Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:33, 29 November 2011

This article was nominated for deletion on 12/5/2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Energy Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Stub

• This article is a stub, is contradictory, is lacking information, external links, and citations, and gives no reason for why this isn't the most important scientific discovery ever. We need an expert badly.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.176.31 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 27 October 2007
• This invention was written about in the late 1990s in several publications I added as external links. I will not incorporate these in the article because I do not have much training in this area, but I encourage others to do so. The POV uncritical tone of the existing article needs to be taken back a few notches. This invention was at least widely discussed, and was demonstrated at a legitimate scientific meeting. It is apparently very easy to come up with bogus excess energy findings doing calorimetry, with the key being that the measurements should hold up when carefully replicated by others. Edison (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• A widely quoted but apparently unpublished attempted replication of the device and experiments is found at Merriman, Barry and Burchard, Paul "An Attempted Replication of the CETI Cold Fusion Experiment " retrieved Dec. 5, 2007. These researchers found no net energy, but did not have the device as produced by the inventor. . Merriman was apparently a mathematics visiting prof at UCLA when the experiment was done. As an unpublished manuscript it does not qualify as a reliable source. Prof George Miley at the University of Illinois apparently did claim to have replicated the excess energy results and demonstrated it at a nuclear conference there in 1995. Edison (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Although I think the failure of replication pretty much puts the nail in the coffin of this device, I maintain that it is not a perpetual motion machine any more than a fission reactor - or any power source! The claim in question seems to be the fact that it puts out more energy than it uses. By this definition, a gasoline-powered internal combustion engine is a perpetual motion machine, because with the small energy input required to ignite the gasoline fumes, a large amount of energy is put out. But of course, the energy was there all along in the bonds between molecules - combustion of gasoline is simply an exothermic process, and when the fuel is consumed, the engine stops. Likewise, Patterson, while avoiding the term "cold fusion," states that the device requires hydrogen or deuterium (or radioactive nuclei) fuel in the form of normal or heavy water solution, which would be consumed in some finite amount of time - so by definition it is not a perpetual motion machine. Neither would it violate the laws of thermodynamics because the energy is there all along, just in a different form. The only legitimate problem with the machine is the physics of breaking the coulomb barrier at low temperature, which is likely why no independent lab has been able to replicate Patterson's results. St3vo (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Speculation

I disagree with the following statement: "If the cell worked in either of these ways, well constructed, peer reviewed experiments would soon prove their efficacy and revolutionise physics and power generation." That's someone's opinion, or speculation. It's not proven fact. There are innovations, such as the idea that doctors should wash their hands to prevent the spread of infection, that were rejected by the mainstream for decades. The idea that an idea should be rejected because there are no mainstream experiments verifying it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. People have found it extremely difficult to get funding to carry out certain types of experiments considered "fringe". I shouldn't have to say what I'm not saying, but I will say that I'm not saying that I think this idea works; however, I disagree with the quoted sentence in the article and think it should be changed, perhaps by inserting a prose attribution. --Coppertwig (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I recognize that "Atlantis Rising" is not a reliable source, but I threw it in as it seemed to be the origin of the specious "1.4 Watts" and "1000 times the energy" claims. I'm not familiar with policy in this area - is it acceptable insomuch as it reliably reports these unreliable claims? St3vo (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

A patent issue angle for this article

I recently came across a couple of writings complaining about how the United States Patent & Trademark Office has handled cold fusion. We could use this article to discuss those issues and provide a destination for anyone wondering about that angle.

According to Storms 2007, The University of Utah spent nearly a million in an unsuccessful attempt to patent Pons and Fleischmann invention. In its 1992 annual report, the US Patent and Trademark Office explained over 200 cold fusion patent applications had been filed and were being routinely rejected for failing to meet operability and enablement requirements (the application must enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without engaging in undue experimentation). Rejections under these provision are generally reserved for situations im which the utility or operability issue is notorious. http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2107_02.htm (e.g., "'incredible in view of contemporary knowledge' and where nothing offered by the applicant would counter . . ."). Storms mentions the USPTO relying on newspaper articles, which reported failed reproductions attempts. Another sourrce says the USPTO also relied on the DOE's 1989 assessment of cold fusion assessment.

