Talk:Energy Catalyzer: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia


Article Images

After a hiatus I have read this article again. I noticed this line in the "Demonstrations" section:

"In many ways cold fusion is similar to perpetual motion machines. The principles defy the laws of physics, but that doesn’t stop people from periodically claiming to have invented or discovered one."

Although it is an attributed direct quote, I think it misleads the WP-reader. If LENR are a real effect, the principles do NOT defy the laws of physics in such way that LENR would be a "perpetual motion machine". It would be just another nuclear power source.

It is still OK to call the whole Rossi show "fishy", but the analysis of Benjamin Radford seems a bit out of touch with describing the actual problem. I therefore propose to delete that bit.

Interestingly on the upcoming Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space meeting on 21-23 March [1] Yeong E. Kim will be speaking on his Bose Einstein Condensation theory [2] and George Miley will be presenting "A Game-Changing Power Source Based on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs)"[3]

Miley mentions Rossi in his presentation: "Excess heat generation from our gas-loading LENR power cell (Figure 1) has been verified, confirming nuclear reactions provide output energy. While there are similarities between ours and the Rossi E-Cat gas-loaded kW-MW LENR cells that have attracted international attention, there are important differences in nanoparticle composition and cell construction."

--POVbrigand (talk) 15:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but it's based on a hypothetical: "If LENR are a real effect, the principles to NOT defy the laws of physics." In Wikipedia we describe the world as it is, not as it might be someday. Should LENR (or creationism, or perpetual motion, or whatever) become accepted by the scientific community we can revisit the matter. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about whether LENR is accepted by mainstream science or not. I am only proposing to delete one quote. By removing that quote I do not want to make the Rossi claim more believable to the WP-reader, it is just a flawed comparison. LENR (or its hypothesis if you will) and perpetual motion have nothing in common. LENR are nuclear processes consuming nuclear fuel. Perpetual motion machines are per definition not consuming fuel.
And if LENR are not a real effect they also do not defy the laws of physics, correct ?
So if LENR are real or not is irrelevant, either way they are not perpetual motion machines. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody claims they are the same, only that both violate known laws of physics. Perpetual motion machines violate basic laws of thermodynamics. Current LENR devices would, if they worked on the proposed principles, violate lesser known, but no less understood, laws of nuclear physics - as I understand it, there is no way for fusion that will not produce hard gamma rays. None of the proposed devices show signs of such gamma rays. But there is another significant similarity: Both perpetual motion and cold fusion devices have a following among people that have, at best, a marginal understanding of the physics. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Marginal understanding of physics". You mean Yeong E. Kim and George H. Miley ? --POVbrigand (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't say that all those involved are ignorant of physics, just that they have following among people that have a marginal understanding. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stereotypes are trite.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk 21:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"LENR are nuclear processes consuming nuclear fuel". No - they are hypothetical processes claimed to produce power by consuming nuclear fuel. The source cited doesn't say they are perpetual motion machines. It says that the claims made appear to defy the laws of physics, as do perpetual-motion machines. The comparison is being made by Benjamin Radford because he suggests that "If this all sounds fishy to you, it should" and similar hype (sometimes on the same forums being used to promote this device) is created over supposed perpetual-motion devices. Frankly, I think that it is Rossi and his colleagues that are ultimately responsible for this - if they want to associate themselves with pesn.com and the like, rather than submitting the device for proper scientific scrutiny, they can hardly complain about comments regarding 'perpetual motion'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By that rationallity i might as well say that "Cold fusion is similar to a magic wand, The principles defy the laws of physics, but that doesn’t stop people from periodically claiming to have invented or discovered one."

