Talk:Patterson power cell

message: *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)
thread_title: Stub

message: 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)
thread_title:  Speculation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reliable sources 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: A patent issue angle for this article

message: 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:
[blacklisted]
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)
thread_title:  Cold Fusion Failed?   Oh, really?  

message: 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.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
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)
thread_title:  Who wrote:  "No independent, objective testing" ?  

message: "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' [sic] and 'Zero-Point Energy' . AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yeah, right... 

message: The device does Electrolysis of water, right? Hcobb (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Currently the article sounds like Electrolysis of water 

message: Comments needed here: Wikipedia:RSN#George_H._Miley_and_the_Patterson_Power_Cell AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:RS/N 

message: This removed all criticism and failed replications from the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: There doesn't have to be ongoing media attention to make historic events note worthy. It only has to be established in the relevant time frame. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  obsolete criticism? 

message: 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)
replies: text: if you wish to revert material then find a citation for it. Do not revert materials back in which are not verified. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  please be specific in your deletions 

message: In the wired2 article the writer went and visited Patterson and had many discussions with him. Therefore the source can not be independent. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a ridiculous assertion. Visits and interviews are an inherent part of the journalist's job and the result still has to be approved by the Wired editorial staff. Yworo (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Your deletion was not helpful irwolfie. Pleases add something constructive to the article. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

text: The source may still be secondary but it is no longer independent. It doesn't matter if it's part of their job. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: By that logic, any journalist who actually does research into the topic about which s/he's writing would be considered "involved."  This assertion is not grounded in policy. Noformation Talk 22:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Agree with Noformation. Wired must be accepted as reliable. Binksternet (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wired2 - not independent? 

message: This is an article about a media event. Note worthiness only has to be established in the appropriate time frame (15 years ago) Pretending this is a science article is POV pushing. It might not be intentional it is.
It has historic significance because our readers should know such historic false promises do exist. We for example also have an article about blacklight Power. We have an article about Stanley Meyer, we have an article about Joseph Newman, even an article about Water_fuelled_car#Claims_of_functioning_water-fuelled_cars. This by no means reflects the actual history of the topic. I noticed editors find it annoying there are so many new users trying to make the Energy Catalyzer look like something real. If you remove the clearly note worthy history from Wikipedia you should not moan people are completely uninformed because you are the primary cause of it.
The requests for peer review shows you to be ignorant about the topic as well. After the most respectable Julian Schwinger didn't get to publish his 8 papers about cold fusion you shouldn't expect anyone else to be allowed to publish their work on the topic. The papers are officially refused without review. We don't have to wonder why the cold fusion article doesn't mention this.(see?) This interesting bit of context has been deleted from the article. With such censorship of the greater context you nor anyone else is really going to get the picture.
The situation is this:
* Other editors like yourself didn't think you should know peer review is universally rejected. If the Physics Nobel prize winner cant publish papers, you shouldn't expect anyone else to.
* In the same way you don't want the Energy Catalyzer editors to know there have been previous media spectacles just like it. The censorship is what powers this enthusiasm.
This phenomenon is called Pseudoskepticism, it is when the skeptic is trying to get rid of the information in stead of refuting it. Of course there are plenty of skeptical publications from prominent sources. A skeptic would add those sources, a pseudoskeptic would try to erase as much information as possible. Any kind of review from a prominent source is good for the article. Bad reviews are more important than good ones (unless the positive reviews are peer reviewed)
James Paterson really existed and George Miley is still working on the thin film LENR. BUT! What we cant do however is pretend Miley's work on related technology is part of the Patterson Power Cell. It would require quite the sources to make such statements.
You are mistakingly thinking this is a science article while it is an article about a popular media event. A media event that was significant in 1995. If it was a science article the content would be dramatically different. Please compare: muon-catalyzed fusion and cold fusion.
You can not prevent Wikipedia from covering note worthy con men fusion. Meanwhile respectable scientists spending millions of their their own money are successfully censored.
This is not good, we should prefer Low Energy Nuclear Reactions as described by actual scientists. What has Rossi shown that gets close to the Patterson cell? Could that be nothing at all? It is just bad to limit coverage to non academic exercises. It is an awful way of distorting the picture.
I hope this helps and thanks for your time, 84.106.26.81 (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Making conspiratorial claims as well as unsourced assertions against users does not appear productive for this article. This article is about a cold fusion device. Reliable mainstream journal articles which are peer-reviewed are always required for any extraordinary scientific claims in any article on wikipedia. I find the claim that "peer review is universally rejected" laughable.  IRWolfie- (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "Reliable mainstream journal articles which are peer-reviewed are always required for any extraordinary scientific claims in any article on wikipedia.". You made that one up yourself. We, the editors, are not claiming anything extraordinary. We present an article about a device for which claims were made that are not accepted by mainstream science. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There were unreliable scientific claims in the article about their energy returns which have since been removed. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia articles are written in accord with policy, as arrived at by consensus amongst contributors, and not with the wishes of fringe-pushing conspiracy-theorists. As long as mainstream science considers the claims of LENR researches as unverified and questionable, so will we. If you can't work in accord with Wikipedia policy regarding this, maybe you should consider an encyclopaedia that is more accomodating to you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Lets clear one thing up

