Talk:Energy Catalyzer/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Evaluation of the device: Bushnell interview revisited

I looked at Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License and found its "Remix/Adapt" clause WAY too broad.
I've rewritten a paraphrase at User:Alanf777 with only three short quotes, which IMHO falls well within "fair use".
I can get permission for THAT sentence, but I'm not going to ask for any more.
EVWorld has a new audio interview with Rossi, but it doesn't really add anything.
There's a MUCH more interesting interview at
Andrea Rossi on the E-Cat – Part 1/2 and 2/2

• http://ecatreport.com/rossi/andrea-rossi-on-the-e-cat-part-12
• http://ecatreport.com/e-cat/andrea-rossi-on-the-e-cat-part-22

but I presume that's not RS enough. Alanf777 (talk) 19:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I got permission from EVWORLD -- and sent it to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOTorg

A) I hereby affirm that I, Bill Moore, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of an audio interview with Dennis Bushnell and an associated article in EVWorld.

http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1983 http://www.evworld.com/evworld_audio/dennis_bushnell_part1.mp3
B) I hereby affirm that I, Alan Fletcher, am the transcriber of the the interview, with permission of Bill Moore, and as such may hold copyrights of the derivative work.

http://lenr.qumbu.com/110606_evworld_bushnell_interview_part1_v401.php

C) We agree to publish THE FOLLOWING QUOTED EXTRACTS from the transcript of the interview, under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0"

Bushnell described several emerging energy technologies, but he identified LENR as "THE most interesting and promising at this point". He said that "... It alone, if it comes to pass, would literally solve both climate and energy." He summarized the reported results of the eCat, and thought that "this will go forward fairly rapidly now."

We acknowledge that by doing so we grant anyone the right to use the QUOTED EXTRACTS of the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

We are aware that we always retain copyright of our work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to us.

We acknowledge that we cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Alanf777 (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't exactly know what you think the problem with the license is. However, I'm extremely wary of "locking in" certain versions of content based on permissions obtained from copyright holders. The phrase is extremely short can be used under fair use, anyways. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't like the last edit on the Bushnell quote.
a) "thought" vs "said" : he actually said "I think that ..." so THOUGHT is a better summary, as it indicates opinion rather than fact.
b) "told" vs "said" : TOLD is plain wrong. You could say he "told the interviewer" but that's redundant.
c) I don't think the "(ie NASA)" is needed.
If anyone wants to use different quotes I'll get a new permission. Alanf777 (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Covers above quote as currently shown. No accuracy guaranteed on my part and this isn't a mandate that the text remain intact or be included at all. This article is subject to sanctions and I will have no further involvement. – Adrignola talk 19:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You may quote from my transcript at http://sms.cam.ac.uk/media/1150242. Since queries had been raised as to the context of the quote I used in the video I gave that in a footnote, and the two together are

"I think this will go forward fairly rapidly now, and if it does, this is capable of, by itself, completely changing geo-economics, geo-politics, and solving climate and energy".

You'll note that where you had 'quite' I had 'climate'. This is I think consistent with the podcast and makes more sense. The correspondence with Bill Moore re reproducing this involved my writing "it would be good if we could include brief comments by Mr. Bushnell as background (the section 10:40 to 11:54 seems the most relevant). I am writing therefore to request permission to include this in a suitably edited form.", to which he replied "Brian... you have my permission. Credits to EV World would be appreciated where appropriate." --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Oops! I just noticed this suggestion. It's fine by me (and thanks for the transcript clarification). I've put a draft in User:Alanf777#BJ_Bushnell_Quote. Alanf777 (talk) 00:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I took "no comment" as "no objection", so I replaced the Bushnell paragraph. I used italics for the nested quotes, so a blockquote isn't needed. Alanf777 (talk) 17:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

New Energy Times 3rd report on the 'Catalyzer'

Steven Krivit's third report, http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/37/NET370.shtml, is out. It's voluminous, carefully written, and rather damning. It should almost certainly be quoted and referenced in the article, but there's so much of it I have no idea where to start. Frogwing (talk) 23:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Ouch! ″Rather damning″ may be an understatement. I sense also a little sarcasm creeping in with the image caption ″Tools Used By the Plumber, Carlo Leonardi, to Fine-Tune the Rossi Devices″. ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... Looks like Rossi is making hot water using a non-notable method (electric water heaters are pretty cheap and don't usually require the stunt hydrogen bottle). - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

This is interesting (emphasis mine)...

Sines Review of Rossi U.S. Patent Application [1]

Here are a few very simple and easy errors to find in his application.

1. If you take Figures 3 and 4 and overlay them, you will find that they are the same plot, that is, no change — in other words, no low-energy nuclear reaction transmutation evidence. I sent a question to Rossi about this. His response was, "No comment."
2. On Page 2 of the patent application, Section 0037, Rossi claims his device will not work without Ni 62. He writes in Section 0037 that it is "indispensable."

He has shown a number of E-Cat devices on various Web sites. In each of these devices, he claims to be using 58g of Ni 62.

I sent an e-mail to Rossi and asked him about this, and his response was, "No comment." Here's the glaring problem: Ni 62 is a rare isotope. Only 3.6% of natural nickel contains this isotope. I looked up the prices of Ni 62.

Rossi's devices would be worth $582,000 each if they truly had 58 grams of highly refined Ni 62 within their case. Something is inconsistent about this. This is certainly not an inexpensive device if his claim is real.

3. Furthermore, if he is using some special catalyst, it's not disclosed in the patent application anywhere. Disclosing all relevant details of a device in a patent application is a fundamental requirement.

A patent is a two-way relationship. It is not just a license to take commercial advantage of an idea for 17 years.

A patent is issued in exchange for information the inventor provides that will clearly and fully teach the public about the novel idea.

The catalyst is not disclosed anywhere in this public application, yet he said in many interviews that he is using a secret catalyst. If so, then this could invalidate the patent application because it was not disclosed. If not, then his claim about using a secret catalyst represents a significant inconsistency.

Of course a U.S. patent application can be modified at any time. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 11:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I've added two quotes from Krivit's report to the article. I don't intend to use it further in order to avoid over-reliance on one source. The quotes are from interviews with Levi and Essen concerning the 18 hour test and the Kullander and Essen visit, respectively. Both seem relevant in that they illustrate reservations by key figures concerning the sources of possible error. I've included both quotes in full in order to allow readers to get a sense of context concerning the two experiments that are commonly discussed as providing the strongest evidence of Rossi's claims. Frogwing (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Defkalion Press Conference

We have a section called "Commercial Plans" -- but we're not allowed to quote a RS (NyTeknik) reporting on their plans? Because it's "Not Notable". Alanf777 (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

A section that does nothing more than repeat Defkalion's press releases or whatever, with no critical commentary, or indication that it was seen as having any real significance, is hardly encyclopaedic. Frankly, this article is based far too much on NyTeknik articles, and could do with better sourcing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Here you go: Note : these files are stored on defkalion's site, but they are scans of newspapers from a legitimate Greek News-clipping service : http://www.clipnews.gr/en/

Clipping from newspaper H Gnomi tis Thrakis
Clipping from newspaper Makedonia
Clipping from newspaper Eparxiakos Typos
Clipping from newspaper Imerisios Kirikas
Clipping from newspaper Thraki
Clipping from newspaper O Kosmos tou Ependyti
Clipping from newspaper Axia
Clipping from newspaper Eleftheria Larisas
Clipping from newspaper KERDOS

"A section that does nothing more than repeat Defkalion's press releases or whatever, with no critical commentary, or indication that it was seen as having any real significance, is hardly encyclopaedic."

Works for Apple! (I see no critical commentary) -- 2.2 iPad -- 2.3 iPod -- 2.4 iPhone ....

