LeadSongDog (talk | contribs) →time to remove old newsy items that came to nothing: still not encyclopedic |
Wikipedia:No original research: It's not just a good idea. It's the law. (smile) |
||
Line 226: | Line 226: | ||
:::::::::OR cannot be a reason to delete something from the article. The only reason to delete this bit from the article is consensus to do so. Consensus based on the fact that we haven't heard anything about whatever happened and that it is probably not important to the story at the moment. --[[User:POVbrigand|POVbrigand]] ([[User talk:POVbrigand|talk]]) 21:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
:::::::::OR cannot be a reason to delete something from the article. The only reason to delete this bit from the article is consensus to do so. Consensus based on the fact that we haven't heard anything about whatever happened and that it is probably not important to the story at the moment. --[[User:POVbrigand|POVbrigand]] ([[User talk:POVbrigand|talk]]) 21:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
||
::::::::::Well that's standing policy on its head :-) Surely you don't intend to say that WP should indefinitely remain a repository of unrealized predictions solely because we have no source to say they were unrealized? They simply are not encyclopedic content.[[User:LeadSongDog|LeadSongDog]] <small>[[User talk:LeadSongDog#top|<font color="red" face="Papyrus">come howl!</font>]]</small> 03:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC) |
::::::::::Well that's standing policy on its head :-) Surely you don't intend to say that WP should indefinitely remain a repository of unrealized predictions solely because we have no source to say they were unrealized? They simply are not encyclopedic content.[[User:LeadSongDog|LeadSongDog]] <small>[[User talk:LeadSongDog#top|<font color="red" face="Papyrus">come howl!</font>]]</small> 03:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC) |
||
{{od}} |
|||
Re: "''OR cannot be a reason to delete something from the article. The only reason to delete this bit from the article is consensus to do so.''" The overwhelming consensus of the Wikipedia community is that original research should be deleted on sight. This consensus was carefully worked out and documented here: '''[[Wikipedia:No original research]]'''. Consensus among the editors of an article does not trump the consensus of the community as a whole, but for what it is worth I strongly support the policy as it is written, so you don't have consensus among the editors on this page to allow [[WP:OR]]. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 08:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 08:22, 6 April 2012
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"Clownerie"
A new article on the Forbes website: [1]
We now have an apparently reliable source for Rossi being offered $1,000,000 by an Australian entrepreneur Dick Smith to replicate the March 29, 2011 demonstration, in front of Kullander and Essen (the previous witnesses), where they could check the wiring, the power output etc, to dispel doubts. Rossi has apparently promptly turned this offer down, describing it as "Clownerie". I wonder whether this interesting little titbit needs incorporation into the article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Gizmodo on the same story: [2]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to leave out all the blow-by-blow details of this soap opera. Mangoe (talk) 20:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've added it in Smith's article. --Chris Howard (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
If you think thats funny you havent seen this!
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MacyMspecificso.pdf
Almost surreal,
The pathological deniers are going to have a field day with this one.
84.106.26.81 (talk) 11:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- There is nothing 'pathological ' whatsoever in requiring evidence for 'cold fusion/LENR' to come from reliable sources - which is to say mainstream peer-reviewed science journals, per normal Wikipedia policy over such matters. The only 'pathology' I see here is that of the 'reality deniers' who seem to think that if they ask us to ignore the rules and fill our articles with unverifiable junk often enough we will eventually hand the authorship of the article to the Leonardo Corporation, pesn.com and any passing tinfoil-hat-wearing magic teapot boosters. That isn't going to happen. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I totally agree... Although i personally believe that the effects observed by LENR researchers all around the world have a lot of merit and the potiential to become the future of power, Andrea Rossi has not created an environment where many of his claims can be verified. that being said... please tone down the "tin foil hat wearing magic teapot" talk... it just shows that regardless of the truth in your words about what this Wiki can and cannot post, you clearly have a large bias. Just becasue there aren't any incredibly reliable sources to prove that something is the truth does not mean that it is not a real and profound discovery. Profound discveries only happen with the slow addition of support, not overnight, so they have to be given a chance to build. Plate techtonics, evolution, etc. are examples of what I mean. Plenty of people mocked Alfred Wegener and Charles Darwin in the exact snearing tone that you use all the time... try and raise your standards.118.93.15.111 (talk) 10:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Perpetual motion machine
After a hiatus I have read this article again. I noticed this line in the "Demonstrations" section:
"In many ways cold fusion is similar to perpetual motion machines. The principles defy the laws of physics, but that doesn’t stop people from periodically claiming to have invented or discovered one."
