AndyTheGrump (talk | contribs) →Reliability of Mats Lewan as a source on the E-cat: on probability |
|||
Line 209: | Line 209: | ||
No; it is very likely that significantly different processes, not protected by the patent, may also be able to generate significant amounts of heat. But if they don't work as well, Rossi will still have the advantage over competitors who might otherwise for example be able to reverse engineer his product and, in the absence of patent protection, sell their own version freely. In the long run someone may be able to do better, but until that happens Rossi will be making money from his own patent protected device -- if he succeeds in making it reliable enough that it is of practical use. There may be pitfalls on the way, of course, but still he is better off with the patent than without. --[[User:Brian Josephson|Brian Josephson]] ([[User talk:Brian Josephson|talk]]) 21:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC) |
No; it is very likely that significantly different processes, not protected by the patent, may also be able to generate significant amounts of heat. But if they don't work as well, Rossi will still have the advantage over competitors who might otherwise for example be able to reverse engineer his product and, in the absence of patent protection, sell their own version freely. In the long run someone may be able to do better, but until that happens Rossi will be making money from his own patent protected device -- if he succeeds in making it reliable enough that it is of practical use. There may be pitfalls on the way, of course, but still he is better off with the patent than without. --[[User:Brian Josephson|Brian Josephson]] ([[User talk:Brian Josephson|talk]]) 21:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC) |
||
:There is nothing 'very likely' involved here, beyond the high probability that this time next year Rossi will still be engaged in the same circus act, and the same believers will be trying to convince us that Wikipedia should abandon core policy in order to promote his magic electric kettle. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 21:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC) |
:There is nothing 'very likely' involved here, beyond the high probability that this time next year Rossi will still be engaged in the same circus act, and the same believers will be trying to convince us that Wikipedia should abandon core policy in order to promote his magic electric kettle. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 21:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC) |
||
: To answer the (obviously largely rhetorical) question at the head of this section. Lewan is a known shill for Rossi so his views on the water heater patent are suspect, and if they are also self-published then there is no way they should be included. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 23:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:02, 6 September 2015
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
More sources
http://sverigesradio.se/sida/default.aspx?programid=406 and http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2795&artikel=5872724 // Liftarn (talk)
Aug 2015 patent: better reference
Re the question of reference, agreed the reference I cited is a blog, so not ideal. It does however include a link a copy of the patent application itself, included on the Impossible Invention web site, at https://animpossibleinvention.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/us9115913b1.pdf. I assume this is a copy of the actual patent, and in principle available from the USPO somehow, probably by sending them some $$$, so in principle verifiable in this way.
Anyway, I've edited in a link to that copy, which maybe is some improvement to the article, but it would be better style if it used the 'cite patent' template used for ref. 1. I can't see any way to do this short of copying the code for ref. 1, pasting it in and editing. Unlike 'cite web', 'cite journal' etc. available by clicking on 'cite' in the editor, this seems to be one of these wp secrets that you can't look up; how is it done? --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- The patent can be found on the U.S. patent office website: [1] It is probably worth noting though that all it amounts to is "An apparatus for heating fluid" - which it will undoubtedly do, given that passing a current through a resistor will produce heat. There doesn't seem to be anything in the patent which suggests that it generates more heat than one would expect. Which is probably why the patent was approved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- Many thanks for the link, which I'll incorporate in the article in the morning if no-one else has done it. The patent will be just as effective from the patenting point of view if it does not mention cold fusion, and it has been suggested that now it has been approved Rossi can be more open than he has been.
It's curious by the way that the article makes no reference to the company Industrial Heat who have bought up the E-cat, surely a important development. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)- Or you could wait until there is some objective verified evidence that the device does what it says. Oh, wait, you're a fan of pseudoscientific claims - you won't want to wait until the heat death of the universe before adding a promotional claim to an article on a fraudulent device, will you? Rossi flew this under the radar by not mentioning that it is a perpetual motion machine. He will now capitalise on the existence of a patent to imply that it is not a perpetual motion machine, because they are not patentable. The man is utterly transparent (and a charlatan, naturally). Guy (Help!) 23:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- Under the radar? Hmmm ... . Given that the USPO automatically refuses patents mentioning CF, it seems to me that this ia s case of the end justifying the means. And on a point of physics, it is not a perpetual motion machine, as it requires refuelling when the nickel is used up; nothing perpetual about it. --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Or you could wait until there is some objective verified evidence that the device does what it says. Oh, wait, you're a fan of pseudoscientific claims - you won't want to wait until the heat death of the universe before adding a promotional claim to an article on a fraudulent device, will you? Rossi flew this under the radar by not mentioning that it is a perpetual motion machine. He will now capitalise on the existence of a patent to imply that it is not a perpetual motion machine, because they are not patentable. The man is utterly transparent (and a charlatan, naturally). Guy (Help!) 23:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- Many thanks for the link, which I'll incorporate in the article in the morning if no-one else has done it. The patent will be just as effective from the patenting point of view if it does not mention cold fusion, and it has been suggested that now it has been approved Rossi can be more open than he has been.