Alanf777 (talk) 20:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and on that Apple Wiki page, I'd say that nearly half of the links go to apple.com -- some of which ARE press clippings. Alanf777 (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Update -- pretty close. 92/191 = 48% of links go to apple.com Alanf777 (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the relevant policy here is WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. So far, Defkalion has produced nothing (or at least, if it has, it hasn't been delivered yet). Apple, for all their faults, are a world-wide operation, and their products get a great deal of attention, even before release - the comparison is hardly valid. Regarding the clippings, I can't read Greek, and know nothing about the Greek media, so am in no position to assess any of this. Frankly, I think the most notable thing about the media response to the 'Catalyzer' is how limited it is. Time again, it comes down to the same few sources, or obscure articles in marginally-reliable sources that actually tell us little. If the Greek media is actually doing more than just regurgitating Rossi or Defkalion's PR, and is reporting in depth, then please tell us - though using Defkalion resources to find the reports is hardly likely to lead to balance if there has been any negativity.

For deliverables, true. I'll see if I can dig up a Wiki article on ... hmmm ... IBM? for pre-announcing never-delivered products? But for THIS topic, Defkalion IS important. And the Apple page provides a clear precedent for allowing uncritical(adoring?) press releases and links to corporate pages. Alanf777 (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Update from the IBM/360 wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_System/360 there's a link to a corporate site http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/mainframe/mainframe_PR360.html of the press release announcing the 360 -- "distributed on April 7, 1964" ... "Deliveries of the small configurations of System/360 are scheduled to begin in the third quarter of 1965. Deliveries of the largest configurations are scheduled to begin in the first quarter of 1966." And it was the 360/90 which was announced (to compete against CDC) but never delivered : http://books.google.com/books?id=RCUvkY2SFRAC&pg=PA18&lpg=PA18&dq=ibm+scientific+never+delivered&source=bl&ots=vRFh3CSJfx&sig=WwBdbbuORMWCkI-pzzgl0VFg_NQ&hl=en&ei=X2s4TtrvHu3KiAKpv_HcDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CEQQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=ibm%20scientific%20never%20delivered&f=false Alanf777 (talk) 21:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

What the heck has that got to do with anything? The IBM press release is of clear historical significance, which is why the article refers to it. And no, at this point in time, Defkalion isn't 'important' according to the vast majority of media sources it isn't 'important' to the scientific community etc, and we do not base article content on speculation about what might happen in the future. Incidentally, another guideline of relevance here is WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS - I suggest you read that before trawling Wikipedia for press releases. It is on a slightly different topic, but I'm sure you'll see the point. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It may well be worth enquiring as to how the 'Cat' has been reported on the Italian and Greek-language Wikipedias - they may have access to other sources. Each Wikipedia is independent of course, and they may see things differently than us, but it should be worth looking - I'll ask on the language reference desk about this... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

In the interests of transparency...

It seems self-evident to me that this article needs further input from uninvolved and neutral editors. I've asked for help here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Help_needed_at_Energy_Catalyzer AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Added preprint by Yeong E. Kim

Seems reputable enough, even though it's a pre-print.

Alanf777 (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Fine, but it says it gives "preliminary theoretical explanations", and states that it is "based on incomplete experimental information" - too equivocal to actually be much use, I'd suggest. I'm not qualified to judge the science (and that isn't a Wikipedia editor's job), but I think it is fair to say that this is hardly unqualified support for the mechanism the Catalyzer is supposed to be using. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

And you REMOVED it?

This is nutz -- there's absolutely NO reason to take that out.

My summary text clearly said it's a pre-print, that it SUGGESTS ... etc etc.

If you're going to allow informal disparaging blog comments by scientists with WAY lesser credentials than Kim ..... and NOT allow a paper by a scientist with excellent credentials, what ARE you going to allow? Alanf777 (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it is reasonable to expect the general reader to understand what a 'pre-print' is, though that is perhaps a minor issue. I think that if we are going to include this, we need to make clear just how equivocal the paper is. Your wording certainly didn't give that impression to me. You need to bear in mind that Wikipedia has high standards when it comes to using sources making science-based claims - hence the debate on this talk page about the extent to which we need to treat this as a 'science' story at all. If we start including unpublished primary research based on "incomplete experimental information" , we may be pushing at the limits of the permissible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact that a fellow of the American Physical Society (200? fellows out of 48,000 members) writes ANY paper about the Rossi eCat is notable in itself, regardless of the contents of the paper. I'll weasel-word the entry to indicate that it's a preliminary theory based on preliminary data. Alanf777 (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

And well-intentioned editors should be aware that it is normal for scientists to word their statements ultra-cautiously -- except for grant-seekers who will emphasise that their discoveries will cure cancer, Alzheimer's, etc. etc. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best to add your proposed text here, rather than in the article - I'd be happier to get further comments from others in any case. There is no rush, after all - if the Catalyzer works I'm sure we will get plenty of more solid 'science' sources. Meanwhile, what wording do you suggest? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I already put it up. But here's a copy: (I've added some WIKI-LINKS) Alanf777 (talk) 22:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeong E. Kim , physics professor at Purdue University, and a fellow of the American Physical Society, has released a pre-print of an invited paper, Generalized Theory of Bose-Einstein Condensation Nuclear Fusion for Hydrogen-Metal System which -- based on the "incomplete experimental information currently available" -- suggests that under conditions similar to those in the Rossi eCat, Nickel and Pairs of protons could possibly form a Bose–Einstein condensate, overcoming the Coulomb barrier. This would allow various nuclear transmutations, producing isotopes of Nickel and Copper, and low-energy gamma-rays.

I think I'd be happier if it read "...an unreviewed pre-print..." just to make it clear without the need to follow the link. I'll defer to others to comment on whether you've summarised the physics properly - it looks fine to me, but I'm no physicist, and this is way over my head. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I already clarified that it's a pre-print of an INVITED paper ... which honor is normally only given to acknowledged experts in a field .. and thus BYPASSES the peer review process. Alanf777 (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Invited where? And honestly, the paper does not look promising. Check the references - either it's Rossy-fluff, or its self-citations. That should give you an idea about how far out this stuff is. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Invited where? -- see reference 10. (Admittedly to a conference he's been involved with for a long time).

Does not look promising ... (ahh : opens scientific debate) ... You don't believe in Bosons? Or Bose Einstein Condensates?

Check the references - either it's Rossy-fluff : How else can he refer to the eCat experiments? Patent, paper & E&K experiment

... or its self-citations : since he's an expert in an acknowledged field -- and he's applying his previous methods to a new case, I don't see any problem with that. Edit: his reference 2 has 67 references

Even if we regard a pre-print of an invited paper as "self Published" it still passes Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources -- Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field (YES) has previously been published by reliable third-party publications (YES). Alanf777 (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• We have a problem there though. We don't yet know what "the relevant field" is. The article is about the Catalyser, and until it is demonstrated that it works by LENR (or even convincingly demonstrated that it works at all), it is supposition that Kim is an "an established expert". Unless and until the Catalyzer is subject to proper scientific scrutiny (i.e. by providing "complete experimental information") Kim's speculation remains just that - speculation by an expert in a field that may or may not be relevant. I think that Kim's own words can only be taken as an acknowledgement of this - the abstract is a collection of statements to the effect that he doesn't have enough information to go on, but he can give "preliminary theoretical explanations of the experimental results... in terms of the generalized BECNF theory". He's not claiming to be an expert in how the Catalyzer works, but instead to have the beginnings of an explanation as to how it might. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
• see reference 10 - maybe I'm blind. Reference 10 where? Can you give a direct link? Note that conferences in physics (unlike e.g. computer science) often deal with new, surprising, and unconfirmed material - "the literature" is mostly journals.

References: The problem is not that he self-cites, or cites Rossi-stuff. The problem is that he cites nothing else. That's bad style, but more importantly, it is an indication of how isolated this work is. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there's definitely a walled-garden issue. Apparently the conference is the Fifth Asia-Pacific Conference on Few-Body Problems in Physics this August: [2]. (Kim is listed as a member of the conference's "International Advisory Committee": [3]; his Purdue bio indicates that he's been an advisor for the conference since its inception in 1999.) The conference proceedings will be appearing in the journal Few-Body Systems, which has an impact factor of 0.622. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

walled-garden issue: I repeat -- That's STANDARD practice for follow-on papers, which is what this is. See my note above. (The papers he references DO have copious references.) His 'selected papers' (20/200) show expertise in the general area (Many/Few bodies, bose-einstein, etc) well beyond "LENR" itself. Alanf777 (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

dedented to restart with User:Chris_Howard's version.)