this is just stupid... LENR is an emerging science, as such, it does not yet have the background in solid evidence to support itself solidly, yet more is coming every day. This is extremely different from perpetual motion machines and magic wands, they are in only a very small way comparable... and that isn't good enough for wikipedia quality.118.93.15.111 (talk) 10:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as "an emerging science" - it is either 'science', and based on 'solid evidence', or it isn't. And predicting the results of yet-to-be-done experiments ("more is coming every day") is bad science. In any case, given that Rossi is now claiming that there are no nuclear reactions going on in his device, what has LENR got to do with the subject of this article? Or are we only to take Rossi's word for something when it promotes this hypothetical 'science'. This article is about the E-Cat - a device that as yet has never been scientifically tested, promoted by a character with a dubious past, a criminal record, and a propensity for making wild unverifiable claims. Frankly, why anyone with a serious interest in LENR as a science would want to associate the subject with Rossi's antics is beyond me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"perpetual motion machine" is a quote from a mainstream publication, criticizing a quote doesn't mean we can change it or censor it. Bhny (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes correct, there is no WP-policy prohibiting the use of this quote, it _can_ be used. The quote also seems to help to keep NPOV as it shows that the whole story should be regarded as "fishy". But, The trouble is in what the quote implies, it might mislead WP-readers to think that the energy catalyzer is a perpetual motion machine ("in many ways similar") and that the "principles defy the laws of physics", which may not be the case at all.
Note for instance this natural effect: Lightning strikes produce free neutrons, and we're not sure how (peer reviewed experimental measurements) that can be explained by the Widom-Larsen-Srivastava theory (peer reviewed theory proposal) -> see the Lewis Larsen's comments below the arstechnica article.
Does lighting defy the laws of physics ? Surely not. The proposed theory does not defy the laws of physics either. And that same theory also explains Ni-H LENRs, thus also explains what the energy catalyzer is claimed to do. Which does not imply that the energy catalyzer really does work the way it is claimed.
I am not arguing that this quote is offending policy, I am just highlighting that the usage of the quote is troublesome. We should ask ourselves how WP-readers might "parse" this line and if it will set them of in the wrong direction.
This is a consensus topic. I have highlighted it, to me it is troublesome. A clever rewrite of the quote would probably defuse this issue.
Or we might just wait another couple of days, when it becomes obvious to everyone else that this whole cold fusion/LENR field is a completely legitimate science topic. Which _still_ would not imply that Rossi claims are true.
--POVbrigand (talk) 09:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In your case you appear to be making an original synthesis, in the case of Bhny it is what someone stated in connection to the topic (with due weight). IRWolfie- (talk) 09:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not making synthesis. If it appears that way to you, then it appears to me that you haven't understood it at all. Everything I wrote is not my synthesis, read Lewis's comments. Have you watched the CERN colloquium presentation by Srivastava ? He explicitely mentioned lighting ! I have just presented it here so editors will be able to understand better why I think the quote is troublesome. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so the link is made by a primary source then? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, by the authors of the peer reviewed paper, by means of a comment to an article on a technology news and information website and by a presentation at a CERN colloquium. I think you are evading the issue, trying to drag this discussion to a confrontation instead of a cooperation. --POVbrigand (talk) 10:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
POVb, I think you should put your crystal ball away for now. We have a comment that reflects the commonly held perspective of science as it is now - and if mainstream science changes its position on LENR (if...), the quote would still be valid as an expression of the perspective at the time it was made. And how many times does it have to be explained that this isn't an article about LENR, it is an article about Rossi's device... AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the quote is valid. We _can_ use it. I think that it might mislead some WP-readers and I have explained why. And yes, the quote would still be valid if (if...) LENR is accepted as proven by mainstream science (which will probably happen in 2,5 weeks), but we would use it very differently to showcase how ignorant tech writers used popular misnomers to comment on issues they knew nothing about.
This is a consensus topic. If y'all think it is perfectly ok to leave this quote in like this, then so be it. I have made my point.
--POVbrigand (talk) 13:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, if in 5 weeks time the scientific consensus has changed, we can look at the article again. Though why anyone is researching into LENR, when your infinite supply of optimism is so much easier to tap into, is beyond me... ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "If in 5 weeks time the scientific consensus has changed..." (quite generous, given the original "Wait another couple of days, when it becomes obvious to everyone else that this whole cold fusion/LENR field is a completely legitimate science topic" prediction), it has been two weeks with no change in the scientific consensus. I have my calendar marked at the 5-week point. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting development, though sadly only currently discussed in primary sources, and in other places unsuitable for Wikipedia sourcing.[4] In response to a complaint to the Florida Bureau of Radiation Control that Rossi was claiming to be manufacturing nuclear reaction devices in the state, but apparently had none of the certifications required for such production, enquires were made, and Rossi was contacted by a bureau inspector, Jim Stokes:

"I spoke with [Mr.] Rossi concerning the construction and operation of his E-Cat device. He stated the active ingredients are powdered nickel and a tablet containing a compound which releases hydrogen gas during the process. [Rossi states that] the output thermal energy is six times the electrical energy input. He acknowledged that no nuclear reactions occur during the process and that only low-energy photons in the energy range of 50 to 100 KeV occur within the device. There are no radiation readings above background when the device is in operation. Since the device is not a reactor, the [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] does not have jurisdiction. Since there [are] no radioactive materials used in the construction and no radioactive waste generated by it, the state of Florida Bureau of Radiation Control has no jurisdiction. [Rossi states that] currently all production, distribution and use of these devices is overseas. [Rossi states that he] has arranged to meet with Underwriters Laboratories (UL) to seek approval for manufacture in the United States. I thanked [Mr.] Rossi for his time meeting with me."[5]