- It's probably worth pointing out that not only is Lewan's website a blog, but that it is promoting his book - which makes it even less appropriate as a source. As for Industrial Heat, all we know is that Rossi sold them something vaguely referred to as 'rights' - there is no reliable source stating that they have 'bought up the E-cat'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'll accept your correction on that detail. There is an interview with the CEO of Industrial Heat at http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/DardenInterview.pdf that explains IH's support of Rossi. Objecting to Lewan's site on the basis of it promoting the book is a little precious IMHO -- the article doesn't refer to tbe book. I suppose you might object to the fact that the book's title is at the top of the page, if you are the objecting type, but you'll find that many academics do similar things if they have a book they want to bring to people's attention. If you prefer a different source that gives the same information as in the article, it would be fine by me to replace the reference. --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- I've read the patent and it's not at all clear that it has anything to do with the E-Cat. The patent mentions heating by "an electrical resistor" and discusses a lithium-based fuel that undergoes conventional chemical reactions. There's absolutely no mention of LENR/cold fusion in the patent. Surely Rossi isn't trying to pull a fast one on the Patent Office. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- I wonder how carefully you have read the patent? On page 7 I read 'another aspect of the invention ... composition of matter for generating heat, the composition including ... nickel powder ...'. In which electrical shop can you buy that kind of resistor, whereas the E-cat does use nickel? It sure looks like the E-cat to me! --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- I've read the patent and it's not at all clear that it has anything to do with the E-Cat. The patent mentions heating by "an electrical resistor" and discusses a lithium-based fuel that undergoes conventional chemical reactions. There's absolutely no mention of LENR/cold fusion in the patent. Surely Rossi isn't trying to pull a fast one on the Patent Office. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
This reminds me of nothing so much as the "Zapper", a fraudulent medical device that is sold by quacks as "licensed and approved" but when you check the approval, it's licensed as a TENS machine.
This is a patent for a water heater - clearly a very deliberate choice, as the USPTO do not approve patents for free energy devices or perpetual motion machines. The core claim made by Rossi is unpatentable in the US. There is no way we should include this until it's discussed in reliable independent secondary sources which provide context. That is, after all, Wikipedia's default approach to any questionable claim. Guy (Help!) 08:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- There'd be some merit in your point were it not the fact that there is mention in the article of a previous patent application that was rejected. To remove mention of the accepted patent while keeping the rejected one would be a blatent case of bias. The section 'patents' would be visibly incomplete if your suggestion were carried out. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Discuss improvement to the article, not cold fusion/LENR in general, please. And maybe chill with the ad hominems.
|
---|
Did you invest in Rossi's company? jps (talk) 11:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
|
Terminology
Re JzG's "LENR is a term of art used by cold fusionists to appear sciencey" is a typical disparaging remark (far too prevalent in these parts, I have to say) that's a bit far from the truth. Cold fusion was the invention of journalists, I believe, thus the 'popular' term, and furthermore it has a number of alternative uses. In formal contexts, scientists prefer more scientific terminology. --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Bart Simon disagrees. You should check out his book on the sociology of cold fusion. jps (talk) 12:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- So what does he say then? I'm afraid I don't have the time to get hold of the book! --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- He basically says that the understanding of the community, as it were, of people who support these ideas of excess heat in certain electrolytic experiments is that "cold fusion" is simultaneously a poisoned term because of the controversies surrounding the Pons and Fleischmann announcement as they announced a "cause" before they knew, but also a term that serves as an "identity marker" for the community. jps (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Fine, I don't have any problem with that. And of course avoiding bad impressions can be a reason for avoiding the term. I would guess that Simon did not use the phrase 'appearing sciency', the problem with which basically is that it would seem to refer to non-scientists using the term to make it look as if they are doing science, whereas in point of fact most people involved in LENR are scientists (Rossi being a notable exception). --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- What makes a scientist? The problem here is that when people accuse cold fusion adherents of being "pathological scientists" what they're saying is that they're engaging in a fruitless outcome. The comparison is to someone who continually looks for evidence that the sun will not rise in the morning. There are ways to do many different scientific experiments to test to see whether the sun will not rise tomorrow. You could, for example, measure the rate at which the sun appears to traverse the sky or you could look for historical trends in data to see if there might be some secular variation in solar flux that will eventually allow for a random walk away from sunrise. There are all sorts of experiments and scientific investigations one can do to try to see whether the sun will rise, but the question becomes, eventually, at what point do