The enablement and operability requirements can be avoided by not claiming cold fusion, e.g., claiming an apparatus for efficiently electrolyzing water. I was surprised to find the CETI patent claimed a device for producing "excess power", placing the issue front and center. CETI satisfied the USPTO by submitting evidence of enablement and operablity. The USPTO is not in a position to counter this type of evidence and generaly accepts it at face value. To balance this, the USPTO places a duty of full disclosure on the applicant and the applicant's attorney. If a violation is proven while attempting to enforce the patent, the applicant and his attorney face several penalties, including rendering the patent unenforceable. Withholding evidence of inoperability while submitting evidence of operabilty is inequitable conduct.

This is all just throwing out an idea. I am not sure this content would be considered interesting and appropriate

If we put it in this article, it may run afoul of WP:OR

If we put it in the cold fusion article, I am worried about keeping the entry brief without creating a false sense that CETI acheived operability and enablement. I would say the big difference was that CETI gamed the system to procure an unenforceable patent. ~Paul V. Keller 10:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

If a source like the Storms book shows no one followed up on the CETI method—whether or not it "worked"—it might be fair to mention CETI and their patent in the CF article together with that info. (The renouned Infinite Energy reported CETI's inability to manufacture new "working" beads.) Let readers draw their own conclusions. --72.70.19.79 (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

In July 2009 I added a patents section to Cold fusion Cold_fusion#Patents. I think that one of the sources mentioned that Patterson obtained a patent (several patents?) by distancing himself from the "cold fusion" label. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

This invention was just one of the many failed attempts to make cold fusion work, so its article should be merged with the parent subject. A line or two might survive there. --71.126.54.123 (talk) 03:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Definitely DO NOT merge. This article does not cite a single reliable source. The only reason it survived nomination for deletion is that it received coverage in the press.Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/CETI Patterson Power Cell. If a reliable source is ever found, a posting on the Cold Fusion talk page will lead to inclusion Cold Fusion#Cold fusion research#Experimental Setups.

I found a 1998 article that reported 8% excess power with a device of this type, however, the article was a symposium presentation that had not been peer reviewed. There was not a word about the size of the measurement errors, or any number of controls that would be required by anyone seriously hoping to convince the scientific community that here was proof of cold fusion.

Currently, the cold fusion page is constantly being petitioned to include information from non-reliable sources and has had to take a stand.

The deletion review panel made a mistake. They did not realize claims of this type are perenial. http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/1999/Apr/hour2_040999.html (NPR, 1999); http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1805623 (NPR 2004); http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2006_March_23/ai_n26803998/pg_1 (2006, the now infamous D2fusion) http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/sci-tech/cold-fusion-success-in-japan-gets-warm-reception-in-india_10053182.html (2008) ~Paul V. Keller 07:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)\\

Those of us who contributed to the deletion review fully appreciate the fact that claims of cold fusion are not uncommon - and, to date, unsubstantiated. The question here is not whether the machine works, but whether it is notable, independent of the truth value of the claims put forth on its behalf; for this reason, I submit that it deserves its own article - not just a line or two in cold fusion. St3vo (talk) 07:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The mistake in the deletion discussion was lumping this device with cold fusion claims, and distinguishing it only by its noterieity. Some cold fusion claims appear in reliable sources, and some are more substantiated than others. Substantiation is a matter of degree and opinion. Unsubstantiated cold fusion claims in unreliable sources are of far less interest than more substantiated claims in reliable sources.

"David Nagel, an engineer at George Washington University in Washington DC, says: "Of the 3,000-plus papers in the field, 10% are very hard to make go away. One per cent are, in my view, essentially bulletproof, as good as key papers in other fields of science.""