Two things stand out here. Firstly, contrary to Rossi's earlier assertions regarding nuclear reactions, regarding the need for lead shielding etc, and the concerning the supposed presence in used nickel powder of elements not previously present, he is now seemingly claiming that no nuclear reactions occur during the process, and secondly, contrary to his earlier claims, the E-Cats are not being manufactured in the United States at all. Now where the devices are being manufactured is actually of little significance to our article, but the fact thar Rossi himself is now saying that there are no nuclear reactions occuring will make much of the present article content outdated. Of course, as yet we have no appropriate secondary sources for this, but I suspect that it can only be a matter of days before this development is reported in the mainstream media - I'll ask everyone watching this talk page to pay particular attention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a prohibition for using original sources in Wikipedia. You need to be careful about how they are used and POV arguments certainly can be raised when they are misused, but it is a falsehood to suggest that original sources from something like a governmental agency can't be used in an article like this. In that sense, if you don't trust New Energy Times, all of these documents could be accessed directly from the State of Florida and thus be put into the article. I certainly would put the Florida Bureau of Radiation Control as a reliable source of information.
This said, it looks like Rossi wants to have his cake and eat it too. I am suspicious about this Gary Wright as well, as I don't think his motivations are as pure as he is suggesting "as a concerned citizen", but I also think that almost anybody could have started this "investigation", so his motivations for getting it started are irrelevant. That said, I don't think there are going to be radioactive materials in any of the products Rossi is trying to make, at least not until the device is activated. The laws for nuclear energy are written under the assumption you are using fission devices and heavy elements like Uranium and Thorium as fuel sources, and fusion devices aren't really covered under those laws. People who have building Fusors generally don't have problems with regulators because of that, in part because radioactive materials aren't being transported or used to make the devices. An example of such reactors being built can be found on this blog of an experimenter in New York City who is building a Polywell reactor: http://prometheusfusionperfection.com/ The blog (if you go back into the archives) talks about an investigation by the New York City Department of Public Safety (or some agency like that... I can't remember the specific agency) where they checked out what he was doing and basically said he was following the law and didn't need to be licensed.
The key part of this report from Florida is the conclusion: The devices aren't being manufactured in the USA (especially not Miami), and as such this particular agency has no jurisdiction. More fun and games from Rossi perhaps, but it is much ado about nothing. I agree that the claim of no nuclear reactions happening is something of note, but there was nothing to investigate so I wouldn't read too much into that statement either. In terms of what could be added to this article, about the only two factual items from this report is that the devices are being made somewhere else than Florida, and that Rossi has promised that Underwriters' Laboratory will be providing some sort of certification for the device before it is sold in America (setting up Rossi for legal problems if he doesn't follow through with that promise). While it seems like Rossi is being very slippery here and getting away with a huge scam, even that conclusion can't be derived from this source material. As long as it can be confirmed that this information is factually accurate, I don't see why at least a mention that the Florida Bureau of Radiation Control has investigated Rossi should be kept out of this Wikipedia article. --Robert Horning (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I concur entirely with most of that, though I've no idea what the law concerning such matters actually is. However, I do consider Rossi's assertion that there are no nuclear reactions taking place in his device to be significant, in that much of our article is based on his previous claims that they were. Given that he has now contradicted himself, to omit this rather notable occurrence would seem somewhat remiss on our part. Still, we'd perhaps do as well to wait a day or two while we see what secondary sources have to say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, when we start picking information we like from primary sources and how they contradict his previous statements we start going down the road of original research and original synthesis. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence that the devices are being made anywhere, so we can't conclude "the devices are being made somewhere else than Florida" Bhny (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What a government official asks you is if this is a nuclear reaction according to the definition given by the law. So, according to the present US law, no nuclear reaction happens inside the E-Cat. Of course the present US law does not account LERN within the spectrum of nuclear reactions, for the simple fact that it does not recognise the existence of LERN. It's me, Francesco--79.16.164.83 (talk) 08:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suppose you could give us a source for your assertions regarding what the US law means by 'nuclear reaction'? Or a source for 'LERN' [sic] not being recognised in such law? I was unaware that the US legislature was involved in determining what science 'accounts'. Not that it matters, we base articles on published sources, not irrelevant bullshit based on nothing but guesswork. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that they're here: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0980/ but I've not downloaded or read any of it yet - will do if I can muster any enthusiasm. Tmccc (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't bother. It would constitute original research to attempt to apply it to the E-Cat, so it isn't going to affect article content anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to remove a bunch of paragraphs that were basically meetings that came to nothing and "Rossi said this will happen" things that didn't happen. Also there is no evidence of any factory and contradictory things like a licensee for America and Rossi saying that it's not even being built in America. Most of these paragraphs should not have been in the article in the first place WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER

Anyway my changes were reverted. I'm going to delete them again unless there is consensus otherwise. Bhny (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There was far too much in the article that was sourced to something or other that Rossi had once claimed was going to happen, but clearly hasn't. I suppose we could take the alternate approach, and include everything he claimed - including the low-energy nuclear reactions that he says aren't nuclear reactions, the invisible robotised factories that seem to wander the world looking for somewhere to operate, and the E-Cat heating system he's been using in his factory for two years that seems to require him wearing outdoor clothing, and running a gas heater, while he fills the room with large volumes of steam (invisible, even when cooled) from his latest contraption. It would be entertaining, but perhaps not encyclopaedic... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to keep the demonstration portion of what was dropped, and roll it into the existing demonstration section; but the material on orders, etc. should never have been allowed to stand this long. Mangoe (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved it to the demo section. POVbrigand did the trimming Bhny (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the article there is no mention to all the things AndyTheGrump mentioned, and there is no need to add this kind of information. The only questionable part is the very last part, ie Rossi's claims of mass-scale production and electricity generation.--Insilvis (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sensible removals, and I endorse your edit. "Rossi claims such-and-such" has always been a short and dubious peg on which to hang these bits of the article. The mystery orders, being built by mystery companies with secret factories, were being reported far too credulously. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with the deletion as proposed by Bhny, however I do think that the article could benefit from trimming (=not deletion) the "1MW plant sale". I very much object to the mentioning of WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER as a reason for deletion. Those two polices are not applicable for the proposed deletion. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The whole Demonstrations section is newspapery. It's about events rather than the e-cat. The Commercial Plans section is all crystal ball stuff. There is still not one known device out there. There is no way pre-orders should even be mentioned. Anyone can go there and pre-order a million e-cats on that web site. AmpEnergo is nothing but a single press release Bhny (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just moved some paragraphs around (no deletions!) Bhny (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to point out that the 1MW had ALREADY been placed in the "Demonstrations" section, then it was moved below, now it returns in the "Demonstrations": no problem (I do not remember who was responsible for this "Odyssey"). Nevertheless, please let us decide it definitively.--Insilvis (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask why, since the '1MW plant' was neither 'demonstrated' in any meaningful sense, nor sold (last I heard it was still sitting in Rossi's factory), and even Rossi hasn't claimed that it actually has ever generated 1MW, it is of any significance to the article at all? As an example of LE(N?)NR, it is an irrelevance unless someone claims it works, and likewise, it appears not to be an example of commerce either. At some point, we are going to have to "decide definitively" whether Rossi's wild and contradictory claims even merit comment in this article - since even his supporters (e.g. pesn.com) are deserting him, his patent applications are about to expire, and there is still precisely zero evidence that he is in any position to produce anything other than hype and waffle. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The references say that the plant was considered suitable for delivery by engineer Domenico Fioravanti on behalf of an "undisclosed customer" (and that Fioravanti controlled the plant and measured its energy output). There is no need to illustrate personal opinions, it is enough to remain stick to the sources.--Insilvis (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No - the references say that Rossi claims this. More hype. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Satisfactory to accept the delivery". Signed: ing. Domenico Fioravanti ("ing." is the standard Italian abbreviation for "engineer")
Written on the last page of the document. Photo of the original document here, courtesy of Ny Teknik --Insilvis (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We base article content on published reliable sources. We don't base them on 'original documents'. Particularly ones that appear to have been written by ten-year-olds. If that is any part of a binding legal agreement with a legitimate customer I'll eat my hat. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is precisely the reason why that primary source is not inserted in the article and the secondary sources are inserted in the article, because in this case the responsability to evaluate the primary source relies on the secondary sources. Assuming that it is a primary source (as it seems), it is not my fault (for example) if the secondary sources have accepted that primary source as reliable source.--Insilvis (talk) 01:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And on what grounds can we assume that in regard to this matter, the secondary sources are reliable? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Pilatus dixit ei: 'quid est veritas?' Sed Jesus nihil respondit..."
In other words, it is a matter regarding the secondary sources.--Insilvis (talk) 14:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then let us regard the secondary sources:
  1. Fox News, who have evidently got so much wrong in this story that it is a waste of time even commenting. SPAWAR vouching for the system? In any case, they aren't asserting that anything has happened - they are reporting what Rossi, and Sterling Allan of pesn.com, have told them. Not a source for anything. And note that pesn.com are now disowning Rossi entirely. [6]
  2. Ny Teknik, who, as has already been pointed out several times, have actually been involved with the demonstrations themselves, and as such are questionable as an independent source, tell us that "It remains unclear who the customer is. Rossi has only indicated that it belongs to a particular category of organization". What exactly are we supposed to cite that for?
  3. Wired, who tell us that "a group of unknown, unverifiable people carried out tests which cannot be checked". And make clear that their sources are Ny Teknik and pesn.com.