First -- I think that a separate section is merited. Maybe it should have a generalized disclaimer that these are all based on the preliminary results.

Rossi's own paper should be permitted, even though it's self-published.

Widom and Larsen reference should be moved here.

Other papers from generally recognized Reliable Sources (eg Purdue and Kim) should be allowed.

For THIS subject, publication in Cold Fusion/LENR journals and conferences should be allowed.

I have some minor issues with Chris Howard's wording -- but not with its general intent. Maybe it should be refined in Talk first. Alanf777 (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

@Alanf777, just go ahead - do indicate the minor issues, or edit the section directly. (I mean, I usually don't bite ...) --Chris Howard (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. Wikipedia has firm policies regarding science-based articles. If it hasn't been published in recognised peer-reviewed journals, and presents non-orthodox science, it is unlikely to be acceptable - and policy cannot be overridden by talk-page consensus (not that there appears to be one in any case). All this is entirely speculative, and has little bearing on the Catalyzer until it is confirmed that it actually works by LENR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

AmdyTheGrump, no simple "but no" like that. WP:SOURCE requires sources to be "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and the creator of the work (the writer) is to be considered. The writer, Prof. Kim, absolutely has that reputation, and moreover in exactly the field of theoretical nuclear physics. He has even published extensively on Bose-Einstein condensate. Reliable creator of the work yes, so it can be cited as source. And it is definitely relevant as far as the subject of the article, the eCat, goes. Whether Kim's attempt at an explanation turns out to actually be a correct explanation in terms of theoretical physics in the end is another question which does not have to be answered by Wikipedia.

(And just as further remark for the sake of completeness, even if your argument has already been fully addressed above: WP:SOURCE explicitly does not indicate peer review as conditio sine qua non, not even in science: "academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science. But they are not the only reliable sources in such areas" - so WP:SOURCE.)

About the Widom-Larsen theory, that would be a different issue I would say. Haven't read of a reputable expert citing it as explanation for Rossi's eCat so far, but I would be interested to learn if it's otherwise. --Chris Howard (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Rossi and Widom-Larsen's papers are already in this section. I'm just proposing to move them to the explanation subsection (which should perhaps be promoted). W-L is endorsed by Bushnell (See way above -- reminder to self ... get the necessary permission from EVworld ).

Minor edit -- Kim's paper is REF'd twice. (I'm still thinking about the whole para.)Alanf777 (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The first reference to Kim's paper was to give an indication to the fact that in his paper he refers to the conference. Yet as you say, the article was referenced a second time. Because that second reference has been at the end of the same paragraph, I have now removed the first reference. And I have provided a further reference to the invited speakers' list. Done. --Chris Howard (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I've put a draft at User:Alanf777 maybe we can edit it there. (It's better than putting it in Talk, because references don't work correctly here). Alanf777 (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I have made some editing proposals on your page concerning the Kim preprint. --Chris Howard (talk) 09:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Draft at User:Alanf777 : I added brief descriptions of Rossi and Widom-Larsen. The Kim explanation may be too technical. I can't find a RS for Rossi's statement that he has a new theory which he will publish on his Journal/Blog in October.Alanf777 (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I have now included the collected edits concerning the Kim preprint in the article. That is as far as I intend to go for the moment. --Chris Howard (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

That's fine ... it's the only RS paper that specifically addresses the eCat. Alanf777 (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Huh. It's not a reliable source at all until it has been peer-reviewed and published, so wait for it.

Actually, as long as the internals of this "black box" stay a mystery, any speculation about the mechanism is just that: speculation (and hence not suitable for inclusion into an entry of an encyclopedia). The task of Wikipedia is to collect and present knowledge, i.e. what is regarded as facts at this time, not speculation and hype.

As nobody has been able to independently reproduce the experiment, I don't see anything that would warrant writing about this from a scientific side at this moment 79.234.95.251 (talk) 10:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Astonishing

Off-topic, except to say we need more sources - but we know that anyway...

It is astonishing how much time and energy people are prepared to spend on writing a wikipedia article on something that is so obviously a mixture of fraud and Pauling-Syndrome. 40 Kilobytes with ninety references on nothing. Guys! --Maxus96 (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Er, yes. Except that there are precious few sources that assert that this is a hoax, let alone a fraud. I suspect most mainstream sources are of the same opinion, but see little merit in saying so - why risk getting into lawsuits over a non-story? Sadly, the lack of (apparent) balance in our article is a result of the lack of balance elsewhere. (And just in case anyone asks, If this actually turns out to be a genuine useful energy-producing product, I will retract everything I've said about it, send Brian Josephson a Christmas hamper from Fortnum and Mason, and slap myself vigorously with a damp trout once a day for a fortnight) AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC) I think most mainstream sources (most probably in the UK at least) are very wary after Steorn. Though if it's true they're going to look mighty foolish. Anyway, as you keep saying, this isn't a forum... damp trout, mmmm. 94.170.239.207 (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC) yea, not a forum. let´s can this. --Maxus96 (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Media coverage 3

The 'Media coverage' section is nothing more than a list of sources that have covered the 'Catalyzer', and as such, I can see no merit in its inclusion. Unless someone can provide a policy based argument as to why it should remain in the article, I intend to delete it as unencyclopaedic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, referencing should be done to source a point in the article, not to infer some sort of notability due to how many links it can pick up. A simple line of; it has received limited press in a few journals, or it has received wide ranging attention in the mainstream press, both would have just a couple of link to demonstrate this. Nothing more is required, and it can be put in the lede if you wished to demonstrate from the outset it's notability. Cheers ^Khukri 07:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The page is about an ongoing event, so the 'media coverage' section simply reflects this specific current status.

--79.6.8.180 (talk) 14:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Ongoing event or not Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list, and it's current event status can be denoted with the current event header. The list of media entries seems to try and impart faux notability by the number of links that can be gathered mentioning the catalyser. The article would be best served as I said previously with a line stating the level of media attention it had received and a selection of one or two of the current references. ^Khukri 14:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes - see also WP:NOTNEWS. The 'specific current status' is only relevant to an encyclopaedic article in as much it is of enduring notability. Which is another way of saying that it isn't notable at all. Can anyone find a policy based argument for the section's inclusion? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the interest of the media, like popular science magazines for example, is prolonged and continous since January 2011 is a proof of enduring notability.

--79.6.8.180 (talk) 14:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a question regarding the notability of the 'Catalyzer'. It is a question regarding the notability of a long list of media sources that have reported on it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Since nobody has come up with a policy based reason to include this list, I have now deleted the section. Please do not reinsert it without consensus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I see it differently. You are tossing away a list of news reportings that gives insight on how the Energy Catalyzer is perceived by the media. It is valuable information for a reader, because from the list you can see which outlet reported and which didn't. You can see that is was in the tier 1 newspapers in Italy, but not in the tier 1 newspapers elsewhere. Furthermore, you are tossing away a nice pool of resources for a reader who wants to inform himself outside of Wikipedia.

I agree that the list doesn't improve the readability of the article, but instead of kicking everything out a much better solution would be to pack it into a footnote. There are many WP-articles that make extensive use of news articles.