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2005/mar/24/research.highereducation2

So the issue is not that it is a cold fusion claim, but that until we see a reliable source it has no chance of making the list of 10% that are compelling (to a cold fusion researcher), and definitely not the list of 1% that are hard to explain away.

I listed four citations, but I could probably come up with two or more for each year between 1989 and now. There is nothing special about getting on a news show with a claim to a cold fusion device. And for $10,000 I can get anyone a patent on a cold fusion device. All you'll get for your money is your name on a patent and a misleading appearance of credibility to those unfamiliar with the ins and outs of the patent system.

It was that hit and run specialist ScienceApologist's fault for nominating this article for deletion without doing homework and making the case. ~Paul V. Keller 09:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Merger. The merger will distract from the main article. And someone should do a short page on Patterson anyway. He has no Wikipage. History2007 (talk) 09:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

There's been no support for the merge proposal so I removed it. --72.74.23.164 (talk) 02:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Cold Fusion Failed? Oh, really?

FIRST:

Why does the first section of the wiki claim that cold fusion has not been replicated? That seems flatly false and propagandistic. I would like to know who composed that sentence.

This external page suggests that cold fusion has been replicated:

How in the name of god is the the New Energy Times information blacklisted!?

Since these experiments are complex, the fact that SOME attempts at replication have failed only indicates (might indicate) that the the procedures through which to succeed have not been perfected; there are variables that have not been enough controlled.

It is a logical straw man argument (knocking down an easier foe) to suggest the inability to get replication %100 of the time shows that a discovery is not real or not promising. That logical fallacy is not uncommon in fights over new inventions.

SECOND:

Two define the Patterson Experiment as "Cold Fusion" is a matter of arbitrary terminology that seems to invoke the past ugliness over the cold fusion origins, which contained nasty personal attack.

It has the practical effect of implicitly "transferring" the past nasty attacks onto new researchers. But each experiment may differ, and claims of positive results need to be dealt with using integrity, not labels.

RELATED:

It seems, from books and the link above (blacklisted), that cold fusion has (sometimes) produced energy, and there are reports that their findings have been published in journals. The page as it is seems to be written as the service of cloudy analysis to knock down Galileo before the evidence is in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nK1JXhXfGwY&feature=PlayList&p=11894CF1757A2739&index=10&playnext=5&playnext_from=PL

Ihaveabutt (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Who wrote: "No independent, objective testing" ?

These papers need to be dealt with:

Yun, K-S., J-B. Ju, B-W. Cho, S-Y. Park, “Calorimetric Observation of heat Production During Electrolysis of 0.1 M LiOD_D2O Solution,” (Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, 306, 1991), p. 279.

1. Storms, Edmund, “Critical Review of the “Cold Fusion” Effect,” (preprint, 1993). Subsequently updated in 2001 in Cold Fusion: An Objective Assessment, Table 2.

2. Aoki, T., Y. Kurata, and H. Ebihara, “Study of Concentration of Helium and Tritium in Electrolytic Cells with Excess Heat Generation,” (Trans. of Fusion Technology, vol. 26, no. 4T, pt 2), p. 214.

3. Appleby, A. John, J. Kim Young, Oliver J. Murphy, and Supramaniam Srinivasan, “Anomalous Calorimetric Results During Long-Term Evolution of Deuterium on Palladium from Alkaline Deuteroxide Electrolyte,” (First Annual ICCF-1, Nat. CF Institute, SLC, Utah, 1990), p. 32.

4. Bertalot, L., L. Bettinali, F. De Marco, V. Violante, P. De Logu, T. Dikonimos Makris, and A. La Barbera, “Analysis of Tritium and Heat Excess in Electrochemical Cells with Pd Cathodes,” (S.I.F., “The Science of CF”, Proceedings ACCF-2, June 29, 1991, Como, Italy), p. 3.