  4. Focus.it, who tell us much the same thing - that Domenico Fioravanti (an engineer, a retired colonel? who knows?) was there, supposedly representing the 'customer' - and that nobody has seen the results of this 'test', nobody knows who the 'customer' is, and basically, it is all just Rossi's claims again, backed up by someone-or-other, working for who-knows-who, supposedly signing off a contract written in mangled English, with amendments in ballpoint pen... Actually, if we can get a better translation than Google translate gives for the last paragraph of this article, it might be useful - it is discussing Rossi's patent applications, and seems to be saying that they are worthless, since they don't provide sufficient detail.
AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also this one (in English) of Focus ps about the question "engineer...colonel": "genio" stands for "genio militare" ie "military engineering", so he can be both engineer and colonel--Insilvis (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yup: "at the end of the test, Rossi claimed the plant to be sold". Rossi claims lots of things... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The complete citation is: "(1)The secret customer was satisfied and, at the end of the test, (2)Rossi claimed the plant to be sold."
The (1) is precisely what I wrote above.--Insilvis (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the meaningless pre-order count since nobody argued to keep that Bhny (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I shortened excessive ecat.com quote, and removed meeting which came to nothing- people have lots of meetings, this isn't notable and no one here has tried to justify it's inclusion Bhny (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"came to nothing", do you have proof of that fact, or is that your OR ? However, I do agree somewhat that currently we do not really need to mention this meeting in the article. It might regain importance in future, so here's the diff [7] --POVbrigand (talk) 09:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course if there is some reference that said meeting led to factory now being built at x then we could include it. The deleted ref had no mention of results Bhny (talk) 11:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fact is that you don't know if "the meeting came to nothing". If we say that we delete the meeting from the article because there hasn't been any follow up to it and we think it is not important to the story then that is a reason to delete it for now. But "the meeting came to nothing" is you personal SYNTH. (once upon a time I wasn't so pedantic, I caught it here on WP) --POVbrigand (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am synthesizing nothing? Please contradict if you find anything that came of the meeting. Of course I can't prove there is no teapot. Bhny (talk • contribs) 17:04, 3 April 2012
Look, nothing was reported about any outcome of the meeting, thus we cannot conclude that nothing came of the meeting. Time will tell. But the current "no news" situation does enable us to make the consensus decision that we won't have to mention the meeting in the article. Russell's teapot really has nothing to do with this. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If something comes out of the meeting, it will be reported in a source, and we will be able to cite it. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I have been saying. And until we read something in a source we cannot make conclusions that "nothing came out", because that would be OR. --POVbrigand (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OR in talkpage discussions isn't a problem. While we shouldn't be saying that "nothing came out" in the article, we still need to make that assessment in order to justly omit the mention of Rossi's unrealized forecast that something would come out. We don't need to find a bronze plaque saying "On this spot in 2011 nothing happened", right? LeadSongDog come howl! 19:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OR cannot be a reason to delete something from the article. The only reason to delete this bit from the article is consensus to do so. Consensus based on the fact that we haven't heard anything about whatever happened and that it is probably not important to the story at the moment. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's standing policy on its head :-) Surely you don't intend to say that WP should indefinitely remain a repository of unrealized predictions solely because we have no source to say they were unrealized? They simply are not encyclopedic content.LeadSongDog come howl! 03:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "OR cannot be a reason to delete something from the article. The only reason to delete this bit from the article is consensus to do so." The overwhelming consensus of the Wikipedia community is that original research should be deleted on sight. This consensus was carefully worked out and documented here: Wikipedia:No original research. Consensus among the editors of an article does not trump the consensus of the community as a whole, but for what it is worth I strongly support the policy as it is written, so you don't have consensus among the editors on this page to allow WP:OR. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was no original research deleted and nothing was deleted because of OR. There was a paragraph about non-notable meeting and it was deleted because everybody here agreed it was non-notable (i.e. there was nothing in the references about why the meeting was notable). If someone finds an article that says a notable thing happened then we can put it in. That's not OR that's just writing an article. The real problem is that these newsy things were added in the first place. There was some confusion because I said "came to nothing" which just means we have found no reason to say that these things are notable Bhny (talk) 11:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LeadSongDog & Guy Macon. You misunderstood my wording. Of course OR does not belong in a WP article. OR must always be deleted from an article ! That's crystal clear. But that was not the case here.
When Bhny deleted the meeting he mentioned that the reason for deletion was that the meeting "came to nothing". I complained that that reasoning looked like OR, because we don't know what happened. So it was not the content that was OR, but the reason behind the deletion of the content that "looked like" OR.
We have already made a consensus to delete the bit, because it doesn't seem to add anything to the story at the moment. I think there is no reason to drag this discussion further. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. I did misunderstand your meaning. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I too misunderstood, thinking you were arguing to retain. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes talk pages can be a PITA when it comes to clearly getting a point across. Face to face meetings would be much easier, but significantly increase the risk of bodily harm :-) (this is a joke) --POVbrigand (talk) 19:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The same Sen. Bruce Tarr who invited Rossi to the Massachusetts state house, has visit the still running cold fusion NANOR demo at MIT. So one might argue that the Rossi talk did lead something even if it is not directly related to the ecat. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, What do you mean that a link to pathological science is depreciated?

