the same way—no additional coverage until their claims are independently substantiated. We're not the E-Cat blog. If an announcement isn't important enough to warrant follow-up my credible, major news outlets, then the announcement probably wasn't important to begin with. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

Fortune Article

How can this not be reliable? The other stuff from Triangle Business News can be added as background information. And I'm taking Featherstone out of the lead. Alanf777 (talk) 16:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

You did rather more than that: you placed your view of the significance of the fact of investment ahead of a WP:RS view of the fraudulent nature of Rossi's claims. The source you cite does not state that the investment validates the claims. Getting people to throw money down the drain is Rossi's business model, the fact that it happened again does not affect the unproven status of the device or Rossi's history of fraud and unsubstantiated claims. Guy (Help!) 16:40, 28 September 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