5. Bertalot, L., F. De Marco, A. De Ninno, A. La Barbera, F. Scaramuzzi, V. Violante, and P. Zeppa, “Study of Deuterium Charging in Palladium by the Electrolysis of Heavy Water: Search for Heat and Nuclear Ashes,” H. Ikegami, ed., (University Academy Press, Frontiers of CF, 1993). p. 365.

6. Bush, Robert T., “Cold ‘Fusion’: The Transition Resonance Model Fits Data on Excess Heat, Predicts Optimal Trigger Points, and Suggests Nuclear Reaction Scenarios,” (Fusion Technology, 19, 1991). p. 313. Eagleton, R. D., and R. T. Bush, “Calorimetric Experiments Supporting the Transmission Resonance Model for CF,” (Fusion Technology, 20, 1991), p. 239.

7. Celani, F. A., A. Spallone, P. Tripoli, A. Nuvoli, A. Petrocchi, D. DiGioacchino, M. Boutet, P.Marini, and V. Di Stefano, “High Power Microsecond Pulsed Electrolysis for High Deuterium Loading in Pd Plates” (Trans. of Fusion Technology, vol. 26, no. 4T, pt.2), p. 127. Celani, F., A. Spallone, P. Tripoli, and A. Nuvoli, “Measurements of Excess Heat and Tritium During Self-Biased Pulsed Electrolysis of Pd-D2O,” H. Ikegami, ed., (University Academy Press, Frontiers of C.F., 1993), p. 93.

8. Fleischmann, Martin, Stanley Pons, Mark R. Anderson, Lian Jun Li, and Marvin Hawkins, “Calorimetry of the Palladium—Deuterium—Heavy Water System” (Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, 287, July 25, 1990), p. 293. Fleischmann, Martin, Stanley Pons, and Marvin Hawkins, “Electrochemically Induced Nuclear Fusion of Deuterium,” (Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, 261-2A, April 10, 1989), p. 301. Fleischmann, Martin, and Stanley Pons, “Heat After Death,” (Trans. of Fusion Technology, vol. 26, no. 4T, pt.2), p. 87.

9. Gozzi, D., P. L. Cignini, M. Tomellini, S. Frullani, F. Garabaldi, F. Ghio, M. Jodice, and G. M. Urciuoli, “Multicell Experiments for Searching Time-Related Events in CF,” (Proc. ACCF-2, Como, Italy, June 29, 1991 The Science of CF, vol. 33, (T. Bressani, E. Del Giudice, and G. Preparata, eds.), p. 21. Gozzi, D., P. L. Cignini, L. Petrucci, M. Tomellini, and G. De Maria, “Evidences for Associated Heat Generation and Nuclear Products Release in Pd Heavy-Water Electrolysis,” (Il Nuovo Cimento, 103, 1990), p. 143. Gozzi, D., R. Caputo, P. L. Cignini, M. Tomellini, G. Gigli, G. Balducci, E. Cisbani, S. Frullani, F. Garabaldi, M. Jodice, and G. M. Urciuoli, “Helium-4 Quantitative Measurements in the Gas Phase of CF Electrochemical Cells,” (EPRI, Proceedings: ICCF-4, vol. I), p. 6-1.

10.Guruswamy, S. J. G. Byrne, J. Li, and M. E. Wadsworth;, “Metallurgical Aspects of the Electrochemical Loading of Palladium with Deuterium,” (Workshop on CF Phenomena, Santa Fe, NM, May 23, 1989).

11.Hasegewa, N., N. Hayakawa, Y. Tsuchida, and Y. Yamamoto, “Observations of Excess Heat During Electrolysis of 1M LiOD in a Fuel Cell Type Closed Cell,” (EPRI, Proc. ICCF-4, vol. I, December 6, 1993), p. 3-1. Hasegawa, N., K. Kunimatsu, T. Ohi, and T. Terasawa, “Observation of Excess Heat During Electrolysis of 1M LiOD in a Fuel Cell Type Closed Cell,” H. Ikegami, ed., (Univ. Academy Press, Frontiers of CF, 1993), p. 377.