So, I disagree with your deletion, there is no consensus for your deletion. Deleting content anytime you can somehow find a WP-policy alleging it supports that deletion is not equivalent to improving the article, let alone the readers experience. I consider it a disservice to WP and foremost to its readers. --POVbrigand (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I read the article last week and thought that this section looked out of place - if the sources that were removed contain useful information that can be used elsewhere in the article then by all means use them. A laundry list of sources that have mentioned something is of little use to a reader who wishes to find out more about this. ATG's point about the notability of news coverage is irrelevant since N only applies to subjects, not content, but I think that WP:NOR is relevant - unless someone has written about the media coverage elsewhere (which I would expect they haven't) then we should not be writing about it. SmartSE (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is out of place and I'll repeat myself in stating that the readability of the article would improve if we find another solution. I do not think that WP:NOR is an issue, because the news reports are only mentioned without further comments like "many newspapers worldwide ..." or "only a few unreliable newspapers ...". We leave it up to the reader to decide. I find it hard to understand WP:NOR as that the mere adding of news reports is original research. The list is indeed very long as it is covering multiple languages. Some languages (countries) have more need for news reporting on this topic than others, the english wikipedia does not only serve the local USA and UK readership. This is especially true for readers from those languages that do not yet have an WP-article on this topic (or had it deleted, for notability or other policies). Finally, I do not think it is the right time now to start analyzing which of these news reports is valuable enough to stay for ever and which one is not. Improvement: yes. Deletion: no --POVbrigand (talk) 12:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It isn't our job to act as a repository of primary data to 'leave it up to the reader to decide' things, any more than it is our job to decide things ourself. If you can find a reliable source which discusses media coverage of the 'Cat', that might well merit inclusion. As it stood, the list seemed nothing more than padding, used to increase the credibility of the subject. And as for statements about 'consensus', this can only be weighed by the responses of those taking part in the discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You twist my words. Nevertheless, I think we agree that your deletion is not backed by WP:NOR. And SmartSE noted above it is not backed by WP:N. Now you advocate that somebody should find a reliable source that provides something that you personally would like. You express your feelings about padding and credibility, to me that sounds more like Wikipedia:I_just_don't_like_it. I have presented reasons why I think that keeping that listing is worth it. I have offered an alternative because I agree that the current state is terrible to read. I am discussing now and there is no consensus. btw. are news reports primary or secondary sources ? --POVbrigand (talk) 14:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: Move it to the end of the article and pack it in an expanding box (how are these things called ?) --POVbrigand (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

News reports are secondary sources for their content. In a debate regarding the volume of media coverage, they are primary data - they aren't sources at all. Perhaps you could clarify what your alternative is though, and if we can't come to an agreement, consider an RfC. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal 2: one short line at the end of the article: "The catalyzer was covered in Italy in newspapers [1], radio and TV [2], and magazines [3]. In some other countries [4] and in the USA [5]". I think that would very much tone it down to an acceptable level, without throwing away the links. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

That is classic OR: "synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources". None of the sources discuss the media coverage itself so to use primary sources like that is inappropriate. I also fail to see why this is of any use to the reader anyway - if something has an article here, then it has recieved significant coverage from the media regardless. SmartSE (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:SYNTHNOT: If you want to revert something on the grounds that it's SYNTH, you should be able to explain what new thesis is being introduced and why it's not verified by the sources. You don't have to put the whole explanation in the edit summary, but if someone asks on the talk page, you should have something better ready than "Of course it's SYNTH. You prove it isn't." The burden of proof is light: just explaining what new assertion is made will do, and then it's up to the other editor to show that your reading is unreasonable. But in any disagreement, the initial burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and the claim that something is SYNTH is no exception. If there's something bugging you about an edit, but you're not sure what, why not use SYNTH? After all, everything under the sun can be shoehorned into a broad-enough reading of SYNTH. Well, because it isn't SYNTH. It's shoehorning. To claim SYNTH, you should be able to explain what new claim was made, and what sort of additional research a source would have to do in order to support the claim.

Stay tuned: next stop in the Wikipedia:Policy shopping will be WP:WEIGHT --POVbrigand (talk) 15:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I personally agree with your original idea for a one line statement about the media impact, it doesn't need anymore and we find far more notable articles with only a one liner on it's media impact. I think it's also reaching slightly to say that it's OR to link an article that doesn't mention media coverage to a specific country, though I think your comment about weight etc was maybe a tad harsh.

I think the approach AndyTheGrump has taken in deleting what was a general list of every mention that could be found for the E-Cat was well done, and I think we should now look to identify those links that demonstrate it's notability on a world wide stage. Now it's reported that Defkalion have been pushed out and the test will be carried out in America I think will certainly increase it's profile and we can certainly find some worthwhile links here. On another note I think the Demonstrations and investigations section needs to be reduced by 75%, this is again similar to the old media section a list of almost "he said this, she said that", we need to show tests that have been carried out and that the results up to now have been far from conclusive. Cheers ^Khukri 16:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Can somebody help with step 2: wrapping the refs together so that it won't look so silly ? I am not too experienced in refs. --POVbrigand (talk) 18:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

No, because firstly there is no consensus to include the list, regardless of how it is done, and secondly, because per MOS:COLLAPSE references shouldn't be put into collapsible boxes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

<edit conflict>There is no way really, maybe except removing the spaces (carriage return), references aren't done this way. To be honest you shouldn't need that many refs, and it's just a continuance of the original problem, pick out the most pertinant, and covering what Smartse mentioned above try to include those that include it's notability or coverage from a reliable source pov. Cheers ^Khukri 19:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I am done for the italian newspapers combining them within one ref. If we agree that this looks nice, then I will do the hard work for the others too. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi to everyone. During the last months I developed the "Media coverage" section because I thought, and still think, that should eventually the Energy Catalyzer work then the section could be easily developed into a "History" section. Not now, of course, because we have no proof that the Energy Catalyzer really does work. But I just want to inform you that in retrospective the "media coverage" section could be important in that sense.

--79.16.129.223 (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear that we are breaking up your hard work, but I think the section would be questioned sooner or later. Here is your version [4]. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't finish it today. It is tedious work and I want get full backing first before I spend more time on it. I also noticed that in the external links section there is more of the same. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Stremmenos speaking

We do not use blogs as sources - DO NOT copy them here, this may be a breach of copyright

Professor Christos Stremmenos, who is former Greek ambassador in Italy and personal friend of the Papandreou family, gives us an interesting information: Ho assistito e in parte partecipato, alle numerose prove e misure, tutte svolte con successo a Bologna, non ultima quella descritta nel mio rapporto informale al Governo Greco (7-7-11). ROUGH TRANSLATION: I assisted and partially participated in numerous trials and measurements and all of them were successfully carried out in Bologna, one of the last (but not the last) is the one which was the subject of my informal report to the Greek government (7-7-11). Therefore the Greek government received a positive report about the Energy Catalyzer from Professor Christos Stremmenos. The complete statement of Stremmenos (in Italian) can be found here: http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/08/stremmenos-sulla-rottura-tra-rossi-e.html --79.16.129.223 (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC) There is also another part in Stremmenos' statement which is important: In presenza del Ing. Rossi, Prof. Focardi, Dr. Bianchini, dello scrivente, abbiamo constatato, come del resto in tutte le altre prove, l’assenza di radioattività (un lieve aumento entro i limiti ammessi, misurato dal Dr. Bianchini) e la produzione di energia termica di 10,6 Kwh/h, in gran parte auto sostenuta. GOOGLE TRANSLATION: In the presence of Mr. Rossi, Prof. Focardi, Dr. Bianchini, the writer, we found, as in all other evidence, the absence of radioactivity (a slight increase within the allowed limits, measured by Dr. Bianchini) and the production of thermal energy of 10.6 kWh / h, largely self-sustained. --79.16.129.223 (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Stremmenos, being a member of the board of directors of Defkalion, is not exactly a neutral, disinterested party here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Levi strongly denies

Concerning to the interview that Steven Krivit did with Giuseppe Levi

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Energy_Catalyzer&diff=442679916&oldid=442591410

Levi strongly rejects all Krivit's claims:

http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/08/agosto-comincia-molto-bene.html

<- Redacted by AndyTheGrump: see -below ->

--79.20.140.196 (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Do not copy large blocks of text to talk pages. As I've already pointed out, this may constitute a breach of copyright. In any case, the text is from a blog, with no indication of reliability. This talk page is for discussion regarding the 'Energy Catalyser' article, which must be based on reliable sources. It is not a forum for debate regarding other matters, and policy states that off-topic contributions may be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok. What about this:

Daniele Passerini:

According to you, why Krivit turned the verity of the facts upside down in a similar manner?

Giuseppe Levi:

That is known only by himself. What I can tell you is this: since then, Krivit manifested a strong will of pushing me into the mire and finding contradictions in what I said and wrote... Frankly he used manners which were more adequate to Guantanamo than The New York Times.

--79.20.140.196 (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Not from a published source. Irrelevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I can confirm that Krivit is not a reliable source -- see http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/articles/NET1.html for details. In fact, there is something to be added to that now, viz. his recent suggestion that our video misrepresented Bushnell's view, which the actual podcast shows not to be the case. --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Reports of termination of Defkalion Agreement

http://pesn.com/2011/08/07/9501886_Rossi_Terminates_Defkalions_E-Cat_Rights_and_License/

Worth incorporating into the article? Frogwing (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd seen that - it seems to have been widely reported on websites that have been following the story. No mention in anything I'd describe as a strong reliable source, but it is also on Rossi's own website (journal-of-nuclear-physics.com [5]), so I think it would be acceptable to cite that as a statement by Rossi. We need to be aware that Defkalion may well have another version of events, so we shouldn't assert that Rossi's version is necessarily true. If you want to add something, do, but frankly it might be better to wait for a day or two to see what happens next. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Rossi has made a blog-statement that NO MORE (his caps) announcements will be made on business matters. Alanf777 (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Also Ny Teknik made an article:

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3228376.ece

--79.16.129.223 (talk) 02:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The Ny Teknik report has now been updated, with a response from Defkalion, though it is still unclear exactly what led to the termination - both sides seem to be suggesting that it is for financial reasons, but there are a lot of unanswered questions. I'm inclined to leave the article as it stands for now, until we get a clearer picture. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Further to this, It seems that there may be a question regarding the authenticity of the Defkalion press release - it has still not been put up on their website [6]. All rather strange... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

If Defkalion has lost their license, and if it's gone to legal, an update on their website would be the LAST thing they'd do. Not strange at all. Alanf777 (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

That would make sense - but then why issue a press release? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

There's a summary by Bill Moore at EVWorld (who interviewed Bushnell and Rossi) : Andrea Rossi's E-Cataclysm? http://evworld.com/blogs/index.cfm?authorid=12&blogid=983&archive=1 -- I can summarize that, if you like Alanf777 (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that EV World would be WP:RS? We've already used Ny Teknik as a source, so presumably they can be used again. It looks like things aren't going to get clearer any time soon, so I can't see much point in leaving it any longer. We'll have to take care to state that we are giving Rossi's version of events (and Defaklon, if we cite their press release - though I'm not entirely sure we should do this while there are still doubts about its authenticity), rather than asserting that this is the whole story. So yes, go ahead...

Done -- I've just put up a minimal statement with no quotes. Alanf777 (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I saw that. I think whole section needs a tweak or too, but I'll take a look later. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I've now tidied up the Defkalion and AmpEnergo sections a little, and clarified sourcing. It may need further work, if and when things become clearer.

Just to confuse matters further, Defkalion seem now to be claiming that they will still be manufacturing their 'Hyperion' systems - "built around the same kernel (reactor), as invented by Andrea Rossi". [7] This is entirely at odds with Rossi's statement that none of the 'E-Cat' technology has been transferred to them. Both statements cannot be true (unless of course, there is no E-Cat technology ;-) ). As always, best to wait for more sources... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, and unfolding ... but it says they built their system around a Rossi core, not that they actually have one. All they need is a specification of shape, size, connectors etc. So we still have incomplete information. I'd be inclined to add that new statement as a link, with minimal comment for or against. Is pesn a WP:RS? Alanf777 (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that PESN is marginal as a source - and as you point out, there is still ambiguity. I'd leave it out for now. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

In the "breaking news" category, a local greek station Channel 6 http://kanali6.gr/?p=8013 has an interview with Defkalion's CEO "The process of establishing a power plant in Xanthi that uses hydrogen-nickel fusion continues, as the problems that seemed to exist between the inventor and the company undertaking the building of this plant have been overcome, and everything will now continue as originally planned." -- The clip is (I think) live audio over file footage -- the few words I could pick out correlate with a google-translate of the transcript. Wait and see, I think! (I put this here just so that others know it's been considered). Alanf777 (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems that Rossi has stated to the contrary, that there has been no reconciliation with Dekaflion (see here [8] - though this isn't suitable for WP:RS). AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Time for a reassessment - or an AfD?

"Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" - from Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. But is this article based on "reliable, third-party, published sources"? Or is it merely based on 'third-party' sources which uncritically repeat the primary sources? I think, on, the whole, not. About the only third-party source that might meet such standards is Ny Teknik (and they seem to be retracting some of their earlier claims regarding the E-Cat). In any case, we shouldn't base articles on a single source, credible or otherwise. This article is supposedly about a great advance in power-generating technology, but where is the evidence that anyone other than proponents of fringe science see it as such? Where are the in-depth reports from the mainstream media? Nowhere. Wikipedia:Notability states that "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: Under the General Notability Guideline, the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason". One could reasonably argue that 'significant independent coverage' for such ground-breaking technology should be itself 'significant' in terms of volume. It isn't. The mainstream media evidently don't see the E-Cat as 'significant', and neither does mainstream science, and neither, apparently, does the energy industry. So why should Wikipedia? Per WP:CRYSTALBALL, we cannot base articles on what with think the future significance of this (supposed) technology might be - this is an online encyclopaedia, based on published sources, and not a forum for speculation.

All this leads me to think that the logical procedure should be to delete this article, as not meeting Wikipedia criteria for notability and sourcing, with the obvious proviso that should the situation change, and genuine in-depth coverage within mainstream reliable sources be published, a new article can be considered. I understand that this suggestion isn't going to be popular, but I think that it is important for participants to realise that Wikipedia has objectives and standards incompatible with the uncritical promotion of fringe science (or outright hoaxes, or worse...). For a Wikipedia article on the E-Cat to be justified, the evidence needs to be provided from outside, and from the same type of sources that we would expect for other articles of such supposed significance. If proponents of LNER, or of cold fusion, or of the E-Cat wish to promote such topics, they are fully entitled to - just not in Wikipedia, while the appropriate guidelines remain unsatisfied. Convince the outside world that this device works, and Wikipedia will surely follow... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Andy, I agree with almost all you've written above with the exception of sources uncritically repeating a primary source. Unfortunately notability can come about through press giving exposure to a subject without much basis in fact. I have had a lot of experience with this with respect to the CERN and LHC articles when a few people without a clue in high energy physics caused a furore in the press saying the start up of the LHC would destroy the world. Though there were no reliable sourced information for the initial beliefs, the main stream press exposure imparted notability to their cause. This in the end lead to the creation of this article and I have to say I see a lot of parallels with this subject matter. I'm also in complete agreement that the article should not be used to give any form of respectability to the e-cat, or used to promote it. My personal belief is that this article suffers from alot of bloat and should be trimmed down to the bare facts, without the supposition of what it might do and for me taking into account guidelines such as WP:NOR and more importantly WP:REDFLAG & WP:FRINGE. Cheers ^Khukri 16:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Why not just protect the article in its current state? I think its too early for WP:DELPRO. 94.170.239.207 (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

We don't protect articles because they are poor - we either improve them, or delete them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It might be useful to add a "quarantine" feature to Wikipedia if the need arises for being able to *automatically* save "edits" for deleted articles whose content becomes notable only at a later date. If this feature does not exist, then I strongly suggest you consider the consequences of losing all the edits to the article. Be advised, even if you save them on your own computer, that does not as much guarantee that we will be able to use them, say compared to Wikipedia being able to save them. And even if Wikipedia saves "deleted" articles, there might not be enough engagement from Wikipedia administrators to revive lost article content.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 18:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump,

In the past months what you write now was a constant think in my mind. I mean: "is this article valuable?" "Is this article enough relevant?" "Are there significant sources in the article?"

My answer is this: before I was not sure if this page could be kept, but since June-July 2011 I can see a clear interest even in the scientific world about what is going on concerning the Energy Catalyzer, an interest clearly expressed from high-level scientists around the world.

Therefore the page is significant according to the significant interest shown by these high-level scientists around the world.