we stop wasting our time with such questions and move on to other things? At what point does one stop being a "scientist" and start being a crank (in the most plain form of the term — literally someone who turns the crank over and over without any forward progress)? There is a credentialism that people fall back on in such scenarios because, sure, old scientists with degrees and positions and accolades and tenure can pursue whatever their hearts desire and they don't stop being scientists just because they are chasing rabbits down holes. But the final question seems to lie on whether null hypothesis rejection is possible. Cold fusion proponents tend to say that they have good null hypothesis rejection for excess heat, but the question that other scientists ask is whether such results are consistently replicable and plausibly explained. For 25 years cold fusion proponents have argued vociferously about whether they have been able to come up with replicable schema and haven't begun to broach the next very necessary question. Their lack of consistent agreement causes the rest of the scientific community to look with skepticism on whether replicability has actually occurred. I certainly am unimpressed with the progress that has (not) occurred since I first investigated this story seriously in 2004 after the now infamous DOE report. The choice one has is that either there is a conspiracy against cold fusion or that the experiments actually don't work in the way the proponents think they do. Could there be weird effects we don't understand in electrolytic cells? Sure, why not? But it is a far cry from anomalous results and scalable applicability: a far cry that has eluded this idea for a quarter of a century. When does an N-ray become an N-ray? jps (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Very briefly: I think things are changing. The fact that the Japanese government is going to fund CF research again (see http://news.newenergytimes.net/2015/08/24/japanese-government-will-fund-lenr-research-again/) is typical of this shift. --Brian Josephson (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- This is an old story, though. The Japanese Government has canceled and restarted research into cold fusion at least twice before in the last two decades. India has done it four times that I can recall. What happens is that the old reviewers and bureaucrats retire and the new ones come in not knowing the history. I just called the patent office that Rossi got his patent from and asked if they knew about the ruling that cold fusion patents cannot be given in the US. They were unaware of it. :) jps (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- But of course Rossi doesn't mention cold fusion (or "LENR") anywhere in the patent. A simple oversight on his part, I'm sure... people are forgetful sometimes. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Boris, I've explained why a number of times. It would be boring to repeat the reason yet again to those that will not learn, and I will not waste time doing so. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- I found it -- "a case of the end justifying the means". Thanks, that explains a great deal. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- This is an old story, though. The Japanese Government has canceled and restarted research into cold fusion at least twice before in the last two decades. India has done it four times that I can recall. What happens is that the old reviewers and bureaucrats retire and the new ones come in not knowing the history. I just called the patent office that Rossi got his patent from and asked if they knew about the ruling that cold fusion patents cannot be given in the US. They were unaware of it. :) jps (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- So what does he say then? I'm afraid I don't have the time to get hold of the book! --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Synthesis
Quote: 'A later patent for an "apparatus for heating fluid", making no mention of LENR or cold fusion, but specifying the use of nickel and other substances for this process, was granted by the US Patent Office in August 2015'. This is clear and unambiguous WP:SYNTHESIS in my opinion. The 'but' implies that there is a logical connection between LENR/cold fusion and the later patent, when the patent makes no such claim. And what 'process' is being referred to? The patent doesn't even use the word. I suggest that rather than edit-warring, Brian Josephson self-reverts and discusses the content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed, I think emphasizing the purported nuclear chemistry that was de-emphasized in the patent goes against the letter and spirit of WP:SYN, WP:PRIMARY, and WP:REDFLAG. VQuakr (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- (@AndyTheGrump) Thanks for raising it in Talk first. Why don't we just delete the bit saying 'no mention of LENR and cold fusion' as well as the text you want to be deleted yourself, and then we can all go home? The only reason for that text getting in in the first place appears to be through a bit of OR, viz. the absence of such reference being used to infer (incorrectly) that the patent is about something different from the E-cat (I can't see any other reason for that otherwise rather boring bit of information being included in the article), and as far as OR fanatics are concerned should not have been put in at all. And, as I have said, the reference to the materials used, which someone seems not to have noticed through not reading as far as page 7, disproves (sorry about the OR/synthesis, but it is allowed on talk pages) the idea that it is something different from the E-cat, making the text irrelevant in any case. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Patents are primary sources that describe devices that may or may not actually work. Using patents as sources to imply that the device actually works in any matter is OR. In the case of a device like this, a FRINGE violation as well. --Ronz (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, of course! And as far as I can see, the article does not suggest that; it certainly should not do.