Although it is an attributed direct quote, I think it misleads the WP-reader. If LENR are a real effect, the principles do NOT defy the laws of physics in such way that LENR would be a "perpetual motion machine". It would be just another nuclear power source.
It is still OK to call the whole Rossi show "fishy", but the analysis of Benjamin Radford seems a bit out of touch with describing the actual problem. I therefore propose to delete that bit.
Interestingly on the upcoming Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space meeting on 21-23 March [4] Yeong E. Kim will be speaking on his Bose Einstein Condensation theory [5] and George Miley will be presenting "A Game-Changing Power Source Based on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs)"[6]
Miley mentions Rossi in his presentation: "Excess heat generation from our gas-loading LENR power cell (Figure 1) has been verified, confirming nuclear reactions provide output energy. While there are similarities between ours and the Rossi E-Cat gas-loaded kW-MW LENR cells that have attracted international attention, there are important differences in nanoparticle composition and cell construction."
--POVbrigand (talk) 15:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- I see your point, but it's based on a hypothetical: "If LENR are a real effect, the principles to NOT defy the laws of physics." In Wikipedia we describe the world as it is, not as it might be someday. Should LENR (or creationism, or perpetual motion, or whatever) become accepted by the scientific community we can revisit the matter. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- This is not about whether LENR is accepted by mainstream science or not. I am only proposing to delete one quote. By removing that quote I do not want to make the Rossi claim more believable to the WP-reader, it is just a flawed comparison. LENR (or its hypothesis if you will) and perpetual motion have nothing in common. LENR are nuclear processes consuming nuclear fuel. Perpetual motion machines are per definition not consuming fuel.
- And if LENR are not a real effect they also do not defy the laws of physics, correct ?
- So if LENR are real or not is irrelevant, either way they are not perpetual motion machines. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- Nobody claims they are the same, only that both violate known laws of physics. Perpetual motion machines violate basic laws of thermodynamics. Current LENR devices would, if they worked on the proposed principles, violate lesser known, but no less understood, laws of nuclear physics - as I understand it, there is no way for fusion that will not produce hard gamma rays. None of the proposed devices show signs of such gamma rays. But there is another significant similarity: Both perpetual motion and cold fusion devices have a following among people that have, at best, a marginal understanding of the physics. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- "Marginal understanding of physics". You mean Yeong E. Kim and George H. Miley ? --POVbrigand (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- Nobody claims they are the same, only that both violate known laws of physics. Perpetual motion machines violate basic laws of thermodynamics. Current LENR devices would, if they worked on the proposed principles, violate lesser known, but no less understood, laws of nuclear physics - as I understand it, there is no way for fusion that will not produce hard gamma rays. None of the proposed devices show signs of such gamma rays. But there is another significant similarity: Both perpetual motion and cold fusion devices have a following among people that have, at best, a marginal understanding of the physics. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- Stereotypes are trite.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk 21:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- Stereotypes are trite.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
- "LENR are nuclear processes consuming nuclear fuel". No - they are hypothetical processes claimed to produce power by consuming nuclear fuel. The source cited doesn't say they are perpetual motion machines. It says that the claims made appear to defy the laws of physics, as do perpetual-motion machines. The comparison is being made by Benjamin Radford because he suggests that "If this all sounds fishy to you, it should" and similar hype (sometimes on the same forums being used to promote this device) is created over supposed perpetual-motion devices. Frankly, I think that it is Rossi and his colleagues that are ultimately responsible for this - if they want to associate themselves with pesn.com and the like, rather than submitting the device for proper scientific scrutiny, they can hardly complain about comments regarding 'perpetual motion'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- By that rationallity i might as well say that "Cold fusion is similar to a magic wand, The principles defy the laws of physics, but that doesn’t stop people from periodically claiming to have invented or discovered one."