Moreover media coverage about the Energy Catalyzer has been constantly growing since January 2011 and this alone should be enough to demonstrate undoubtfully the relevance of this page on Wikipedia.

And IMHO this point is very important: we are incredibly scrupulous about this page because it is a page concerning an object that could have an impact about physics, but were this object something not specifically related to physics and had it the same media coverage in TV & radio stations, newspapers, magazines, etc of the Energy Catalyzer, then we would have no problem at all with this page!

So my concern is that, because we are very very very scrupulous here, then the Energy Catalyzer could fall into a sort of "reverse discrimination": a "reverse discrimination" that paradoxicallly could even lead towards the deletion of this page. IMHO, reverse or non-reverse, a discrimination is a discrimination and we should not be involved in discrimination here on Wikipedia.

--79.10.161.209 (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

If there was "an interest clearly expressed from high-level scientists around the world", it would be evident from articles in peer-reviewed articles in recognised journals - the appropriate measure by which we judge claims of scientific notability. Since these articles don't exist (indeed, cannot exist until Rossi releases the necessary details regarding his 'Catalyzer'), we cannot take 'science based' claims of notability into account. This leaves us with the question as to whether there has been sufficient coverage from "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" in the mass media. I would suggest that it hasn't. This has nothing to do with 'discrimination', but is instead a question as to whether the 'E-Cat' deserves an article in Wikipedia, based on the self-evidently limited significance it is seen as having in the very areas where one might reasonably expect it to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The obvious course of action is to wait until October and see what happens then. I am informed that reliable tests will be carried out on the 1MW machine before it is rolled out in a demonstration; I say reliable on the basis of the fact that ways in which a test may be invalidated have been thoroughly discussed by now and will be avoided. For example, the output will be used to heat water without any evaporation, everything will be monitored properly etc. etc. If that works out people will surely have to accept it and the RR will be seen as something of great significance. It would be stupid, one might even say bonkers, for the article to be deleted only for it to have to be brought back hurriedly soon afterwards, in the event of it being accepted that Rossi's claims were genuine. The only sensible thing is for people to wait and see what happens in October (just as advocated in our video, in fact). Also, when has lack of interest in something by the scientific community been an index of the unimportance of something? Take for example continental drift, completely ignored till geologists were forced to reconsider as a result of models they had created themselves. The time for a reassessment is not now [conspiracy theorists will note that it was predicted some time back that attempts to remove this article would be made in due course]. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

While I can see some merit in the " wait until October" argument, it would be a little more credible were it not based on the same few questionable sources - is there any evidence that the mass media are 'waiting till October'? This is WP:CRYSTALBALL territory, and of little significance when discussing the appropriate standards by which Wikipedia judges article content - which is to say notability and reliability as already reported.

Regarding continental drift, this is entirely true. But then the scientific community also ignored Immanuel Velikovsky's cosmology - quite rightly. Some things are ignored because they are wrong (or sometimes not even wrong).

And regarding conspiracies, all I can say is that if I'm part of a conspiracy to cover up something significant, I seem to be going about it in a rather obvious manner. I believe that is known to the conspiracy theorists as 'hiding in plain sight' - a nicely-unfalsifiable proposition and proof of nothing beyond the irrationality of such theorists - but then, if I'm part of a cover up, I would say that, wouldn't I ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok. So the question is: "is there sufficient coverage from "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" in the mass media?"

My answer is: "yes".

Take for example some articles published on two monthly popular science magazines: India's Science Reporter[9]

and Italy's Focus[10][11][12][13][14][15].

The last one is a video interview with Sergio Focardi. Brian Josephson was interviewed and the interview was published on Focus. Both Science Reporter and Focus are popular science magazines and these articles are independent articles. They are not simply repeating what Ny Teknik writes, there is a research in these articles.

The article published on Science Reporter is "feature article".

Both Focus and Science Reporter are "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".

Hence it is absolutely untrue that the only "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" that we can use is Ny Teknik.

Therefore we are here discussing about a non-problem IMHO.

--79.10.161.209 (talk) 20:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I was a little hasty in my comments regarding Ny Teknik being the only reliable third-party source,: I'll have to take another look at these articles. One thing though - we shouldn't be providing links to downloadable PDFs - instead, provide a link to where the source can be found, on the publisher's website. Otherwise, there can be problems confirming authenticity, and possible copyright issues too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok. About the article from Science Reporter:

[16] (summary)

[17] (where to download)

The licence is this: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/in/deed.en

So there should not be particular problems about licence.

--79.10.161.209 (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

There are enough sources to demonstrate notability and I agree with what Brian stated above and I tried to say in my first post, that just because it is not sanctioned or been peer reviewed by the scientific community isn't the only criteria for inclusion. But the article must be worded to reflect this situation and that there is no basis (currently know or understood) in science for the e-cat to work (with sources) and that there are no peer reviewed papers on this subject. I've said previously the tests section can be reduced to at most a paragraph, the evaluation section isn't bad but could include the line from the media section at the bottom. Until the paper is published the attempts at theoretical explanation should be removed or at most as a source in the evaluation of the device. The lede should also state the fringe nature of the e-cat, as a balance to the makers statements. I also disagree with the wait till October approach, the article should reflect the current situation now, and if there are significant developments in October then the article should be re-written then to include the developments. Simply put, the e-cat has gained notability in press but not in science. Cheers ^Khukri 07:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Ben MacDui 08:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Re notability, our video has been in the list of the 'top 10 most viewed videos in the last week' on the University's media site, linked to the university's home page, for a long time, and is generally either #1 or #2, demonstrating much interest in the subject. Such people should not be deprived of a very useful information source, none of which has been demonstrated to be significantly in error, just for technical reasons. This talk of unreliablity is just that, just talk (with rare exceptions which are soon dealt with). --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, this article definitely should not be deleted. However, I think that caution needs to be exercised in future not to include every last snippet of reported "information" as if it was of great value or importance. The article is IMO at the verge of tipping too far that way already. Even when the article is balanced and neutral, large volume tends to make the subject seem more important, as if the scientific community is actively debating the efficacy of the machine and eagerly awaiting further developments. In fact, it seems likely to me that 99% of all mainstream commentators believe this to be an obvious delusion or deception, not even meriting any public comment. 86.179.3.8 (talk) 13:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Be careful of the associations you make. "Delusions typically occur in the context of neurological or mental illness, although they are not tied to any particular disease and have been found to occur in the context of many pathological states (both physical and mental). However, they are of particular diagnostic importance in psychotic disorders including schizophrenia, paraphrenia, manic episodes of bipolar disorder, and psychotic depression."—Wikipedia article on DelusionsiNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 18:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

And what does it say at the top of our Delusion article? "This article is about psychiatric condition..." I think it is quite evident what '86.179.3.8' meant, which is the more common dictionary definition of the term - a belief held in error. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

"I think it is quite evident what '86.179.3.8' meant, which is the more common dictionary definition of the term - a belief held in error." I think it is clear that 86.179.3.8 is using a word that is clearly associated with mental illness to describe the views that some "mainstream commentators" have of the actions of those behind the "Energy Catalyzer". Using an alternative phrase such as "false belief" is likely of more appropriateness, provided it does not have a unique connection with psychiatry.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 18:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring AdG's previous advice "Incidentally, another guideline of relevance here is WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS" -- I see that nothing has happened recently in the World Series or Super Bowl articles, and that nothing IS scheduled for quite a while, so maybe they could be shut down/suspended too. I don't think that any of the media/mainstream scientist (present company excepted) silence, or the Defkalion/Rossi soap-opera have significantly changed the situation. The eCat remains the first Cold Fusion/LENR device that promises to be immediately commercially viable, and (if so, changes etc etc).

I suggest adding a block-box warning (or sentence) that this a contentious subject, that the situation may change rapidly (in either direction), and that this is NOT the place to come for breaking news. Alanf777 (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The difference is that the World Series is just that - a series. It is a recurring event, so it is entirely reasonable to assume that it will happen again, at the scheduled time. Likewise, the Superbowl. On the other hand, discounting your rather unorthodox use of the word 'promise', there is as yet no firm evidence that anything is going to happen, beyond what has been put out by Rossi etc - hardly reliable third party sources.