But there is a section on patents, and including information about the latest application is merely bringing that section up to date. And, in agreement with the point that you have made, Lewan merely reports the situation and doesn't make the implication that acceptance of the patent proves anything (and I don't think anyone else would think that either). --Brian Josephson (talk) 07:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)- Lewan is clearly not a reliable source - he is promoting his book. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Faulty argument -- the article concerned makes no mention of his book. People do promote their books, quite often, and this proves nothing. Look for example at the home page of the head of the Theory of Condensed Matter Group at the Cavendish, Prof. Ben Simons. Some people promote their books rather visibly, others more discreetly. If that is the best argument you can produce for not allowing the quote, I suggest it would be preferable for you to remain silent on this point. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
It would be good if people were to chill with the ad hominems. Remember that this page is for discussion of the article, not of the editors
|
---|
|
Regarding change https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Energy_Catalyzer&diff=next&oldid=678147693
For the above change this reason is given: "Mats Lewan is neither a scientific expert nor an expert in patent law and so his opinion on what the patent is should not be included". Again, a very poor excuse for removing a quote from the article. In fact Lewan has a Master of Science degree in engineering physics, and it would be surprising if Ny Teknik would have him as its technology reporter if they did not consider he had the necessary expertise and objectivity.
And if you actually read through the patent application (and have the appropriate expertise, which I suppose you may not have) you will see that to compare the qualifications and the E-cat requires no legal training at all, and fairly minimal physics. --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Lewan's website is promoting his book. It is clearly in his interest to promote the E-Cat. It is not a reliable source, end of story. As for 'minimal physics', this is an irrelevance - the patent does not discuss the E-Cat, LENR, or any related field, and accordingly cannot be cited as a source making any such connection. Rossi has patented a heater for fluids, and that is all that Wikipedia will describe it as. Clearly Rossi intended that the patent would give the gullible an impression that he'd patented something he hadn't, but there is nothing compelling Wikipedia to assist him in this flimflammery. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Can you provide a RS verifying the fact that a Master's Degree can get you a reduction in the price of coffee? --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
http://fcnp.com/2015/08/27/the-peak-oil-crisis-cold-fusion-gets-a-u-s-patent/ (source: Falls Church News-Press)
Is this source more suitable than Mats Lewan's website?--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 12:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Don't ask! Within 5 minutes of anyone inserting that reference it will be declared unreliable and reverted. Mark my words -- editors can do this kind of thing in their sleep -- for that matter some of them probably have routines set up to do it automatically! --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes it will, because it's a minor provincial newspaper that has no obvious expertise in the field of nuclear physics. There is also the problem that NUMB3RN7NE seems to devote most of xyr time here these days to pimping Rossi. Guy (Help!) 14:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- "...09:13, 26 August 2015 JzG (talk | contribs) protected "Talk:Energy Catalyzer" [edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 09:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC))[move=autoconfirmed] (expires 09:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)) (Persistent sock puppetry: Banned cold fusionists linking usual promotional stuff, disruptive.) (hist)..."
- (see )
- Because it seems to me that we are all registered users, where is this kind of "persistent sock puppetry" you have talked about? --NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- The article (in the minor provincial newspaper) doesn't connect the patent with E-cat; only with cold fusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- That article connects the patent with Rossi (his name features 9 times in all), and the w'pedia article features Rossi as the inventor (his name is mentioned 4 times in the first paragraph). It is hardly OR or SYNTH to spot the connection, even if you yourself seem to have overlooked it. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- The article (in the minor provincial newspaper) doesn't connect the patent with E-cat; only with cold fusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes it will, because it's a minor provincial newspaper that has no obvious expertise in the field of nuclear physics. There is also the problem that NUMB3RN7NE seems to devote most of xyr time here these days to pimping Rossi. Guy (Help!) 14:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Another mention here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-h-bailey/post_10010_b_8052326.html
"...Rossi was just granted a patent by the U.S. Patent Office. The patent includes some heretofore unknown details, such as the contents of the "fuel" in Rossi's reactors: it is a powder of 50% nickel, 20% lithium and 30% lithium aluminum hydride..." (plus, there is also a small recap of the whole story too) --NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hmmm... It says Rossi's reactors, not precisely E-Cat. It also accepts Rossi's unconfirmed claim that there is a commercial installation. Although HuffPo is not very reliable, there is enough here for a comment in Rossi's article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, he has a patent on a water heater. No doubt this will help him raise more capital, using bait-and-switch. Guy (Help!) 23:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- HeHe/LOL! --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, he has a patent on a water heater. No doubt this will help him raise more capital, using bait-and-switch. Guy (Help!) 23:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
The non-mention of CF/LENF: 'above all, do no harm'
At present the article includes the statement 'The patent made no mention of LENR or cold fusion'. That is true, but there are many other things that the patent does not mention, so why refer to that specifically? As far as I can see, the statement was included because a number of editors inferred from it that the device concerned does not make use of LENR, which they think is important.