message: we lost this bit here:
:We just finished a $2.5  offering about nine months ago. That enabled us to hire a president, Jack St.Genis, who was a very senior manager at Matsushita, NEC, and IBM. And Lou Furlong joined us six months ago as director of research, formerly at Exxon. Altogether we have 10 people here. Now we're going to raise another $5 million for three projects. The first is filtering tritium from waste water out of fission reactors, using a different invention of Patterson's. The second project is neutralizing other forms of radioactivity. The third is power cells. When the first venture creates revenue, we'll spin that out and use it as liquidity to raise capital for the other two.  (Jim Reding ref name=wired2/>)
I didn't really have time to decipher that into readable language. If anyone wants to give it a shot please do. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 22:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I will just put it back so that it can be fixed the right way. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 04:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed this paragraph as unneeded conjecture voiced by CETI. This article should be pared to the minimum because of the controversial nature of the device, and reports of hopeful plans do not hold any weight. Binksternet (talk) 05:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  transcribe company 

message: It doesn't take long to fill back up with rubbish. Sourcing problems:
*  - how is this a cite that can be used to verify anything?
* Calorimetric Study of Pd/Ni Beads From the CETI RIFEX Kit, Scott Little and Hal Puthoff - what makes earthtech a RS?
* http://www.worldgreenenergysymposium.us/newsroom.html - how can this be considered a RS?
*  - how is this a cite that can be used to verify anything?
* Cravens, Dennis (May 1, 1995). "Flowing Electrolyte Calorimetry". Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Cold Fusion, 1995, page 79.(archive) - what makes newenergytimes.com a RS?
* Jet Rothwell, Eugene Mallove, Cold Fusion Technology Magazine, One Kilowatt Cold Fusion Reactor Demonstrated December 7, 1995 - what makes Cold Fusion mag a RS (it's self-published, not an MIT-reviewed source)?
* Transcript of ABC-TV "Good Morning America" Program on Cold Fusion Excess Energy and Radioactivity Reduction, June 11, 1997. Transcribed by Infinite Energy magazine. - what makes Infinite Energy mag a reliable source?
*  - what makes Lightworks Audio Video a RS?
How can these meet WP:V & WP:RS? --RexxS (talk) 08:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  IP 84.106 is pushing that stuff in. I have reverted it. Maybe the IP should stop editing this article for a while until he understands what is reliable source and what is not. I propose to semi-protect this page for a while. --POVbrigand (talk) 10:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: More than that, the section is useless. None of the demonstrations and media hype resulted in proving the device. All of this stuff should be removed per WP:UNDUE. Binksternet (talk) 18:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing problems again 

message: Can this data about James A. Patterson be added to the article as a reference in the first sentence of the article? Is RootsWeb a "reliable source"?
:James A. Patterson was born in Illinois on May 17, 1922 and he died in Sarasota, Florida on February 11, 2008. Retrieved from the Social Security Death Index via RootsWeb.com.
AnnaBennett (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Reliability isn't boolean. Rootsweb isn't great but it seems to be directly based on government records; I think it would be reasonable enough for uncontroversial claims. bobrayner (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

