Jump to content

Talk:Energy Catalyzer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discuss recent proposed addition.

[edit]

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

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

Josephson

[edit]

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

The way I normally put the situation re memory of water (the claimed basis of homeopathy) is this: 'the idea that water can have a memory can be readily disproved by any one of a number of easily understood, invalid arguments. I'm sure User JzG could enlighten readers with more than one of these! --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the EL Andrea Rossi's 'E-cat' nuclear reactor: a video FAQ correct? Considering topic, the people involved and the publisher, I think it's a pretty good fit for a WP:EL, and IMO things like
"NB: the Wikipedia entry for 'Rossi reactor', cited in the video as a source of information regarding the reactor, can no longer be recommended as a reliable source, since the page concerned has been taken over by an editor group hostile to the reactor, resulting in a highly biased account of the history. " add a bit of humor.
I don't understand how having this link here is rubbing Josephson's nose in bullshit, though. I did notice that he had edited the Judith Driscoll article quite a bit, that made me worry a little about COI. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He's never really understood the COI rule, or WP:FRINGE :-( Guy (Help!) 13:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The thing I do understand is that a measure of commonsense needs to be applied in regard to WP rules. Brian Josephson (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to fail WP:ELNO #2. This article is about a cold fusion generator, not a particular viewpoint. VQuakr (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I find that argument somewhat weak. Reading the transcript, Josephson is obviously a proponent, presenting what Rossi said/his own salespitch, but that is not the same as "misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research". What proponents has/had to say is an interesting part of the whole, especially since Josephson is an interesting voice and the url has cam.ac.uk in it. But that is my view, and we're obviously in editorial discretion territory, an article doesn't stand or fall on the EL's.
But see WP:PROFRINGE. Having a Nobel laureate give a credulous presentation of a fraudulent device does neither us nor the Nobelist any favours. Guy (Help!) 20:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A agree, and removed the other for similar reasons. Rossi doesn't appear a reliable source for anything other than his own opinions. --Ronz (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Arguing just because, I can see these two links under EL as giving due weight to a significant minority (in the article as a whole). Anyway, I'm a lone voice here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
External links sections are no place to address other problems in the article, like POV concerns. --Ronz (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nobel Laureate here😄. Rossi has just given a demo of his latest device, this time being used to run a car for some hours. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cV_pznFR-P4 for a synopsis. You can also pre-order the devices. In principle, an impressive device, but is there some trick? --Brian Josephson (talk) 13:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe William of Ockham could answer your question. Bon courage (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure Ockham would have studied the references before any consideration of answering the question. Brian Josephson (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'References'? ROFL. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant is that if he were alive today Ockham would have studied the video before deciding whether it was a trick, rather than coming out with an immediate yes or no. That was the reference I was alluding to. Have any of the critics studied the video? --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Ockham is sadly no longer with us in our hour of need, we'll have to go by Wikipedia policy instead, and reject Rossi's video and website as the unreliable sources they clearly are. Feel free to come back when his magic-teapot-powered car features in Nature. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The whole event was videoed and people other than Rossi's were there (an editor of a physics journal planned to be among them but for personal reasons was unable to). That seems to be a pretty reliable source in the sense of showing what actually happened. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw a video of a woman being sawn in half[1] is that a "reliable source" for it happening? In mean, for Fuck's sake: is this trolling or just a total abandonment of sense? Bon courage (talk) 17:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you don't study what I write carefully enough. But perhaps that's not 'the name of the game'. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to propose 'anything that appears in a YouTube video has actually happened' as an amendment to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline. And when that passes, come back and we can discuss changes to article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what makes you think I want to suggest that. Muddle, muddle!
On the other hand, an LENR person has come up with a possible explanation for 'what really happened', viz. that the e-cat device could have contained a second battery. I haven't done the sums but that could possibly account for what at first sight would seem to be conclusive proof that the e-cat was really generating a lot of power --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Update: someone has done the sums now and it seems that explanation could work. This doesn't of course prove that this is what happened. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RSPYT is unlikely to change. --Hipal (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be trivial to prove that a product, that in practice would be much like a "free energy" device, works. No need for Youtube videos; just start making a fortune selling cars that don't need refueling, maintenance-free remote power supplies, etc. But WP:REDFLAG applies to a claim such as this, so we are going to be more skeptical of unreliable sources, not less. I would also ask that everyone (and I really am not targeting any one person here) please follow the spirit of WP:CIVIL and drop the snark. VQuakr (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My contacts clearly indicate that such things are going ahead, but I won't go into details here except to say that Rossi is not involved. Be patient! In such a context scepticism hardly matters, it doesn't stop the advance, but these things take time. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Once multiple peer-reviewed sources in top-quality journals are available then we can report based on those. Wikipedia is, by design, not meant to be at the forefront. VQuakr (talk) 21:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, though what is involved here is not so much publication in journals but availablity of devices. By the way, peer review is not that reliable these days. The situation is a bit like rechargeble batteries, which people buy because they are useful, not because of papers about them in journals!
But as you say, Wikipedia is not at the forefront so things might have to progress beyond this before the situation could be addressed in an article (not to mention the 'sceptics ahoy' aspect of w'pedia). --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note from an Organic Chemist

[edit]

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

Ecat process verification

[edit]

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

How is that, or even the research report it's based upon, reliable? --Hipal (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bollocks from 2014. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Energy_Catalyzer&oldid=1250288017"