12.Hugo, Mark, “A Home CF Experiment,” (EPRI, Proceedings ICCF-4, vol. 2, December 12, 1993), p. 22-1.

13.Hutchinson, D. P., J. Bullock, C. A. Bennet, G. L. Powell, and R. K. Richards, “Initial Calorimetry Experiments in the Physics Division—ORNL,” (Oak Ridge Nat. Lab, ORNL/TM-11356, May 1990).

14.Bockris, John O’M., N. J. C. Packham, et al., “Sporadic Observation of the Fleischmann–Pons Heat Effect,” (Electrochemica Acta, vol. 34, no. 9, 1989), p. 1315.

15.Lewis, Derek; and Kurt Skold, “A Phenomenological Study of the Fleischmann–Pons Effect,” (Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, 294, November 9, 1990), p. 275.

16.Okamoto, M., Y. Yoshinaga, M. Aida, and T. Kusunoki, “Excess Heat Generation Voltage Deviation and Neutron Emission in D2O-LiOD Systems,” (Trans. of Fusion Technology, vol. 26, no.4T, pt.2, 1994), p. 176.

17.Ota, K., H. Yoshitake, O. Yamazaki, M. Kuratsuka, K. Yamaki, K. Ando, Y. Iida, and N. Kamiya, “Heat Measurement of Water Electrolysis Using Pd Cathode and the Electrochemistry,” (Trans. of Fusion Technology, vol. 26, no. 4T, pt 2, 1994), p. 138.

18.Storms, Edmund, “Measurement of Excess Heat from a Pons-Fleischmann-Type Electrolytic Cell Using Palladium Sheet,” (Fusion Technology, 23, 1993), p. 230. Storms, Edmund, “Some Characteristics of Heat Production Using the “Cold Fusion” Effect,” (Trans. of Fusion Technology, vol. 26, no. 4T, pt 2, 1994), p. 96.

19.Takahashi, A., T. Iida, T. Takeuchi, H. Miyamaru, and A. Mega, “Anomalous Excess Heat by D2O/Pd Cell Under L-H Mode Electrolysis,” H. Ikegami, ed., (Universal Academy Press, Frontiers of CF, 1993), p. 79. Takahashi, Akito, “Nuclear Products by D2O/Pd Electrolysis and Multibody Fusion,” (Elsevier, Proc Fourth Int ISEM Symposium on Nonlinear Phenomena in Electromagnetic Fields, Nagoya, Japan 26, 1922, Supplement to vol. 3 of Int. J. of Applied Electromagnetics in Materials).

20.Yang, C. -S., C. -Y. Liang, T. -P. Perng, L. -J. Yuan, C. -M. Wang, C. -C. Wang, “Observation of Excess Heat and Tritium on Electrolysis of D2O,” (Proc. CF Symp., 8th World Hydrogen Energy Conf., July 22, 1990), p. 95.

22.Zhang, Z. L., B. Z. Yan, M. G. Wang, J. Gu, and F. Tan, “Calorimetric Observation Combined with the Detection of Particle Emissions During the Electrolysis of Heavy Water,” (Proc. Anomalous Nuclear Effects in Deuterium /Solid Systems, Provo, Utah, October 22, 1990), p. 572. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihaveabutt (talk • contribs) 19:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, right...

"At its peak efficiency, the cell continuously produced 470 watts of energy, as heat, while 0.1 watt of electrical energy was flowing through the cell". Cited to this Given that www.padrak.com doesn't look remotely like WP:RS, I'm going to delete this. If someone wishes to assert that this is some sort of cold fusion/LENR device, they will need to find a proper source to back it up - which for claims like this would mean a mainstream peer-reviewed scientific journal, not some obscure website which also publishes articles on 'Anti-Gravity', 'The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program', 'Orgonne Energy' and 'Zero-Point Energy' . AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Currently the article sounds like Electrolysis of water

The device does Electrolysis of water, right? Hcobb (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably. Passing a current through water can have that effect. As for what else it does, nobody knows ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS/N

Comments needed here: Misplaced Pages:RSN#George_H._Miley_and_the_Patterson_Power_Cell AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

obsolete criticism?

This removed all criticism and failed replications from the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. What exactly is "obsolete criticism", and what source is being cited to characterise it as obsolete? Frankly, edit summaries like that can only indicate further just how much POV-pushing has been going on with regard to this article. I'd suggest that those wishing to ensure that the article isn't deleted for the piece of meaningless waffle about old 'news' that it currently is produce some evidence that the Cell has been shown (in mainstream peer-reviewed science journals, or similar WP:RS sources) to actually do anything beyond that which recognised science expects it to - though of course, no such sources exist. This article only survived an AfD in 2007 because of claims regarding media interest, and the media seems no longer to be interested either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Cravens and a patent

User:AnnaBennett Seems insistent that we include material referring to a Dr. Dennis Cravens who apparently worked with Patterson, and to a patent they apparently took out, without giving any indication of why such material is relevant (the patent is a primary source, in any case). I'd like to see what others think about the inclusion of this material, which seems to tell us nothing meaningful about the Cell itself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

In his article for Wired magazine, Charles Platt wrote, "Power-Gen '95 conferencegoers were astonished by a cell that seemed to produce more than 1,000 watts of heat - from only 1 watt of input power." The cell did not have that kind of efficiency before Patterson and Cravens worked together to improve it. The improved cell is an absolutely crucial part of the story. AnnaBennett (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

So once again you are using Wired to make ridiculous assertions about the Cell? If this is the only 'evidence' available, then nothing is 'crucial' - it is a non-event. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem here is that you are constantly very rude to me. You use "ridiculous assertions" as thou I am the one making assertions about the heat-generating capacity of the PPC. Stop doing that! I have tried not to make assertions about "cold fusion" (transmutations) or "excess energy" but just document what other have said and written. I suggest that the article have a "Controversies" section where the claims and counter-claims of various authors can be presented. These controversies should be kept separate from the description and history of the cell. That is why I did not include a quote from the Wired article in the paragraph about the Patterson/Cravens improvements and patent. AnnaBennett (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

No, the problem here is that you seem not to understand what Misplaced Pages is for. And no, we shouldn't have a 'controversies' section in the article, firstly because Misplaced Pages practice is to avoid such sections as far as possible, and secondly because there is no 'controversy' anyway. Wild claims were made about the Cell, but nothing whatsoever has been offered up as scientific evidence (in recognised journals etc) to prove that it does anything. There is no reason to see this device as of any more significance than a multitude of other failed 'free energy' devices. Attempts to imply otherwise by repeatedly naming other scientists, patents etc are an indication of how little substance there is to this story, rather than anything else.

(BTW, while you are here, can you please also respond to the 'obsolete criticism?' section above, and tell us on what grounds you consider such criticism 'obsolete'?) AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

A controversies section is completely unnecessary. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Getting back to Cravens and the patent, since the only source for this is the patent document (a primary source), can anyone give a policy related argument as to why this shouldn't be deleted? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that using a patent document to verify the fact that a patent was applied for, the names of the applicants, and the date the patent was granted is one of the allowable exceptions to the use of primary sources (per WP:SCHOLARSHIP). It neither makes nor requires any interpretation to substantiate those facts, so ought to be acceptable. Nevertheless, the second patent seems remarkably similar to the first. I suspect that the claim that "Dr. Dennis Cravens, a physicist, worked with Dr. Patterson in 1995 to optimize the heat-generating capacity of the Patterson Power Cell" is WP:OR, since I don't find any evidence that the second patent represents an optimisation of the process described in the first. At this rate, we're really going to end up with so little verifiable content that there seems no point in having the article. --RexxS (talk) 01:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, the truth seems to be that there is very little verifiable content in reliable sources for anything beyond a statement that the media took an interest in the device, back in the mid 1990s. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Excess heat