It would indeed be important if this inference were valid. But it is not. In the first place (as I have mentioned elsewhere), such mention was excluded from the patent quite simply because if it had been included that would have been enough for the application to be refused, and obviously they did not want that to happen. At the same time, there was no compelling reason to include this information. A patent has to specify how to make a device, but not necessarily the reasoning behind its functioning (unless a successful device cannot be made without understanding how it works). The Rossi patent does precisely this, saying how it is made. Making useful amounts of heat may require a nuclear process, but if just assembling the device in accord with the details in the patent is sufficient to induce the nuclear process then it is not necessary to mention this process for a potential manufacturer to be able to make the device work, so this information does not need to be included in the patent.
The bottom line then is that the inference that the device that is the subject of the patent does not make use of LENR is incorrect. The problem though is that people reading the article in the present form may come to that incorrect conclusion. After all, editors here have come to this conclusion through a confused understanding of what patents are about, and others similarly uninformed may do the same.
It is of crucial importance that the article be reworded to stop this (on the principle of 'do no harm'). One way would just to be to delete the misleading text. Alternatively the Lewan reference could be restored. But it does need to be one or the other (or of course both). We should do whatever is the least problematic. --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- We do not base article content on a contributor's 'inference'. The patent describes a device for heating fluids. Not a LENR device. That is what has been patented. Nothing more, nothing less. Accordingly, we will describe the patent as a patent for a device for heating fluids. Not a LENR device. Per Wikipedia policy, this isn't open to negotiation. And please stop creating multiple sections on the same topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- AtG: Either you have not followed my analysis, or you do not subscribe to the principle of 'do no harm'. I wonder which? It is true that a device for heating fluids has been patented, no-one will dispute that, but simply to repeat that statement is to miss the point. It is depressing to be writing things that people obviously refuse to take the trouble to read and digest before coming up with an irrelevant, tired old response. --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- I certainly subscribe to the principle of 'do no harm' - and I accordingly oppose the harmful inclusion of misleading statements about a patent for heating advice for fluids being included based on your promotional 'analysis'. Your apparent inability to comprehend the simple fact that Wikipedia follows the scientific mainstream, and isn't here to act as an unpaid shill for every purveyor of pseudoscientific flimflam is more than a little depressing itself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- I see you're shifting grounds now. Fine, let's leave out both the Lewan reference and the potentially misinterpretable sentence I have referred to, and then we can all go home with minimal risk of harm, the one you refer to and the one I referred to. Excellent! --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- Your assertion that we should include a charitable interpretation in order not to harm Rossi, begs the question. If Rossi is a scammer, as many sources agree he is (and we have evidence of past criminal convictions to support this), then giving credence to his claims is actually doing harm, because the article may (read: will) be used to support further scamming. Guy (Help!) 08:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- I see you're shifting grounds now. Fine, let's leave out both the Lewan reference and the potentially misinterpretable sentence I have referred to, and then we can all go home with minimal risk of harm, the one you refer to and the one I referred to. Excellent! --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
A description of the fluid heater
I composed a description of the fluid heater. Given the arguments going on here, it may be best to propose it here first.
The fluid heater described in the patent is a cylindrical vessel containing a slot for a rectangular fuel wafer. The wafer described consists of three main layers, separated from each other by electrical insulators. The middle layer would consist of an electrical heating element, specified to initiate and "reinvigorate" the fuel. The fuel layers above and below the heating element are specified to be a mixture of nickel, lithium metal and LiAlH4 (lithium aluminum hydride, "LAH"). The patent suggests a ratio of 50% Ni, 20% Li and 30% LAH. It is stated that the ratio is not critical, that high-porosity nickel is desirable but not necessary, and also that other Group 10 elements (platinum or palladium) as well as nickel can participate as catalysts. In operation, according to the patent, a controller monitors the temperature of the fluid and applies a voltage to the electrical heating element in the fuel wafer as necessary. It is claimed that the voltage is necessary to regenerate the fuel after the lithium aluminum hydride undergoes thermal decomposition. ¶ The means by which the LAH is "reinvigorated" is not stated in the patent. Because the fluid heater contains an electric heating element, it would function as an ordinary electric heater even if no lithium fuel were present.
Everything in the first paragraph is directly from the patent. The second paragraph (after the ¶ in the block quote) is intended to include whatever conclusions can be acceptably made from the patent; the two sentences above are only part of what I initially had written.
I do not believe this device works. I think it is a functional electric water heater, and I think it probably will provide an initial burst of extra heat as the lithium compounds undergo thermal decomposition. But I do not think that heat or electricity will cause nickel to regenerate a lithium hydride from LiAl and H2. Not chemically, and certainly not by a nuclear process. The intent of the above description is to describe how it is claimed that it works, including the bit about the temperature sensor, controller and heating element, to make it clear that the device may simply work as an electric heater that is no more or less efficient than an identical heater with, say, powdered iron in place of the nickel.
The decomposition of LAH is very exothermic and very entropically favorable. Catalysis cannot change the enthalpy or entropy of the reactions or starting materials. It only can alter the energy of the transition state. Per the principle of microscopic reversibility, all reactions are reversible, but the equilibrium in the case of the decomposition of LAH is enormously in favor of the products — and a catalyst can change the rate of a reaction but not the equilibrium.
So, in other words, I think the patented fluid heater is much like the E-cat HT described in the arXiv paper: it does generate heat, and its thermal output exceeds its stated electrical consumption, but not its actual electrical consumption. Roches (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- WP:UNDUE: given that the patent is for a water heater, and says nothing about the E-Cat, I can't see any reason why an article on the E-Cat should go into such detail. As for your personal analysis, and whether you think it 'works' or not, it isn't relevant to article content: we have to go by what reliable sources say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Roches' theoretical argument ignores the possibility that nuclear processes are involved, and I have heard that preliminary attempts to replicate the process described in the patent have found 'statistically significant isotope changes'. Further, the conclusion of the paper you cite is 'Even by the most conservative assumptions as to the errors in the measurements, the result is still one order of magnitude greater than conventional energy sources'. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Can I remind AtG that the E-cat is also a water heater and that Mats Lewan, who has given considerable attention to the E-cat for a number years, has stated that the patent appears to be of the E-cat. I can see no reason why the patent should have mentioned the E-cat, and bringing into the discussion the fact that it does not is a purely and simply a red herring. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- I am well aware of what the promoters of the E-Cat (including Lewan, who is currently plugging a book on the it) have claimed about the device. The only relevant fact about the patent is however that it is for a fluid heater, not an 'energy catalyzer' - and accordingly, we will not describe it as anything but a patent for a fluid heater. If we need to discuss it at all, which seems open to debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
The conclusion of the arXiv paper is based on the stated energy consumption of the E-cat HT. It is evident from some of the sources quoted in the article that the E-cat HT actually consumes more energy than it says it does, probably by an order of magnitude. I'm referring to the observations about the incorrectly connected ground wire, Rossi's refusal to allow the device to be unplugged, and so on. Dorigo's comment that the observers may have overlooked a simple trick also applies.
The description of the 'fluid heater' might be more detailed than is necessary for the article. It contains lithium, LAH and nickel, and Rossi's other publications are based on claims relating to nickel. The patent says that the fluid heater contains a heating element that is required to initiate the reaction and "reinvigorate" the fuel. I thought it was a really straightforward conclusion that the device would produce heat. As long as it is plugged in, it would be able to heat fluids. For several hours after it is first plugged in, the thermal decomposition of the lithium compounds will produce more heat than the electric heating element would ordinarily produce.
The arXiv paper describes how the E-cat was already set up when they began the test, and describes a steel tube containing a mystery powder and a heating element. The device was shut down after a number of hours. The patent describes a device that contains a 'fuel' with a stated composition and a heating element. If that fuel is heated, it will decompose and release a lot more heat. It will also release a lot of heat if it contacts water, or anything that can be reduced. It's interesting that the arXiv paper mentions a crack in the device, because the hydrogen produced will generate enough pressure to crack a closed container and the hydrogen will react with oxygen to form water.
I tried to write a summary that uses only the description in the patent, and then make the statement that the device will function as a fluid heater because it contains a heating element. That then has to be connected with the observations that the device uses more electricity than it says it does. I haven't followed this for years. I had read this article before, I saw the discussion on the fringe noticeboard, and just now read the arXiv paper and the patents. I can't avoid personal analysis on the talk page, but I think my conclusion is fairly straightforward given the chemistry involved in the claim. (The nuclear reaction is impossible and not happening. It releases a gamma ray and none are detected; that's stated several times in the article.) It should be possible to describe that conclusion using only the patents and the known reactions of LAH. That can't happen in the presence of anyone who doesn't want the mainstream science conclusion (I don't mean everyone who has discussed this here). So, it will probably be necessary for someone to test the present claim, which will result in a paper that's publishable in a peer-reviewed journal, and that could go in the article.
I don't want this comment to be misrepresented; I don't want to put anything in the article that is original research. I don't necessarily want to put the description of the fluid heater in the article. But the fluid heater and the E-cat are essentially the same device. The composition of the fuel described in the patent makes it evident how the E-cat HT actually operated in the test described in the arXiv paper. It is not possible to explain exactly how the observations were achieved, because a simple trick is being overlooked.
One last thing: at least two patents have been issued in China that are based on Rossi's theories and do mention cold fusion. Why aren't they mentioned here? Roches (talk) 11:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Why don't you add the information about the Chinese patents to the article? But the information about governmental funding support in Japan being restarted was removed with some excuse or other, and no doubt they'll find a way to remove that information similarly ('not notable', 'original research' or whatever — you name it!). --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Please don't change previous comments; a statement has been removed there is an addition about how I didn't say anything about a possible nuclear reaction. The 2015 patent doesn't say anything about a nuclear reaction. When the earlier application was rejected, it was stated that there is no evidence that the nuclear reaction described can occur. If a nuclear reaction did occur, even if somehow there was no gamma radiation, the products would include some that were radioactive, primarily beta emitters, and that could be observed after the reaction. And if the process ever made copper with natural isotopic abundance, that copper was not produced by a nuclear reaction. If the device previously produced natural-abundance copper and suddenly produces copper enriched in a certain isotope, then something is being overlooked. Likewise if copper was previously the product of interest and it has been shifted to a lighter element. Roches (talk) 12:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- I can see that a statement of mine has disappeared though I can't link it to what you are saying but anyway I'm having problems tracking down the change. Perhaps you can indicated it using the history process -- click on 'view history', then click on the radio buttons for the before and after items, and then on the 'compare selected revisions', and then put in a link to the URL of the comparison page. --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Reliability of Mats Lewan as a source on the E-cat
Mats Lewan can be considered an expert on the subject on account of his physics degree and the extensive studies he made for his book An Impossible Invention, while the fact that his articles on the subject have been published in the reliable third party source Ny Teknik (distributed to all members of The Swedish Association of Graduate Engineers) makes it permissible, in view of the cited guideline, to regard his self-published article on the recent patent as a RS. --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.
- It ought to go without saying that merely having a degree in physics does not confer infallibility (or even much credibility) in all things physics-related. If Mats Lewan wishes to be taken seriously in his reports on the Energy Catalyzer, he need only publish results of his experiments on the device in credible, independent, peer-reviewed, scientific journals. A long history of self-publishing credulous nonsense is not a basis for asserting reliability as a source for Wikipedia's use. (As for Ny Teknik—how long has it been since they've let Lewan dribble more E-cat cheerleading on to their website? Lewan is a 'technology' reporter who blogs about new Apple products and such; any 'science' reporting is a sideline at best.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- It is not possible for Lewan to be an 'expert' in the E-Cat. There is no recognised field of expertise here. To open up Wikipedia to self-published sources whose sole claim to 'expertise' lies in fields unrecognised by academia and recognised scholarship would be to open it up to every purveyor of snake-oil, free-energy flim-flam and secrets of eternal life that appears. And I can only suggest that the fact that Professor Josephson made such a proposal is clear and unequivocal evidence of just how utterly at odds with the fundamental ethos of Wikipedia - as an encyclopaedic reflection of contemporary mainstream scientific and academic knowledge - he is. If he wants to promote Rossi's circus act, he can do so elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- Lewan is a reasonable source for the news and business aspects of the E-Cat but for the scientific aspects we need much better sources (see WP:REDFLAG). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- The problem with Lewan as a source regarding the 'news and business aspects of the E-Cat' is that like most sources he merely repeats Rossi's claims. The 'news' consists of reports of Rossi's performances, based on Rossi's version of events, and the 'business aspects' amount to unsubstantiated claims about undefined deals. Deals which have a history of simply disappearing from view when the next one comes along. Lewan is 'reliable' in as much as he reliably reports what Rossi says - no more, no less. Furthermore, the website he is being cited from is set up with the express purpose of selling a book which is only credible as long as the E-Cat is - he is not, accordingly, an uninvolved source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- It would be good to avoid wording that suggests a lack of objectivity on the part of the writer, all too common in these parts. There are lots of things wrong with the item by ATG; for example, if you look at the book you'll see that he does not simply repeat what Rossi says. Have you studied the book, by the way?
And let's get real, folks. What we are talking about isn't advanced science -- only school physics and chemistry should be needed to tell whether or not the patent looks like it refers to the e-cat. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)- Agreed -- in fact, not even that level of scientific background is necessary to tell whether or not the patent refers to the E-Cat. The simple ability to parse written English shows that the patent says nothing whatsoever about the E-Cat, cold fusion, LENR, or nuclear processes more generally. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- You misunderstand me, Boris. There's a difference between 'referring to' and 'mentioning'. You are only referring to the latter. Let me explain the difference by an example. I may say 'there was a thunderstorm last week'. I would then be referring to a specific event at a specific time, but you won't see those details in my actual words. Get it? --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'd like to add that I don't appreciate what appears to be a deliberate misunderstanding of my words (but if you tell me that it was unintentional I will accept your apology). --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- I took what you said literally. In American English "refer to" is indeed a synonym for "mention." Apparently there is a British-English sense in which "refers to" is a synonym for "relates to" in a much broader sense; being a colonial that is not familiar to me. Whether the patent "relates to" the E-Cat is of course the very issue we are trying to sort out, so this seems like circular reasoning. (As an aside your example leaves me puzzled but we needn't delve further into the nuances of language.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- Fine, I guess we are in agreement now over this particular point at least. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- A patent only has any validity in as much as it explicitly makes claims. The fact that those familiar with the E-Cat think that it is 'referring to' it has no bearing whatsoever on whether it actually patents anything other than a device for heating fluids in a conventional manner - though no doubt Rossi intends it to give that impression. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- It really should not be so difficult to understand (but apparently it is in your case) that if (contrary to what I know is your firm belief, but you should accept that it is at least possible that you are wrong in regard) the E-cat actually works as claimed, then if anyone copies the recipe and tries to market the result, what he will be selling is something that, regardless of whether or not there is reference to CF or whatever in the patent, will be heating a fluid in accord with the terms of the patent, and therefore violating the patent. The patent therefore provides a degree of protection. I suggest, with due respect, that you spend a little time thinking about the logic of this argument so we won't be bothered with your ill-informed objection once again in the future. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- 'Protection' for a process (so far unexplained by science) which will only work in a device exactly as described in the patent? Yeah, right... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed -- in fact, not even that level of scientific background is necessary to tell whether or not the patent refers to the E-Cat. The simple ability to parse written English shows that the patent says nothing whatsoever about the E-Cat, cold fusion, LENR, or nuclear processes more generally. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- It would be good to avoid wording that suggests a lack of objectivity on the part of the writer, all too common in these parts. There are lots of things wrong with the item by ATG; for example, if you look at the book you'll see that he does not simply repeat what Rossi says. Have you studied the book, by the way?
- The problem with Lewan as a source regarding the 'news and business aspects of the E-Cat' is that like most sources he merely repeats Rossi's claims. The 'news' consists of reports of Rossi's performances, based on Rossi's version of events, and the 'business aspects' amount to unsubstantiated claims about undefined deals. Deals which have a history of simply disappearing from view when the next one comes along. Lewan is 'reliable' in as much as he reliably reports what Rossi says - no more, no less. Furthermore, the website he is being cited from is set up with the express purpose of selling a book which is only credible as long as the E-Cat is - he is not, accordingly, an uninvolved source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- Lewan is a reasonable source for the news and business aspects of the E-Cat but for the scientific aspects we need much better sources (see WP:REDFLAG). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
No; it is very likely that significantly different processes, not protected by the patent, may also be able to generate significant amounts of heat. But if they don't work as well, Rossi will still have the advantage over competitors who might otherwise for example be able to reverse engineer his product and, in the absence of patent protection, sell their own version freely. In the long run someone may be able to do better, but until that happens Rossi will be making money from his own patent protected device -- if he succeeds in making it reliable enough that it is of practical use. There may be pitfalls on the way, of course, but still he is better off with the patent than without. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- There is nothing 'very likely' involved here, beyond the high probability that this time next year Rossi will still be engaged in the same circus act, and the same believers will be trying to convince us that Wikipedia should abandon core policy in order to promote his magic electric kettle. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- To answer the (obviously largely rhetorical) question at the head of this section. Lewan is a known shill for Rossi so his views on the water heater patent are suspect, and if they are also self-published then there is no way they should be included. Guy (Help!) 23:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)