Regarding the 'warning', I think that any provisos regarding contentiousness need to be made clear in the article itself, and there should be no need to explain what Wikipedia isn't - this should be self evident from article content.

Perhaps, given the response here, an AfD at the present would not be sensible, but I think it needs to be understood that there are serious problems with the article as it stands, that sourcing is poor (links to PDF downloads of doubtful legitimacy etc, plus real questions as to whether other sources meet WP:RS), and that undue emphasis is being placed on unverified 'scientific' claims that don't meet the appropriate standards. I'd suggest that those who wish to keep the article do their best to improve it - which means finding appropriate sources, and using them in conformity with expected Wikipedia practice to create a balanced article - one that assumes nothing about future 'promises', makes no claims about unproven 'science', and doesn't treat recycled press releases from Rossi etc as if they were incontrovertible verifiable 'factual accounts': Basically, we need to read Wikipedia:Fringe theories, and rewrite the article accordingly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Mainstream media seem to be slowly picking up the story: Kalte Fusion - Ein italienisches Energiemärchen. --POVbrigand (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly in-depth, or actually implying that there is much credibility to the E-Cat though, is it: "Ein italienisches Energiemärchen" (märchen translating as fable or fairy tale [18]). AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

A reliable secondary source that demonstrates notability. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• The story (english via Google Translate) would be a good model for subbifying this page. The AfD can wait a little longer but the article should be brought under guidelines in the mean time. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Re "Not [...] actually implying that there is much credibility to the E-Cat", I would just like to point out that credibility is different from notability. The device could turn out demonstrably completely useless -- a hoax even -- and it would still IMO be easily notable enough for an article here. PS. what is "subbifying"? 86.160.83.52 (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I take your point regarding credibility - though an article about a hoax would need to be based to a large extent on sources that discussed it as such. I assume that ArtifexMayhem meant stubbifying, per Wikipedia:stub:

On occasion, an article may have severe problems that require much of its content to be removed. This may be done in response to an article that is heavily biased, either for or against its subject; an article that has some verifiable material but is otherwise full of original research; in response to an OTRS complaint; or a variety of other reasons.

If enough content is removed that all that remains is a stub, a stub template should be added to the article, if it does not already have one.

AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of an encyclopedia

In the light of the various suggestions that this article be shortened, enstubbed or removed, it may be worth reminding people of the purpose of an encyclopedia, as described in these extracts from that fount of all wisdom, WP:Encyclopedia:

"An encyclopedia ... is a type of reference work, a compendium holding a summary of information from ... a particular branch of knowledge."

"... the purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect knowledge disseminated around the globe."

The point is that real people, that's real people such as yourselves, folks, actually want to learn about the reactor, in the first instance from the convenient condensed version available in an encyclopedia article, and this wish should not be frustrated by people citing clever reasons for excluding stuff. Of course, I am all for the value of the entry being increased where appropriate by including provisos; that does not have its downside the way exclusion for clever reasons does. --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

"The purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect knowledge..." - but there is little 'knowledge' about when it comes to the E-Cat. What we have is an inadequate description of a device that supposedly works by methods as yet unknown to science, accounts of a few tests of questionable usefulness, grand stories of how the E-Cat is going to be mass-produced in Greece (except that now it isn't, at least according to the only person who seems to know how the device works), and a great deal of speculation, puffery and recycled press releases. Not much to build an article from.

(Incidentally, you do realise that you are quoting Diderot regarding "the purpose..."? It might be worth reading our article on him, just to see the fate that may await us all: "Diderot's work was plagued by controversy from the beginning; the project was suspended by the courts in 1752. Just as the second volume was completed accusations arose, regarding seditious content, concerning the editor's entries on religion and natural law. Diderot was detained and his house was searched for manuscripts for subsequent articles... These twenty years were to Diderot not merely a time of incessant drudgery, but harassing persecution and desertion of friends...") AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

'Incessant drudgery'. Yes indeed, a very apt description for the task of keeping a watchful eye on this web page, which is under constant threat, making sure nothing untoward happens to it. A thankless task! --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

In any event, your value judgments are very much an individual PoV. A lot of people are interested in knowing what has been going on. Who are you to deny them of this information? --Brian Josephson (talk) 07:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Brian, looking through these talk pages, both Andy and myself have cited Wikipedia guidelines as rationale for our "POV" that this page does not have the reliably sourced content to be other than notable that it has gained media attention. Your wish to use Wikipedia as a platform to get the message out there is unfortunately back to front, Wikipedia is only there for documenting that which is already out there meeting, as has been said previously, guidelines such as WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and taking into account WP:REDFLAG, WP:FRINGE. As it stands (please correct me if I'm wrong) there are no reliably sourced papers out there that explain how the e-Cat works. There is however a plethora of scientific 'opinion' and non scientific hope on how it might work, what it might contain, and whether it is a hoax or not that and it is that that has made it into the media. So my "POV" stands that until there is a paper published that demonstrates how the e-cat works, this article should be only about it's notability in garnering media attention, as of now there is no scientific notability. Regards ^Khukri 07:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Brian, thank you for keeping a watchful eye on this web page. Wikipedia needs the article. 63.3.15.130 (talk) 08:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No one is disputing that there will be an article I think now, what we are saying is this article should reflect actuality, based on reality and not be used as a promotional piece for the benefit of the e-Cat, or as a Utopian hope article about what may be. ^Khukri 09:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

"No one is disputing that there will be an article I think now". Maybe you missed this --POVbrigand (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Khukri, in general terms we're in agreement I think. Two points though: (i) there has been talk of 'stubbifying', which does not seem appropriate in the context of people wanting access to the details; (ii) NASA at least seem to be very interested (as per interview with Bushnell who is a high-ranking person), which it seems to me counts as more than mere 'attention of the media'. This is very reliably sourced in that you can hear the actual interview on the EV World site, 'straight from the horse's mouth' as it were. BTW, I talked of W'pedia providing information, which is rather different from your 'getting a message out'. --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

(Discussion about NASA moved to its own section.) --Enric Naval (talk) 11:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

NASA interest

[snipped text about other topics] (ii) NASA at least seem to be very interested (as per interview with Bushnell who is a high-ranking person), which it seems to me counts as more than mere 'attention of the media'. This is very reliably sourced in that you can hear the actual interview on the EV World site, 'straight from the horse's mouth' as it were. [snipped text about other topics] --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

(Please, Bushnell was not acting as a spokeperson for NASA, he was giving his personal opinion. Let's not jump to the conclusion that NASA supports cold fusion/Rossi.) --Enric Naval (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Enric, do you have a secondary source to back up your view that he was merely saying that on his own record, or is this your OR. You could also claim that NASA didn't perform these Ni-H experiments, because it was just some silly pseudoscientists doing their personal experiments at the NASA lab and writing an official technical Memorandum from it. (darn did I just say "official" ?)

Bushnell was acting as a chief scientists from NASA Langley research center when he said that. Please provide proof that he wasn't. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's a RS : http://tfaws.nasa.gov/TFAWS11/Speakers.html

Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions for Aerospace

Joe Zawodny (NASA-LaRC)

In 1989, Pons and Fleischman made their infamous "Cold Fusion" announcement promptly ending their careers. Despite this the study of the Pons-Fleischmann Effect continues to this day. This talk will cover some selected historical highlights from the past 20+ years that gave rise to the emerging field called Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR). The body of evidence strongly suggest that the LENR effect is real, increasingly understood, and most recently, may actually be useful. The experimental approaches and evidence along with several theories will be presented. One theory, Widom-Larsen Theory (WLT), will be discussed in detail. The practical application of LENR to aerospace will transform virtually every aspect of system design.

Unfortunately it's "ephmeral" and likely to disappear after it's over -- unless they subsequently broadcast it or release the presentation material. Alanf777 (talk) 21:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

But I think Andy or Enric will be able to testify that it is in fact written there on an official NASA web page. And that it will be a topic on an official NASA workshop. --POVbrigand (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a speech by an individual researcher in a workshop. Bushnell doesn't say anywhere that he is stating the position of the NASA, and he is actually asked to "sort of walk down some of the ones that you think look the most promising from your perspective." If you want to assert that this is NASA's position then you need a source that actually says so. As is stands, you can only say that there are individual scientists inside NASA who support CF. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The position of NASA is that they have it on their Launch Propulsion Systems Technology Roadmap (page 13 lower right corner). Or do you claim that that roadmap is merely the personal view of the author of the roadmap ? --POVbrigand (talk) 07:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It states LENR, is there a reference to the e-cat in this doc? Cheers ^Khukri 07:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

That is irrelevant. Enric was claiming that the chief scientists of Langley research center was merely stating his personal opinion and that the speech given at the workshop is merely an individual researcher's thoughts. Well that is all nonsense. For NASA the whole LENR subject (including latest developments) is ""the most interesting and promising at this point". Bushnells statement is reflecting NASA's point of view, not merely his personal pet project, same for the workshop speech. I have provided reliable sources that completely nullify Enric's reservations. Case closed. --POVbrigand (talk) 08:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You have provided no sources that NASA supports Rossi. Bushnell's statement simply refects NASA's mission... "To reach for new heights and reveal the unknown so that what we do and learn will benefit all humankind." Claiming "For NASA the whole LENR subject (including latest developments) is "the most interesting and promising at this point." requires actual sources. Right now we have LENR on a NASA draft document with a TRL of one and non-technical comments by Bushnell. Other than a few disputed sources and Rossi, there is no data on the device i.e. No knowledge can be conveyed by this article other than Rossi's claims and the fact he has made the news with them. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 10:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The roadmap lists LENR as a "push" milestone for 2032 under "Unconventional/Other Propulsion Systems". Looking at page 15, this is a preliminary roadmap that is subject to changes. The official position will appear in the final report, due Spring 2012, and LENR might or might not appear on it. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are not paying attention. Let me just add: [19] "To test this [LENR] theory, NASA Langley Research Center has implemented an experimental project consisting of researchers from inside and outside NASA preparing for feasibility tests to begin by this summer." ..."LENR work funded through Langley’s Creativity and Innovation Fund."

Nobody is claiming that NASA says anything about Rossi, other than what Bushnell has been quoted for. What I am providing is rock solid evidence that LENR is a ongoing official topic at NASA. There is no room to attach a biased interpretation to the Bushnell quotation. --POVbrigand (talk) 10:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, now that is a RS for saying in Cold fusion that Langley's NASA lab is going to do research in the field. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Enric, up here you said: "(Please, Bushnell was not acting as a spokeperson for NASA, he was giving his personal opinion. Let's not jump to the conclusion that NASA supports cold fusion/Rossi.)". That was you personal conclusion. I agree that we "outsiders" cannot conclude that NASA knows anything about the Rossi e-cat, other than what Bushnell stated. But it is a fact that NASA is working on LENR and a statement from a high ranking "insider" on the current status of the topic cannot be questioned by an outsider. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

See ArtifexMayhem's comment and my own comments. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I will let Artifex speak for himself. I do not think anybody jumped to conclusions, except you, with your OR that Bushnell was not speaking as the chief engineer of NASA Langley Research Center. --POVbrigand (talk) 13:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the fact that the interviewer starts by laying out, Bushnell's credentials, experience and then his role within NASA does not mean he was talking on behalf of NASA but as it's chief engineer, a fine distinction but an important one nonetheless. I do not see any evidence that this interview was given in an official capacity as a spokesperson for NASA, however one has to conclude given the content of the interview and his role within NASA and that he was speaking from a position of authority on the subject and that his personal opinion on the subject carries some weight. Whether Bushnell was speaking in an official capacity or not, there is no sign reading the transcript that NASA are interested in the e-cat specifically just that Bushnell knows of the tests that have been carried out and it's results. It is interesting to note that Bushnell says "And so they say that this is weak interaction, this is not fusion.", Bushnell himself does not draw any conclusion as to whether the e-Cat is genuine or not. Drawing conclusions that they are interested in LENR therefor the cat, or that Bushnell has mentioned the e-cat and LENR in the same interview does not mean NASA are interested specifically in the e-cat as Brian stated at the beginning of this section, just that they are interested in LENR technology and are aware of other groups carrying out investigation. Regards ^Khukri 14:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Khukri, I can agree to most of that, but I have some corrections: Bushnell is chief scientist, not chief engineer. Bushnell is not stating his personal opinion, he is speaking in his capacity as chief scientist of NASA Langley Research Center. He was introduced as such and he did not make a disclaimer that what he was about to say was "of the record". He was very well aware that his words were going to be regarded as coming from the chief scientist at Langley. We know that LENR research is ongoing at NASA and as chief scientists he is without doubt fully aware of the status of that work. He mentions Rossi and he does not draw any conclusion, correct. NASA are interested in LENR, they are doing research in LENR and what Rossi is doing is LENR. He mentions Rossi, he knows about Rossi, there is absolutely no logic behind the idea that they are not also "interested" in what Rossi is doing. Now, let's spend another full page on discussion the meaning of "being interested" --POVbrigand (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

No problems and thanks for the corrections :) To state A is interested in B and B is equal to C, therefore A is interested in C is synthesis of the sources. I'm clearly missing something here as both Brian and yourself believe there is demonstratable interest, can you point me to what make you draw this conclusion where it says as Brian's section opener that NASA are interested in the e-Cat. Maybe it semantics but to me interested doesn't mean they know of it's existence or it's results, but that that are actively following it's progress, and I don't see this in the statement. Cheers ^Khukri 17:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no proof whether NASA is updated closely the progress on the ecat. There are no sources about what was discussed in the meeting that apparently took place between Rossi and NASA. Earlier you said, NASA is aware of Rossi, for me that expression is too weak. If the e-cat actually works, then Rossi beat everyone at it, including NASA. Of course they are interested to know more, aren't we all ? Are NASA also interested in cooperation between NASA and Rossi, well there is no proof and that is not the point I am making. I was protesting the dismissal as "personal blabla" of Bushnell's quote by Enric. btw. there is a difference between "not allowed" SYNTH and "allowed" synthesis Wikipedia:SYNTHNOT#SYNTH_is_not_just_any_synthesis. Without common sense synthesis you can't do very much intelligent work as an editor. (I found out that many are guilty of synthesizing WP-policies to their needs, I think it is called Gaming)

What most editors haven't understood yet is that LENR is accepted as a real effect by reputable research institutions. It really exists. NASA knows this, as many others do also. But it seems that anyone who has read a book by Huizenga, Taubes or Close feels the strongest obligation to defend the one and only truth here in Wikipedia. And for those, all the WP-policies become tools to quench anything that deviates from what is written in those books, while being absolutely confident and firmly believing they are doing Wikipedia a huge favour fighting crackpot and fringe. If you enter the discussion with the solid belief that Cold fusion / LENR is not true, delusion and crackpot, than surely you will not be able to rightly apprehend the situation. They think they are dragonslayers when in reality they are Tilting at windmills --POVbrigand (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Re Bushnell's views, he actually says (of the Rossi reactor) 'I think this will go forward fairly rapidly now'. Shall we now spend another few screenfulls arguing about what he meant by that, and on the implications of the answer for this article? Or shall we, instead, bear in mind first and foremost the reader thirsting for information, and what an encyclopedia is for? --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Again same as the interest (above) Brian, it is not our role to interpret what was meant, but to demonstrate that which can be emphatically sourced, to reference a point in the article. Cheers ^Khukri 17:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that POVbrigand 's link [20] "To test this [LENR] theory, NASA Langley Research Center has implemented an experimental project consisting of researchers from inside and outside NASA preparing for feasibility tests to begin by this summer." ..."LENR work funded through Langley’s Creativity and Innovation Fund." is good enough to add it as reference to the end of Bushnell's sentence : Bushnell also said that they (Langley) were investigating and applying the Widom-Larsen theory[35][36] to an experiment [ADD HERE]. Alanf777 (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

done --POVbrigand (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)