It has been my goal to keep acrimonious screaming about "cold fusion" out of the main body of the article so that the reader can calmly understand the Patterson Power Cell. As the article stands now, I believe that I have accomplished that goal. Now I have undertaken to compose a few paragraphs about "excess heat" and "cold fusion" and "nuclear transmutation". This is what I have written so far. Please review it and improve it. Thank you. And do try to remain calm.

The Patterson Power Cell (PPC) and other electrolysis devices generate heat while they are operating. The PPC has been the subject of newspaper and magazine articles, television reports, and documentary films because it has been asserted that the PPC generates more energy (as heat) than is put into it (as electricity). This alleged "excess heat" is asserted to be the result of a type of nuclear fusion known as cold fusion.

George H. Miley, a physicist, has studied the PPC and has found evidence that nuclear transmutations occur in the PPC. His findings support the assertion that cold fusion does occur in a PPC.

AnnaBennett (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

If a physicist has studied it then where is the peer reviewed journal article? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Wolfie, this is the code for the Miley reference: G.H. Miley, J.A. Patterson. "Nuclear transmutations in thin-film nickel coatings undergoing electrolysis". Infinite Energy, no. 9, July/August 1996, p. 19–32.

This is the same reference that is in the Misplaced Pages article about George H. Miley. The full text of the article is linked to the New Energy Times page "Selected Papers": http://newenergytimes.com/v2/reports/SelectedPapers.shtml

AnnaBennett (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

So you are citing an article from the 'Journal of New Energy'! As I have already pointed out to you (see User_talk:AnnaBennett#Journal_of_New_Energy, this so-called 'Journal' isn't remotely WP:RS. Or if you are going to claim that it is, then take it to WP:RS/N as I have suggested. Endless repeated citations of the same rejected sources isn't going to achieve anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

George Miley is eminently qualified to do the kind of element analysis that he reported in his paper. No one has published contrary findings and, as you already know, his article is in Google Scholar and has been cited dozens of times. Miley is a reliable source and if his paper can be cited in the Misplaced Pages article about him then it is fit to be cited in the PPC article too. Note that Dr. Miley was interviewed by Nightline regarding the PPC. They treated him as a reliable source. Miley's interview begins at 2 minutes and 2 seconds. AnnaBennett (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

How many ******* times do you need to be told that claims regarding significant scientific advances need to be based on mainstream peer-reviewed sources? I don't give a rats arse whether you think Miley is reliable. I don't give a rats arse whether Miley is reliable. Misplaced Pages policy says that we don't base articles on guesswork, and nor do we base it on the opinions of POV-pushers as to who is 'eminently qualified' - we base science-based statements on the consensus of mainstream scientists, not on those investigating fringe subjects hyping their own unpublished research. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

To add to my edit summaries, AnnaBennett (talk · contribs · logs) removed my cleanup tag {{failed verification}} without addressing the concern that the webpage http://www.power-eng.com/articles/print/volume-99/issue-11/features/power-gen-95-show-preview.html does not mention either Patterson or CETI and does not support the assertion that the cell was demonstrated there. I've therefore reviewed the text which relies on cites to non-RS sources like Infinite Energy magazine or on cites which don't support the claim made in the text. I've now removed that text, as the burden of proof that the content is verifiable from reliable sources lies with the editor wishing to add that content per WP:BURDEN. --RexxS (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

RexxS, You have misunderstood the reason for citing the page about POWER-GEN 95. That reference was only to give the reader a link to information about POWER-GEN 95. The succeeding sentence, which included a reference Jeane Manning's report about POWER-GEN 95, included the fact that CEIT demonstrated a Patterson Power Cell at that convention, but another user deleted that sentence, creating a verification failure.

When I added the Wired magazine reference about the CETI demonstration at POWER-GEN 95 that corrected the verification problem, and the verification tag became obsolete, so I deleted it. In regard to the Wired magazine article, CETI and POWER-GEN are on page 8 of the article, as stated in the reference. I will change that link to http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.11/coldfusion.html?pg=8&topic=&topic_set= (taking the reader directly to page 8). And I will search for a different report and reference about the CETI demonstration at ICCF5. AnnaBennett (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Why is the fact that the Patterson Cell was demonstrated at POWER-GEN 95 of any lasting significance? What does adding this information to the article tell the reader about the device? It looks like trivia to include it without further justification. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Public exhibitions of the PPC generated lots of publicity and public interest, leading to the production of the ABC News video report about the PPC. Now that the reference to the transcript of that video report has been deleted, are you going to delete the reference to the video report too? AnnaBennett (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

So it is just being cited to show that there was 'public interest'? Like I said, trivia. It is becoming more and more apparent that this article is about nothing much at all, other than media hype and wishful thinking... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not just to show that there was "public interest". I am trying to lay a foundation for adding an "Excess heat" section to the article. That section should contain references to the claims and counter-claims that have been made about "excess heat" and "cold fusion" and "nuclear transmutation". I believe that the average reader will find it easier to understand the PPC if the contentious claims and counter-claims are kept separate from the description and history of the PPC. I have found an excellent reference about the demonstration of the PPC at ICCF5. It's in an article written by Dr. Cravens for ICCF5. AnnaBennett (talk) 04:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You really don't get it, do you? WE ARE NOT GOING TO ADD ANYTHING ABOUT 'EXCESS HEAT' UNTIL IT CAN BE SOURCED FROM A RECOGNISED MAINSTREAM PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL. Stop wasting everyone's time with your repetitive nonsense. Either conform to Misplaced Pages policy, or go elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Andy, Dennis Cravens is competent to report that a demonstration was held. That information does not have to be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal in order to be referenced in Misplaced Pages. So, to keep you from SCREAMING IN ALL CAPS and flinging four-letter-words, I have deleted the hyperlink to Dr. Cravens' paper and added a quote from his paper. The revised sentence will read: A demonstration>ref<Cravens, Dennis (May 1, 1995). "Flowing Electrolyte Calorimetry". Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Cold Fusion, 1995, page 79. "A simplified version of the system was demonstrated during the first 3 days of the International Conference on Cold Fusion - 5 (ICCF-5) and made available to those requesting its examination".>/ref< was also held during the Fifth International Conference on Cold Fusion. (Note: I reversed the arrow symbols so that the reference code will show up on the talk page.)

Now anyone who wants to read Cravens' entire paper will have to dig it out of the Internet for themselves. Please try to be calm. AnnaBennett (talk) 05:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't give a fuck whether you think Cravens is 'competent' to report anything. Bollocks about 'demonstrations' at obscure conferences doesn't belong in the article. Actually, nothing belongs in the article. The article doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages. If you wish to argue to the contrary, do this at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/CETI_Patterson_Power_Cell_(2nd_nomination) - but first, find some reliable sources that justify this bit of vacuous fluff about a failed magic teapot... AndyTheGrump (talk)

please be specific in your deletions

just deleting the whole article because you don't like the topic is of course silly. You should not distort an article before an AFD. It is a work in progress, I am working on it. You should allow this. Use where you feel the sources failed. Delete what you dont' like but do describe why.

Thanks, 84.106.26.81 (talk) 06:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Go fuck yourself. We aren't interested in your garbage. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

1. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TGB-44X74H6-2P&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=831a55aedddb6b3a4e91634ebf225cec
2. G.H. Miley, J.A. Patterson. Nuclear transmutations in thin-film nickel coatings undergoing electrolysis, Infinite Energy, no. 9, July/August 1996, p. 19–32

• Start-Class energy articles
• Low-importance energy articles