text: This is important to the Power Cell in what way? None; it's trivial and tangential. This is not the Patterson biography, it is the article about a controversial cold fusion device. Binksternet (talk) 08:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: what is important is that Patterson died (in 2008), and to a lesser extend that his grandson Jim Redding, who acted as CEO of CETI died in 2000. It is important to put this device into the timeframe "1995-2008". --POVbrigand (talk) 11:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not like the way the first sentence is worded because it misleads the reader into believing that James A. Patterson is a "retired chemist", and that is not true. Dr. Patterson is not a retired chemist, he's dead! So can we agree to add a reference that informs the reader of this fact? Something like: "James A. Patterson was an industrial chemist. He died in Sarasota, Florida on February 11, 2008 at the age of 85".  We could also use the reference to the article cited by the U.S. Senate (see below) and write "an electrolysis device invented by and named after James A. Patterson". That article provides a reference for the fact that the device was named after its inventor. AnnaBennett (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You never say a dead guy invented a device, you give him his title in life, typically at the time of the event. Thus we say Ensign George Bush made an emergency water landing in 1944, not President George H.W. Bush. Binksternet (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we can say that he WAS a retired chemist who invented the device. His status at the time of the significant events on which this article is based is all that matters. As for the sourcing of the name of the device, it's trivial and uncontested, and thus probably doesn't need to be specifically sourced. Unless, of course, there is some realistic debate about who the cell was named after, which I doubt there is. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

text: All of that would be fine in the man's biographical article. Here at the device article, it is not relevant. Binksternet (talk) 04:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

text: Patterson being dead is enough. There's no need to introduce Reding and then say he is dead. He did not roll out a mass-produced power cell--he did nothing significant. Binksternet (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is RootsWeb a reliable source? 

message: Binksternet, you deleted the "Verification reports" section that I added because I cited a primary source. Yes, I see that the citation is incorrect. I am going to correct that error and put the section back into the article. "Excess heat" is the reason that Wikipedia has an article on the Patterson Power Cell. This aspect of the PPC must be fully presented. AnnaBennett (talk) 16:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The patent is a primary source. The report is also a primary source. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The TV programs are valid sources. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 05:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: TV programs cannot be reliable sources for scientific claims of this nature. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No one is suggesting that.84.106.26.81 (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excess heat verification reports 

message: here Andy stated: "there is nothing 'well known' about using lithium sulfate to make water conduct electricity"
The cell is an electrolysis device. I added: "This makes the fluid conductive so that electric current can flow though it." which should be good as articles should be written for everyday readers, not for academics. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If one wished to make the water into an electrolyte, there are cheaper 'solutions' (pun intended) than lithium sulfate. Why not simple Wikilink electrolyte and avoid unnecessary repetition? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a valid argument Andy. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That isn't a valid response, anon IP. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  what is electrolyte? 

message: I would like an explanation for the deletion of the patent. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a primary source. Provide evidence that this patent is seen as significant by reliable secondary sources please - and then cite them instead. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is very normal to link to patents, please familiarize yourself with this. We even have a template for it. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 19:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Provide evidence that this patent is seen as significant by reliable secondary sources please. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: delete the patent?

message: James A. Patterson was the Chairman of Clean Energy Technologies, Inc., while James W. Reding was CETI's president. CETI changed its name to MSI Ventures and it is no longer qualified to do business in the State of Florida. However, MSI Ventures (also known as Molecular Separations Incorporated) is a Texas corporation and its current status is hidden behind a paywall; unlike Florida, the Texas Secretary of State's corporation records are not freely available to the public.
The article should not assert that CETI is no longer active when in fact it may be listed as "active" by the Texas Secretary of State. CETI (MSI Ventures) may have a multi-million-dollar-per-year contract with the U.S. Department of Energy to dispose of nuclear waste (by passing radioactive waste through Patterson Power Cells) and the children and grandchildren and great grandchildren of James A. Patterson may be receiving generous dividend checks from MSI Ventures. And that may continue as long as they keep their mouths shut and do not challenge the oil oligopoly that keeps us, as George W. Bush has do bluntly stated, "Addicted to oil". 
Molecular Separations Incorporated may be a very profitable company, and it may be operating and promoting its "molecular separators" (a.k.a the Patterson Power Cell). I am deleting from the article the reference to CETI being "no longer active". AnnaBennett (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And what has your crackpot conspiracy theory got to do with the article? We don't give a rat's arse what you think 'may' be happening. Please don't spam this page with delusional junk. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: POVbrigand added 2 death dates to the article, preformed some accidental original research on the company and asked for a source. I'm surprised you missed all of that. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: here is the div:, hope this helps. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