this is just stupid... LENR is an emerging science, as such, it does not yet have the background in solid evidence to support itself solidly, yet more is coming every day. This is extremely different from perpetual motion machines and magic wands, they are in only a very small way comparable... and that isn't good enough for wikipedia quality.118.93.15.111 (talk) 10:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- There is no such thing as "an emerging science" - it is either 'science', and based on 'solid evidence', or it isn't. And predicting the results of yet-to-be-done experiments ("more is coming every day") is bad science. In any case, given that Rossi is now claiming that there are no nuclear reactions going on in his device, what has LENR got to do with the subject of this article? Or are we only to take Rossi's word for something when it promotes this hypothetical 'science'. This article is about the E-Cat - a device that as yet has never been scientifically tested, promoted by a character with a dubious past, a criminal record, and a propensity for making wild unverifiable claims. Frankly, why anyone with a serious interest in LENR as a science would want to associate the subject with Rossi's antics is beyond me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- "perpetual motion machine" is a quote from a mainstream publication, criticizing a quote doesn't mean we can change it or censor it. Bhny (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes correct, there is no WP-policy prohibiting the use of this quote, it _can_ be used. The quote also seems to help to keep NPOV as it shows that the whole story should be regarded as "fishy". But, The trouble is in what the quote implies, it might mislead WP-readers to think that the energy catalyzer is a perpetual motion machine ("in many ways similar") and that the "principles defy the laws of physics", which may not be the case at all.
- Note for instance this natural effect: Lightning strikes produce free neutrons, and we're not sure how (peer reviewed experimental measurements) that can be explained by the Widom-Larsen-Srivastava theory (peer reviewed theory proposal) -> see the Lewis Larsen's comments below the arstechnica article.
- Does lighting defy the laws of physics ? Surely not. The proposed theory does not defy the laws of physics either. And that same theory also explains Ni-H LENRs, thus also explains what the energy catalyzer is claimed to do. Which does not imply that the energy catalyzer really does work the way it is claimed.
- I am not arguing that this quote is offending policy, I am just highlighting that the usage of the quote is troublesome. We should ask ourselves how WP-readers might "parse" this line and if it will set them of in the wrong direction.
- This is a consensus topic. I have highlighted it, to me it is troublesome. A clever rewrite of the quote would probably defuse this issue.
- Or we might just wait another couple of days, when it becomes obvious to everyone else that this whole cold fusion/LENR field is a completely legitimate science topic. Which _still_ would not imply that Rossi claims are true.
- --POVbrigand (talk) 09:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- I am not making synthesis. If it appears that way to you, then it appears to me that you haven't understood it at all. Everything I wrote is not my synthesis, read Lewis's comments. Have you watched the CERN colloquium presentation by Srivastava ? He explicitely mentioned lighting ! I have just presented it here so editors will be able to understand better why I think the quote is troublesome. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, by the authors of the peer reviewed paper, by means of a comment to an article on a technology news and information website and by a presentation at a CERN colloquium. I think you are evading the issue, trying to drag this discussion to a confrontation instead of a cooperation. --POVbrigand (talk) 10:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- POVb, I think you should put your crystal ball away for now. We have a comment that reflects the commonly held perspective of science as it is now - and if mainstream science changes its position on LENR (if...), the quote would still be valid as an expression of the perspective at the time it was made. And how many times does it have to be explained that this isn't an article about LENR, it is an article about Rossi's device... AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that the quote is valid. We _can_ use it. I think that it might mislead some WP-readers and I have explained why. And yes, the quote would still be valid if (if...) LENR is accepted as proven by mainstream science (which will probably happen in 2,5 weeks), but we would use it very differently to showcase how ignorant tech writers used popular misnomers to comment on issues they knew nothing about.
- This is a consensus topic. If y'all think it is perfectly ok to leave this quote in like this, then so be it. I have made my point.
- --POVbrigand (talk) 13:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough, if in 5 weeks time the scientific consensus has changed, we can look at the article again. Though why anyone is researching into LENR, when your infinite supply of optimism is so much easier to tap into, is beyond me... ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
The Greek government in test of Defkalion's technology
This[7] may be of interest, but it appears to be unsubstantiated as of now. // Liftarn (talk)
- Yes, Ny Teknik is rather uncommitted as to whether the Greek government is actually involved, or whether Defkalion is merely claiming that it is. And then there is the question as to whether yet again we should be using a sole source with marginal competence regarding the subject matter for article content - I'd say we'd need other independent sources to justify adding material. In any case, Defkalion are claiming to be making their own devices, not E-Cats, so it isn't directly relevant to this article. As I've said before, should anyone start an article on Defkalion, it is going to be very problematic, due to the claims by Rossi that it is based on his technology: potentially a legal minefield. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- If the reliable sources connect it to the Energy Catalyzer then I think we should as well. If an independent source mentions it I see no problem with sticking a mention in the commercial plans sections as long as due weight is established. Nyteknik is too close to the story though. We need an independent reliable secondary source or similar to help establish due weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- it is probably only relevant because they used to work with rossi, claim to be using similar technology (LENR Ni-H reactions), and claim to be building similar devices (commercial heat units of comparable output)118.93.15.111 (talk) 10:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
hype machine
It has been more than year now, since the first shaddy "demonstration". during this time there has been no new data/real news/products on any market or authenticated companies. Just more hype and misdirection.
I want to believe, but my brain does not let me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.222.254 (talk) 06:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'd be tempted to suggest that you'd do as well to take the advice of your brain - but see WP:NOTFORUM - this isn't an appropriate place to discuss such issues. Instead, we are trying to maintain a half-plausible article in the face of 'no new news' ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Low-energy non-nuclear reactions?
An interesting development, though sadly only currently discussed in primary sources, and in other places unsuitable for Wikipedia sourcing.[8] In response to a complaint to the Florida Bureau of Radiation Control that Rossi was claiming to be manufacturing nuclear reaction devices in the state, but apparently had none of the certifications required for such production, enquires were made, and Rossi was contacted by a bureau inspector, Jim Stokes:
- "I spoke with [Mr.] Rossi concerning the construction and operation of his E-Cat device. He stated the active ingredients are powdered nickel and a tablet containing a compound which releases hydrogen gas during the process. [Rossi states that] the output thermal energy is six times the electrical energy input. He acknowledged that no nuclear reactions occur during the process and that only low-energy photons in the energy range of 50 to 100 KeV occur within the device. There are no radiation readings above background when the device is in operation. Since the device is not a reactor, the [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] does not have jurisdiction. Since there [are] no radioactive materials used in the construction and no radioactive waste generated by it, the state of Florida Bureau of Radiation Control has no jurisdiction. [Rossi states that] currently all production, distribution and use of these devices is overseas. [Rossi states that he] has arranged to meet with Underwriters Laboratories (UL) to seek approval for manufacture in the United States. I thanked [Mr.] Rossi for his time meeting with me."[9]
Two things stand out here. Firstly, contrary to Rossi's earlier assertions regarding nuclear reactions, regarding the need for lead shielding etc, and the concerning the supposed presence in used nickel powder of elements not previously present, he is now seemingly claiming that no nuclear reactions occur during the process, and secondly, contrary to his earlier claims, the E-Cats are not being manufactured in the United States at all. Now where the devices are being manufactured is actually of little significance to our article, but the fact thar Rossi himself is now saying that there are no nuclear reactions occuring will make much of the present article content outdated. Of course, as yet we have no appropriate secondary sources for this, but I suspect that it can only be a matter of days before this development is reported in the mainstream media - I'll ask everyone watching this talk page to pay particular attention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- There is not a prohibition for using original sources in Wikipedia. You need to be careful about how they are used and POV arguments certainly can be raised when they are misused, but it is a falsehood to suggest that original sources from something like a governmental agency can't be used in an article like this. In that sense, if you don't trust New Energy Times, all of these documents could be accessed directly from the State of Florida and thus be put into the article. I certainly would put the Florida Bureau of Radiation Control as a reliable source of information.
- This said, it looks like Rossi wants to have his cake and eat it too. I am suspicious about this Gary Wright as well, as I don't think his motivations are as pure as he is suggesting "as a concerned citizen", but I also think that almost anybody could have started this "investigation", so his motivations for getting it started are irrelevant. That said, I don't think there are going to be radioactive materials in any of the products Rossi is trying to make, at least not until the device is activated. The laws for nuclear energy are written under the assumption you are using fission devices and heavy elements like Uranium and Thorium as fuel sources, and fusion devices aren't really covered under those laws. People who have building Fusors generally don't have problems with regulators because of that, in part because radioactive materials aren't being transported or used to make the devices. An example of such reactors being built can be found on this blog of an experimenter in New York City who is building a Polywell reactor: http://prometheusfusionperfection.com/ The blog (if you go back into the archives) talks about an investigation by the New York City Department of Public Safety (or some agency like that... I can't remember the specific agency) where they checked out what he was doing and basically said he was following the law and didn't need to be licensed.
- The key part of this report from Florida is the conclusion: The devices aren't being manufactured in the USA (especially not Miami), and as such this particular agency has no jurisdiction. More fun and games from Rossi perhaps, but it is much ado about nothing. I agree that the claim of no nuclear reactions happening is something of note, but there was nothing to investigate so I wouldn't read too much into that statement either. In terms of what could be added to this article, about the only two factual items from this report is that the devices are being made somewhere else than Florida, and that Rossi has promised that Underwriters' Laboratory will be providing some sort of certification for the device before it is sold in America (setting up Rossi for legal problems if he doesn't follow through with that promise). While it seems like Rossi is being very slippery here and getting away with a huge scam, even that conclusion can't be derived from this source material. As long as it can be confirmed that this information is factually accurate, I don't see why at least a mention that the Florida Bureau of Radiation Control has investigated Rossi should be kept out of this Wikipedia article. --Robert Horning (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I concur entirely with most of that, though I've no idea what the law concerning such matters actually is. However, I do consider Rossi's assertion that there are no nuclear reactions taking place in his device to be significant, in that much of our article is based on his previous claims that they were. Given that he has now contradicted himself, to omit this rather notable occurrence would seem somewhat remiss on our part. Still, we'd perhaps do as well to wait a day or two while we see what secondary sources have to say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
What a government official asks you is if this is a nuclear reaction according to the definition given by the law. So, according to the present US law, no nuclear reaction happens inside the E-Cat. Of course the present US law does not account LERN within the spectrum of nuclear reactions, for the simple fact that it does not recognise the existence of LERN. It's me, Francesco--79.16.164.83 (talk) 08:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- I don't suppose you could give us a source for your assertions regarding what the US law means by 'nuclear reaction'? Or a source for 'LERN' [sic] not being recognised in such law? I was unaware that the US legislature was involved in determining what science 'accounts'. Not that it matters, we base articles on published sources, not irrelevant bullshit based on nothing but guesswork. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- I assume that they're here: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0980/ but I've not downloaded or read any of it yet - will do if I can muster any enthusiasm. Tmccc (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- I wouldn't bother. It would constitute original research to attempt to apply it to the E-Cat, so it isn't going to affect article content anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- I assume that they're here: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0980/ but I've not downloaded or read any of it yet - will do if I can muster any enthusiasm. Tmccc (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
time to remove old newsy items that came to nothing
I tried to remove a bunch of paragraphs that were basically meetings that came to nothing and "Rossi said this will happen" things that didn't happen. Also there is no evidence of any factory and contradictory things like a licensee for America and Rossi saying that it's not even being built in America. Most of these paragraphs should not have been in the article in the first place WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER
Anyway my changes were reverted. I'm going to delete them again unless there is consensus otherwise. Bhny (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. There was far too much in the article that was sourced to something or other that Rossi had once claimed was going to happen, but clearly hasn't. I suppose we could take the alternate approach, and include everything he claimed - including the low-energy nuclear reactions that he says aren't nuclear reactions, the invisible robotised factories that seem to wander the world looking for somewhere to operate, and the E-Cat heating system he's been using in his factory for two years that seems to require him wearing outdoor clothing, and running a gas heater, while he fills the room with large volumes of steam (invisible, even when cooled) from his latest contraption. It would be entertaining, but perhaps not encyclopaedic... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm willing to keep the demonstration portion of what was dropped, and roll it into the existing demonstration section; but the material on orders, etc. should never have been allowed to stand this long. Mangoe (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Sensible removals, and I endorse your edit. "Rossi claims such-and-such" has always been a short and dubious peg on which to hang these bits of the article. The mystery orders, being built by mystery companies with secret factories, were being reported far too credulously. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I do not agree with the deletion as proposed by Bhny, however I do think that the article could benefit from trimming (=not deletion) the "1MW plant sale". I very much object to the mentioning of WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER as a reason for deletion. Those two polices are not applicable for the proposed deletion. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- The whole Demonstrations section is newspapery. It's about events rather than the e-cat. The Commercial Plans section is all crystal ball stuff. There is still not one known device out there. There is no way pre-orders should even be mentioned. Anyone can go there and pre-order a million e-cats on that web site. AmpEnergo is nothing but a single press release Bhny (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I just moved some paragraphs around (no deletions!) Bhny (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- I just want to point out that the 1MW had ALREADY been placed in the "Demonstrations" section, then it was moved below, now it returns in the "Demonstrations": no problem (I do not remember who was responsible for this "Odyssey"). Nevertheless, please let us decide it definitively.--Insilvis (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Can I ask why, since the '1MW plant' was neither 'demonstrated' in any meaningful sense, nor sold (last I heard it was still sitting in Rossi's factory), and even Rossi hasn't claimed that it actually has ever generated 1MW, it is of any significance to the article at all? As an example of LE(N?)NR, it is an irrelevance unless someone claims it works, and likewise, it appears not to be an example of commerce either. At some point, we are going to have to "decide definitively" whether Rossi's wild and contradictory claims even merit comment in this article - since even his supporters (e.g. pesn.com) are deserting him, his patent applications are about to expire, and there is still precisely zero evidence that he is in any position to produce anything other than hype and waffle. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- The references say that the plant was considered suitable for delivery by engineer Domenico Fioravanti on behalf of an "undisclosed customer" (and that Fioravanti controlled the plant and measured its energy output). There is no need to illustrate personal opinions, it is enough to remain stick to the sources.--Insilvis (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- No - the references say that Rossi claims this. More hype. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- "Satisfactory to accept the delivery". Signed: ing. Domenico Fioravanti ("ing." is the standard Italian abbreviation for "engineer")
- Written on the last page of the document. Photo of the original document here, courtesy of Ny Teknik --Insilvis (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- We base article content on published reliable sources. We don't base them on 'original documents'. Particularly ones that appear to have been written by ten-year-olds. If that is any part of a binding legal agreement with a legitimate customer I'll eat my hat. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- This is precisely the reason why that primary source is not inserted in the article and the secondary sources are inserted in the article, because in this case the responsability to evaluate the primary source relies on the secondary sources. Assuming that it is a primary source (as it seems), it is not my fault (for example) if the secondary sources have accepted that primary source as reliable source.--Insilvis (talk) 01:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- And on what grounds can we assume that in regard to this matter, the secondary sources are reliable? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- "Pilatus dixit ei: 'quid est veritas?' Sed Jesus nihil respondit..."
- In other words, it is a matter regarding the secondary sources.--Insilvis (talk) 14:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- Then let us regard the secondary sources:
- Fox News, who have evidently got so much wrong in this story that it is a waste of time even commenting. SPAWAR vouching for the system? In any case, they aren't asserting that anything has happened - they are reporting what Rossi, and Sterling Allan of pesn.com, have told them. Not a source for anything. And note that pesn.com are now disowning Rossi entirely. [10]
- Ny Teknik, who, as has already been pointed out several times, have actually been involved with the demonstrations themselves, and as such are questionable as an independent source, tell us that "It remains unclear who the customer is. Rossi has only indicated that it belongs to a particular category of organization". What exactly are we supposed to cite that for?
- Wired, who tell us that "a group of unknown, unverifiable people carried out tests which cannot be checked". And make clear that their sources are Ny Teknik and pesn.com.
- Focus.it, who tell us much the same thing - that Domenico Fioravanti (an engineer, a retired colonel? who knows?) was there, supposedly representing the 'customer' - and that nobody has seen the results of this 'test', nobody knows who the 'customer' is, and basically, it is all just Rossi's claims again, backed up by someone-or-other, working for who-knows-who, supposedly signing off a contract written in mangled English, with amendments in ballpoint pen... Actually, if we can get a better translation than Google translate gives for the last paragraph of this article, it might be useful - it is discussing Rossi's patent applications, and seems to be saying that they are worthless, since they don't provide sufficient detail.
- AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- Also this one (in English) of Focus ps about the question "engineer...colonel": "genio" stands for "genio militare" ie "military engineering", so he can be both engineer and colonel--Insilvis (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yup: "at the end of the test, Rossi claimed the plant to be sold". Rossi claims lots of things... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- The complete citation is: "(1)The secret customer was satisfied and, at the end of the test, (2)Rossi claimed the plant to be sold."
- The (1) is precisely what I wrote above.--Insilvis (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- And on what grounds can we assume that in regard to this matter, the secondary sources are reliable? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- This is precisely the reason why that primary source is not inserted in the article and the secondary sources are inserted in the article, because in this case the responsability to evaluate the primary source relies on the secondary sources. Assuming that it is a primary source (as it seems), it is not my fault (for example) if the secondary sources have accepted that primary source as reliable source.--Insilvis (talk) 01:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- We base article content on published reliable sources. We don't base them on 'original documents'. Particularly ones that appear to have been written by ten-year-olds. If that is any part of a binding legal agreement with a legitimate customer I'll eat my hat. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I removed the meaningless pre-order count since nobody argued to keep that Bhny (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I shortened excessive ecat.com quote, and removed meeting which came to nothing- people have lots of meetings, this isn't notable and no one here has tried to justify it's inclusion Bhny (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- "came to nothing", do you have proof of that fact, or is that your OR ? However, I do agree somewhat that currently we do not really need to mention this meeting in the article. It might regain importance in future, so here's the diff [11] --POVbrigand (talk) 09:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Fact is that you don't know if "the meeting came to nothing". If we say that we delete the meeting from the article because there hasn't been any follow up to it and we think it is not important to the story then that is a reason to delete it for now. But "the meeting came to nothing" is you personal SYNTH. (once upon a time I wasn't so pedantic, I caught it here on WP) --POVbrigand (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Look, nothing was reported about any outcome of the meeting, thus we cannot conclude that nothing came of the meeting. Time will tell. But the current "no news" situation does enable us to make the consensus decision that we won't have to mention the meeting in the article. Russell's teapot really has nothing to do with this. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- If something comes out of the meeting, it will be reported in a source, and we will be able to cite it. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- What I have been saying. And until we read something in a source we cannot make conclusions that "nothing came out", because that would be OR. --POVbrigand (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- OR in talkpage discussions isn't a problem. While we shouldn't be saying that "nothing came out" in the article, we still need to make that assessment in order to justly omit the mention of Rossi's unrealized forecast that something would come out. We don't need to find a bronze plaque saying "On this spot in 2011 nothing happened", right? LeadSongDog come howl! 19:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- OR cannot be a reason to delete something from the article. The only reason to delete this bit from the article is consensus to do so. Consensus based on the fact that we haven't heard anything about whatever happened and that it is probably not important to the story at the moment. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well that's standing policy on its head :-) Surely you don't intend to say that WP should indefinitely remain a repository of unrealized predictions solely because we have no source to say they were unrealized? They simply are not encyclopedic content.LeadSongDog come howl! 03:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- OR cannot be a reason to delete something from the article. The only reason to delete this bit from the article is consensus to do so. Consensus based on the fact that we haven't heard anything about whatever happened and that it is probably not important to the story at the moment. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- OR in talkpage discussions isn't a problem. While we shouldn't be saying that "nothing came out" in the article, we still need to make that assessment in order to justly omit the mention of Rossi's unrealized forecast that something would come out. We don't need to find a bronze plaque saying "On this spot in 2011 nothing happened", right? LeadSongDog come howl! 19:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- What I have been saying. And until we read something in a source we cannot make conclusions that "nothing came out", because that would be OR. --POVbrigand (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Re: "OR cannot be a reason to delete something from the article. The only reason to delete this bit from the article is consensus to do so." The overwhelming consensus of the Wikipedia community is that original research should be deleted on sight. This consensus was carefully worked out and documented here: Wikipedia:No original research. Consensus among the editors of an article does not trump the consensus of the community as a whole, but for what it is worth I strongly support the policy as it is written, so you don't have consensus among the editors on this page to allow WP:OR. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)