We don't normally put wikilinks into quotes: see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking. I think this is mainly to avoid giving the impression that the person quoted is necessarily using a word or phrase in the sense that our article describes it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Manual of Style/Linking doesn't say anything about quotes. The word isn't even on the page. I only found indirect chatter about it Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_Z#What_is_the_policy_for_links_in_quotes.3F. It seems like some people think it adds undue emphasis. Anyway it seems strange to use a fairly obscure term like "pathological science" without a link Bhny (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
oops I should have searched for "quotation" instead of "quote" Bhny (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it is that obscure a phrase, but anyway, see 'General points on linking style... Items within quotations should not generally be linked; instead, consider placing the relevant links in the surrounding text or in the "See also" section of the article'. I'm not sure a 'see also' section link to pathological science would go down too well amongst some of the E-Cat boosters though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a {{seealso}} in the section? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the Journal of Nuclear Physics Nuclear experiments blog there are several articles about something called a "Rossi energy amplifier". ( Example: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=275 ). Is this just a former name for the "Energy Catalyzer" or is it something else? If it is the same, we should mention the former name in the article and make a Rossi energy amplifier --> Energy Catalyzer redirect. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it is only Rossi that uses the term, I can't see why we'd need to mention it at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The term is used in quite a few other places. See http://www.google.com/search?q="Rossi+energy+amplifier". It looks to me like they did a lot of promotion under the amplifier name, got a boatload of skeptical reviews and comments, and then changed to the catalyst name to get a fresh start. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, nothing was heard of the device until January 2011. "amplifier" is not the former name for the ecat. It has nothing to do with Rossi trying to get a fresh start with a different name. The "energy amplifier" is merely a term that Rossi has used sometimes, I think it is not worth mentioning. Also, we know that Rossi claims his device can run in self-sustain mode, ie no external power needed. In that case the device would cease to be an "amplifier" anyway, it would be a "generator". --POVbrigand (talk) 12:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am having trouble believing your claim that "nothing was heard of the device until January 2011" when I just gave you a Google link that shows multiple uses of the term earlier than that. likewise with your "merely a term that Rossi has used sometimes" claim, when the same Google search turns up thousands of websites that use the term. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at some of the ~7000 results for energy amplifier. All the ones I saw were blogs (like Rossi's bizarrely named "Journal of Nuclear Physics"), forums or comments. I didn't find anything notable. It seems like Rossi started using that term in 2010, and changed to e-cat early in 2011. 7000 results isn't much for this topic as there are over 80 dedicated blogs or boilerplate single page web sites on this topic like [[8] and [[9]]. Here's a list of most of them- [[10]] --Bhny
I completely agree about the lack of notable results. All I was trying to establish was that Rossi used the term, a bunch of blogs and online forums talked about Rossi's theories using the term, then Rossi started using another term. I think that might be enough for a "also known as" in the article, and it certainly is enough to justify a redirect. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The ecat got in the news with the demonstration in January 2011. I see that very few hits are before that date. I agree with Bhny's comment. I think the name is not notable. And there is absolutely no proof whatsoever of Rossi getting "a fresh start" by using a new name. That is really only your OR. --POVbrigand (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

btw, I was told that the number of "Google hits" prove nothing and furthermore the shown number is never correct. In fact inthis case Google only find 188 results. In the URL you can substitute the "biw=" attribute with "biw=9999" and only then will Google show the real number of hits. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Rossi+energy+amplifier%22#q=%22Rossi+energy+amplifier%22&hl=en&safe=off&prmd=imvns&ei=AWqIT6OmDMf1sgaA6K2yCw&start=178&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=7f11edaceb0ef551&biw=9999&bih=680

I will try to dig out the original explanation and post it here.

--POVbrigand (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

that's what google calls 'relevant links' ie. it flushes all (most of) copypasta − MIRROR (talk) 19:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong about the biw parameter. The biw parameter in Google sets the Browser window in pixels and has no effect on the number of results. There is no parameter that causes Google to "show the real number of hits". but using Google verbatim removes one source of error. See http://support.google.com/websearch/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1734130 for details.
I happen to be quite knowledgeable on the topic of Google's algorithms. Here is the information: Wikipedia:Search engine test. (I can also give you a list of different people's guesses -- none of them a WP:RS -- if you are interested.) Wikipedia:Search engine test does not say that the number of Google hits "proves nothing", but it does give some important cautions about what a Google search does and does not prove. In particular, be aware that result numbers in the hundreds or thousands are far more accurate than result numbers in the hundreds of thousands or millions. Past a certain point, Google stops counting and gives you an estimate.
Your "Google only find 188 results" claim is completely wrong. Cutting and pasting the exact URL you used gives me 6,980 results - the exact same number I get from http://www.google.com/search?q="Rossi+energy+amplifier".
Another trick is to click on the show omitted results link and them keep clicking on the page numbers until you reach the end. That gives you a 100% guaranteed minimum count. The actual count is usually at least ten times larger, but cannot possibly be smaller. In this case you end up here:
http://www.google.com/search?q="Rossi+energy+amplifier"&start=546&filter=0
...which gives you a solid 560 results, every one of which you can click on and verify.
Re: your "That is really only your OR" claim, exactly what part of "It looks to me like..." are you having trouble understanding?
Note: all the above numbers will change if you wait an hour and run the test again. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, you seem to better understand how google works than me. Back to the issue, the naming "energy amplifier" seems to be a relic from the past. You could add it as an "also called ..." in the opening line, but I think it is not worth it. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The recently added quote of Ugo Bardi is very well crafted to advance the notion that this whole device is humbug. If we want to leave the quote as it is now, we should expand the Bushnell quote back to its original size to reach NPOV. But the better option would be if we shrink the line and put it with the rest of the "Other reactions to the device have been mixed." paragraph. Short Brigade Harvester Boris did a good job on that section a while ago.

I think the difference between how this quote "from a blog" enters our article unchallenged in comparison with the endless discussion about the addition of Yeong E. Kim's theory proposal (which, in the mean time, has been peer reviewed and published in a scientific journal) is interesting. I can only explain this difference in handling these two content additions with a very clear bias of the editors of this article. Not very NPOV. Strange that nobody raised concerns about WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER (newsy items), WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. I wonder, could it be that this content addition suit their POV and therefore there is not need to complain ?

What I don't "like" about this particular quote is that Bardi declares it as "pathological science". If Bardi believes that Rossi is a scammer, than well that's his opinion. But he ties his assessment of one single inventor to general statements on the science. When we use this quote we draw the WP-reader's attention away from Rossi onto the science itself. I think we have already sufficiently addressed the science part by providing the Siegel and Kim paragraphs.

I think we should use another part of Bardi which much better summarizes the issue: "In the end, lacking experimental proof, the idea that the E-Cat produces energy rests only on Rossi's statements that say, basically, just "trust me" --POVbrigand (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The recently added quote was "very well crafted" to summarise what Bardi wrote. Now go away, read WP:FRINGE again, and then explain how your endless claims about how LENR is going to become mainstream science in the next five -- make that three, now ;-) -- weeks, and how Kim's 'proposal' is going to confirm everything that Rossi has claimed, don't come within the remit of WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. As for "pathological science", tough. Bardi used the words: your argument is with him, not us. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, you silly old POV-warrior :-)
I think the quote is good as is. The problem has been that there is no more mainstream coverage, they've lost interest (I'd be happy to be proven wrong on this). This quote is well written and by a qualified person. All other articles I've seen this year have been blogs quoting other blogs and not something we can really use. By all means find differing opinions by people that aren't inside players. Bhny (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that Bardi raises valid points and I sympathize with the general idea of his blog. It is good that we use him, but the quote like this in the lead is in violation of WP:LEAD. The article is not improved with it. --POVbrigand (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEDE is a guideline, rather than a set of rules - but I see your point to some extent. The trouble is that the article is structured in such a way that criticisms such as Bardi's don't really fit in anywhere. He isn't evaluating 'the device', he is evaluating Rossi's claims regarding it. And since everything we know about the device (beyond the obvious, that it is a device which seems to take cold water in at one end, and emit hot water and/or steam at the other) is solely sourced to Rossi, Rossi is now flatly contradicting things he said earlier, and is still refusing to let anyone do any meaningful independent evaluation at all, one has to ask whether we should be implying in our article that it is the device that is now the centre of attention, rather than Rossi. Perhaps the section entitled 'Evaluation of the device' should be retitled 'Evaluation of claims regarding the device' - and expanded. Bardi has actually written about the E-Cat several times, and a little more of his sceptical take on the matter might be as good thing, per WP:FRINGE, and WP:PARITY in particular. If we can show why Bardi describes the affair as 'pathological science' in more detail, we can cover some of the issues that have had to be left out for now, as lacking WP:RS. If we do this, there seems no reason why we can't also quote Bardi in the lede, if appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"He isn't evaluating the device" ? What ? The currently used quote is "...the E-Cat has reached the end of the line. It still maintains some faithful supporters, but, most likely, it will soon fade away in the darkness of pathological science, where it belongs".
The quote that I proposed "In the end, lacking experimental proof, the idea that the E-Cat produces energy rests only on Rossi's statements that say, basically, just "trust me" is much more about Rossi than about the Ecat. That quote could even be used in the lead.
I agree with you that real evaluation hasn't happened at all, so I also think the title of the section "Evaluation of the device" is not a good one, better would be "Reactions to the device" or "Reactions to the claims". --POVbrigand (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
done- "Reactions to the claims" Bhny (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@POVbrigand, in that sentence Ugo is explaining the consequences that the failed claims are having for the product. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Bhny. Now that the section is renamed to "Reactions to the claims" the reason for putting the Bardi quote in the lead as mentioned in the edit comments from Bhny [11], Guy Macon[12] and AndyTheGrump [13] has become obsolete.
As I tried to explain, the prominent placement of this quote in the lead is not in line with WP:LEAD and severely reduces WP:NPOV. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's neutral in that it's the current mainstream opinion. There hasn't been a significant mainstream article on this since about December; "soon fade away in the darkness" is apt. There was one article in Forbes last week that just talked about how e-cat used astroturfing with blogs to try to make it seem like a real thing [[14]]. Bhny (talk) 14:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not neutral. "soon fade away in the darkness" is WP:CRYSTALBALL and negatively loaded wording. The lack of other "mainstream" articles is no excuse to violate NPOV by putting this clearly biased opinion in the lead.
Neutral would be to give positive opinions an equal prominent position in the article. Presenting the majority view so prominently in an article about a (supposed) minority view device is flat out wrong. The quote I mentioned above "In the end, lacking experimental proof, the idea that the E-Cat produces energy rests only on Rossi's statements that say, basically, just "trust me" would be ok to put in the lead, but not the current one. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is a "minority view device"? There is a device, and there are views about it. Wikipedia should present them according to their prominence in reliable sources.
(And talking about sources, let's remember WP:FRINGE for topics that mainstream refuses to talk about.) --Enric Naval (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the most prominent reliable source we have available that mentions the energy catalyzer is Kim's peer reviewed paper, therefore following your reasoning we should put Kim in the lead and not what some frustrated biased wanker chap blogs on the internet. Whenever Mr. Bardi gets his rebuttal of Rossi's device through peer review, we can reconsider. In the mean time don't come back here talking about prominence of sources if all you have are blogs.
Please, don't get me started again on WP:FRINGE and how editors choose to interpret it as a reason to arbitrarily delete whatever isn't mainstream science. First and foremost FRINGE dictates that fringe views should not get an undue mentioning in a mainstream view article, like mentioning flat earth in an article about the earth. This article is about a fringe topic, WP:UNDUE does NOT dictate that the mainstream view must be put in the freaking lead. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
POVbrigand makes a good point about WP:UNDUE. Look at Flat Earth. Does it give undue weight to the flat earth theory? Of course not. Nor does WP:FRINGE call for deleting material about flat earth theory in Flat Earth. (It does justify removal from Earth, just as Energy Catalyzer is not given any weight in Energy.)
As for the mainstream view must in the lead, take a look at Flat Earth, Astrology, Polywater, Cold fusion, and Creationism for examples of how mainstream views are treated in the lead sections of articles about fringe topics. In my opinion, the current article lead is well withing that range --Guy Macon (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to what you say. A well balanced NPOV article about a minority view topic will discuss both the minority view and the majority view (while making it clear without doubt which of the two views is the majority one). The LEAD being a summary of the article will therefore mention both, or at least mention that more that one view exist. I am fully aware of that and I agree to all of WP-policies. Still this quote is horrible in the lead, it over-proportionally introduced this man's loaded language, it wrecks havoc on the whole article.
I should have used the wording: "WP:UNDUE does NOT dictate that the mainstream view must be put in the freaking lead like this." --POVbrigand (talk) 12:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain how Bardi's language is more 'loaded' than Rossi's self-serving and contradictory bullshit? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did we put a Rossi quote in the LEAD ?
Bardi's language is not more loaded than Rossi's, I didn't say that.
To make it clear to everyone, I repeat that I do think that Bardi raises valid points and I sympathize with the general idea of his blog. But we should not use this quote in the LEAD.
"and please don't make personal remarks about people we cite" --POVbrigand (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not our place to decide what is and is not "self-serving and contradictory bullshit", but rather to report what reliable sources say from a WP:NPOV. Also, two wrongs don't make a right. My personal opinion (which may change) is that the Bardi quote is OK where it is, but POVbrigand brings up a legitimate objection. We should discuss this calmly and rationally and seek consensus. In other words, more light and less heat, please. Guy Macon (talk) 08:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bhny has done a lot of deleting recently. That's not bad, but we must be careful that "the flow" of the article still makes sense to the WP-reader. For instance I noted the line "Of the January demonstration..." - what January demonstrations ?. the "introduction" that demonstration took place in January was deleted. The flow is broken. Another thing I noted are the Essen, Kullander, Ekström and Aleklett split/repetition between the "reactions" and "demonstration".

We should repair the flow, maybe add an explanation here and there or some some clever rewrite might do it too. --POVbrigand (talk) 07:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I changed "the February" to "a February". I think we should delete the individual bullets in the demonstration section and merge the quotes into the reactions section; leaving just a paragraph summary for demonstrations. Bhny (talk) 10:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the bullets. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed 29 March 2011 demo as it repeats things from the Reactions section (Peter Ekström, ....)Bhny (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article should probably be merged into Andrea Rossi (entrepreneur) since it is becoming more a story about him and his 'business ventures' than any actual device. There is already a section there [[15]]

  • Support Merge with redirect, keeping the whole section to no more than three or four short paragraphs, and making clear the complete lack of evidence, the contradictory nature of Rossi's statements, and the clear dismissal of them by mainstream sources. And none of the waffle about whether 'LENR' is real science or not... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose so far as almost every merge I've seen is mostly an attempt to delete the article but to do so in a more politically correct fashion. The only reason why I would support any sort of merger would be to suggest that all sources about both topics are largely the same and trying to separate one from the other simply can't be done. Based upon sources I've seen it can be said that these are two distinct topics deserving independent articles. So far I fail to see what actual role would be served to merge these articles together. Notability has been independently established for the Energy Catalyzer and Andrea Rossi, which to me further suggests they really do deserve to be separate articles. If notability was being questioned there might be some rationale for a merger. Otherwise this is re-opening the previous AfD which also included discussion as a compromise for merger.... which was previously rejected by the commenting editors in terms of any sort of consensus achieved. Notable inventions, frauds, pranks, and scams can have independent articles and I see no difference with this idea either. --Robert Horning (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have a good point but I do question the notability. There were some e-cat articles in reputable sources early last year but I've not seen any significant article in a reputable source for 5 months. The only interest in this is in fringe blogs. E-cat is not even as notable as Petroldragon, which was quite notorious yet only mentioned in Rossi's article Bhny (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are many notable topics that have not yet had somebody take the effort to create the article. Otherwise new Wikipedia articles would never get created. The absence of an article on Wikipedia only implies that nobody has yet taken the effort to create such an article... it doesn't imply that the topic is not notable or shouldn't have an article. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am responding to him and to you. If notability is not a factor in deciding whether to merge articles, then all three statements - your original "I do question the notability", Arthur Rubin's "E-Cat's 'notability' is fading", and your "the device is notable in its own right. Notability doesn't 'fade' " are irrelevant. So again I ask, is notability even a factor in deciding whether to merge articles? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notability isn't a temporary thing. Either it is notable or it isn't. The reliable secondary sources talking about this topic are well established and something which was debated and argued in the AfD, and the closing of the AfD explicitly mentions that notability was achieved. My point in raising the issue is that a non-notable topic or where notability is questioned can use a merger as a legitimate compromise where something associated with the topic which is notable (such as Andrea Rossi in this case) can have information about another topic. Raising the issue of notability is pointing out that there is no content from which to create the article. Perhaps for non-notable topics it might be a paragraph in another article because one or two reliable sources mention an association with the main topic of the article (such as an article about Rossi with a couple sources mentioning the E-Cat). Showing that the E-cat has independent notability is to demonstrate that there are sufficient references from which to create an article.... going back to my point that this merger request is re-opening the AfD in just another context and that merge requests are really just another form of a deletion request. -Robert Horning (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. Merge is not another form of a deletion request, and the parts of this article which are notable and adequately sourced would fit in one paragraph. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly nonsense. The stated objective of those trying to perform the merger is to cull information from this article to the extent that it is only a single paragrah or perhaps just a couple and to keep it in that state as a sort of WP:OWN to force a POV onto the topic as well. Most of those advocating for a merger are openly hostile to this article even existing in the first place (by noting their support of deletion in the earlier AfD) or are constantly flouting the psuedo science card. If this article needs to be re-written and trimmed down to a single paragraph, go ahead and make those changes that you think are necessary. It doesn't need to be made into a merge request to do that. The end result of most mergers like this is to delete the article as something irrelevant and unbecoming to Wikipedia. Information is lost both ways, just that merging an article seems to be a bit easier to perform because it is easier to reverse even though in practice it produces nearly the same result. Once it is put into another article, using the same logic you can perform a simple edit and remove the content altogether. I have seen that happen with other article merges, and I fail to see why that won't happen here... given the kinds of responses being given from those who don't want to see this article on Wikipedia in the first place. --Robert Horning (talk) 03:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is nonsense. My position, and I assume that of some of the others in favor of a merge, is:
  1. The article should be trimmed to one paragraph, because that's all that is sourced from other than press releases and copies of press releases.
  2. The article should be merged somewhere.
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Any notability for Rossi stems from the energy catalyzer (his article was created in response to the energy catalyzer). It makes sense to merge them. (for me, which way the merger goes Rossi-->EC or EC-->Rossi depends on how many sources discuss things other than the EC). IRWolfie- (talk) 13:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Considering this "policy" you are noting here is neither policy nor even an "official guideline", that is sort of a red herring to even bring up. Going even by this document though, the one thing that might be justified is duplicate coverage or overlap of the topic. The point is though that these are two distinctive topics: One is a biographical sketch of a person (Andrea Rossi) and the other is this specific invention that happens to involve Rossi but does involve other people as well.... details of which would be beyond the scope of the Rossi article. If you want to argue for a merger, justify how Rossi is the only player in the whole E-cat debacle and that this is one and the same thing. I don't think that can be done. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was policy. It's the relevant information page. I don't think "only player" is a necessary reason, but Rossi is the pretty much the only player here. Rossi is the only one who claims to know what the invention is. Even Focardi says he doesn't know the secret ingredient and the patent applications don't say how it works (even though that is what a patent application should say). There are no known customers, no known factories or employees. Bhny (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This article has been the target of people who want to promote the E-Cat, to pump up its rickety reputation with fluff about press releases and publicity events even though there has never been an independent test, much less a production run. The device is a farce! Ever since I noticed this article I have been strongly against such promotional tendencies, and if this article is merged positive-POV editors will have little power, in my estimation. That would be a good result. Nevertheless, the E-Cat is a notable con game from a con artist famous for more things than this device, so it should have its own article. Binksternet (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I argued the same previously that it was a notable scam, but after about 3 articles in english it was dropped by reliable sources and became a blog story, so the e-cat is a pretty small-time scam that makes more sense when seen in the context of his other 'inventions'. Bhny (talk) 19:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the petrol con can solely establish notability then perhaps it should not be merged. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the sources currently in that article I am not sure if they would actually establish notability of Rossi independently of the E-Cat. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose I would like to highlight that the proposer has been actively editing the article lately. Thus if his complaint is that the article is becoming a story about A.Rossi, then it might well be caused significantly by proposer's recent edits. Editing an article in a specific direction and then proposing a merge for exactly that direction, to me seems tendentious. Furthermore all the responses in the "Reactions to the claims" have the e-cat as topic, not A.Rossi. The ecat has gained notability, and notability is not temporary. --POVbrigand (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is doubting that the E-Cat is notable. The question is whether two separate articles are justified. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
E-cat is notable, but not as notable as Petroldragon. E-cat is another of his inventions that would be better off listed together. (This section is for talking about a merge. There are other sections for talking about edits). Bhny (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest the other way around, the E-Cat seems to be far more notable than petroldragon, demonstrated by the fact that we have many more sources, the reliable sources that mention Petroldragon do so in the context of the E-cat. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's only because Petroldragon was pre-web and most of the articles are in Italian. It was a ~$30million dollar company employing 150 people before it collapsed with Rossi facing over 50 court cases and imprisonment. E-cat is a shoestring budget with no employees and a lot of astroturfing blogs. Bhny (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. The English Language bias and the post-www bias working together. Now that the above problem has been identified, we need to give each proper weight. In my opinion, that would be best accomplished by merging; Give the Rossi article a longer section on Petroldragon and a shorter section on E-Cat. In my opinion, putting them in one article will give the reader important context, especially when the next Rossi energy miracle appears. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]