text: Your suggestion the article should be as bare bones as possible is not based on the guidelines. I suggest you look at the title of the article, right at the start where it says CETI.84.106.26.81 (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

text: The article is about the Cell, not about CETI. Actually, this raises an interesting point though. How many sources refer to the device as the 'CETI Patterson Power Cell' as opposed to the 'Patterson Power Cell'? Per WP:COMMONNAME, we should probably follow the sources, and a quick look at what references I can access suggests that 'Patterson Power Cell' is more common. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

text: Given those comments, I have no choice but to report you to AN/I, where I will request that you be  permanently blocked from editing. I have every expectation that you will be. Goodbye and good riddance, and don't forget your tinfoil hat on the way out. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is MSI Ventures "Active"? 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CETI_Patterson_Power_Cell&diff=464778745&oldid=464778389
IRWolfie inserts the following comment: "What is meant exactly by turned over? Did he have ownership of the company/profit share etc?" referring to this:
:Patterson turned the power cell over to a start-up, Clean Energy Technologies Inc, run by his grandson James W Reding; Reding once touted the cell as a cold fusion system, but has since dropped that claim.Bishop, Jerry E., A bottle rekindles scientific debate about the possibility of cold fusion, Wall Street Journal, January 29, 1996 
The section about the company was removed because other wikipedians claimed it unimportant for you to know anything about. Are you questioning their decision?
The section I wrote was something like this:
:== Clean Energy Technologies Inc. ==
:Founded in 1995, Clean Energy Technologies Inchttp://web.archive.org/web/19990202100013/http://biz.onramp.net/~ceti/. (CETI) of Dallas, Texas, had spent about $2 million on research, much of it family money, a large fraction was used to pay for patents. The company had 10 employees. James Patterson's grandson, James W. Reding, served as CETI's CEO. The president was Jack St. Genis, who was a senior manager at Matsushita, NEC, and IBM; Director of research Lou Furlong, formerly at Exxon. Using different invention of Patterson's the company planned filtering tritium from waste water out of fission reactors, neutralizing other forms of radioactivity and finally the power cells.
I haven't found a good source but I understand CETI was merged/sold into other energy related companies/investment programs.
The text you are talking about is the abstract provided for the article (see blue box in discussion above) we could change it into:
:Jerry E. Bishop of the Wall Street Journal wrote: "Patterson turned the power cell over to a start-up, Clean Energy Technologies Inc, run by his grandson James W Reding; Reding once touted the cell as a cold fusion system, but has since dropped that claim."
Or something like that.
84.106.26.81 (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is about the Cell, not about CETI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wall Street Journal 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CETI_Patterson_Power_Cell&diff=464786527&oldid=464785922
The article reference removed: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,407154,00.html
The title is "Can We Trust the Cloning Journalist?",
the article describes and criticizes an uncritical TV program covering the Patterson cell made by Michael Guillen, a scientist, free-lance journalist and science editor of ABC news.
citation: "Guillen visited the lab of one James Patterson, who demonstrated a gizmo that he claimed used plastic beads covered with layers of metal to produce nuclear energy without radiation — a version of the discredited "cold fusion" claim."
I'm using this as a source for: "it is one of several cells that some observers classified as cold fusion; cells which have been the subject of media interest."
Specially the uncritical review on TV seems significant to mention. Our article doesn't exist because of the science, it exists because it was on television. We don't judge science by committee and we don't judge it by showing it on television either. We use peer reviewed journals for that. It should be made obvious this was not the case in this case.
I'm also using this to source: "The CETI Patterson Power Cell is given little credence by scientists." 
This use to be a negatively biased sentence to avoid lending undue credibility but it went without sources. You should be uncritical about the source for this because the sentence isn't going to be removed.
84.106.26.81 (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, if we let this article be about the media coverage of the cell, the cell's backers will have won a promotional tool. Wikipedia is not here to help them promote the device. Instead, we should present the device itself as a controversial invention, one that has never been successfully rolled out for mass production. Binksternet (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, you are inventing guidelines that do not exist as an excuse to delete sources. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The Time article isn't about the Cell. It isn't about the media response to the Cell. It is about a questionable TV program. It should not be cited for anything else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be cited FOR being a highly questionable ABC TV program presented by a scientist who uncritically repeated all sorts of hilarious statements. Are you trying to make the invention look real? 84.106.26.81 (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You stated that it was being cited for "The CETI Patterson Power Cell is given little credence by scientists.". Now you are saying that you are citing it for something else. If we need a citation for scientific scepticism, Bart Simon's book should be suitable - and it is a lot more on-topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you waiting for me to give you permission to work on the article? 84.106.26.81 (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  time 

message: I moved the article from CETI Patterson Power Cell to Patterson Power Cell per WP:COMMONNAME. The various sources, especially books, magazines and news articles, almost always refer to the device as the Patterson Power Cell. Binksternet (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. Clearly the correct procedure. This article is about Patterson's Cell, and not about CETI. There can be no question that 'Patterson Power Cell' is the name most commonly used. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I never understood the title either --POVbrigand (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

text: FYI, I just updated the links on the five regular pages that still linked to the old name. -- Limulus (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! I should not have left the tidying up for someone else. Binksternet (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: as the power is disputed, we might as well call it just "cell" :-) --POVbrigand (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

text: Patterson Power Cell is the common name for the device. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from CETI Patterson Power Cell to Patterson Power Cell 

message: I've removed: Patterson died in 2008.<:ref>New Energy Times obituary James Patterson</ref>
It doesn't belong in the "construction" section.
84.106.9.95 (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  sections about paterson and ceti 

message: The setup was to demonstrate 1000 times more energy out than in. There is no doubt that no transmutation products have been detected, but that doesn't say anything about the heat production. The line of reasoning that the experiment was inconclusive therefore no heat was produced is not correct. It is less accurate than we need to be. 84.106.9.95 (talk) 10:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't have reliable independent replication published in a peer reviewed paper (or reliable independent tests on the device) to make claims that it had 1000 times more energy output than input. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

text: I added a link to the Earthtech study of transmutation products. It contains a reference to a heat measurement report which is available from Earthtech upon request. Earthtech are known for good laboratory technique, even though this report is unpublished.
173.197.66.40 (talk) 18:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  no measurement of transmutation products 

message: The popular argument that TV shows are not reliable sources is not correct. They are definitely not scientific publications, never should they be presented as such. They do however make up a valuable body of evidence of why the CETI Patterson power cell is note worthy. How it got to be so popular. Not mentioning this would give the false impression the topic has a scientific origin. We simply do not have enough material on the topic to write a good science article, therefore it should be considered an article about a media event.
From the archives: On February 7, 1996, ABC News shows Good Morning America and Nightline featured stories about the Patterson Power Cell. Good Morning America followed up the story one year later, on June 11, 1997 .
84.106.9.95 (talk) 10:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's not reliable for specific claims we shouldn't use it. . What we can do is use them in an AfD to help to establish notability (along with more reliable sources for specific issues etc). IRWolfie- (talk) 10:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: news coverage

message: I've bothered to select a few relevant examples of Pattersons many patents. Those patents are reliable sources of the existence of those patents. Why have they been removed?
84.106.9.95 (talk) 10:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Patents are primary sources. Patents have no associated due weight. Significant mentions should be made in reliable secondary sources to establish due weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Patents

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Patterson power cell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111014221603/http://newenergytimes.com/v2/views/Group1/Patterson.shtml to http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/views/Group1/Patterson.shtml
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120714111519/http://link.aip.org/link/?APCPCS/1103/450/1 to http://link.aip.org/link/?APCPCS%2F1103%2F450%2F1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified