Talk:Cold fusion/Archive5

Abd removing others' comments

 * We will note here that Abd has been not merely post-editing his tl;dr, but removing others' responses - David Gerard (talk) 06:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In token whereof I have laid an indefinite block on his hiney. . -- MtD Prematurely Indeterminate   09:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Whoa, that seems hasty. The guy wrote really ridiculously annoyingly long walls of text, so he might have just accidentally lost that comment in the shuffle.  Could easily have been an accident.-- 09:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Feel free to unblock him. But consider what he's about. He's a crank and a loon. He games the system in the craftiest ways. He adds nothing to our collective effort, in fact he detracts from it. If ever there was a case for bannination it's Abd. I love our tolerance of all kinds, but I think Abd is one kind too many. I think he very craftily edits the comments of others, it matches what he does on other wikis. Thus I indeffed him. But I'm not gonna lose my poop about it. -- MtD Prematurely Indeterminate   09:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * One of my comments seems to have disappeared - though I guess that pointing out similarities to his argumentation style and that of PJR may not have been the profoundest contribution to the debate. But there again there is a important principle at stake. --BobSpring is sprung! 11:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I love it. Matty the Damned, so upset about my accidental removal of Bob M's comments, now reverted my restoration of removed comments from myself, removed my new brief comments, and removed my archiving to history of my own last long comment, one with no response yet (but a lot of separate complaint about length in general). It's absolutely brilliant disruption, he is to be commended for it. --Abd (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Because of Bob M's comment below, I went back and fixed a minor error in my archiving process, which resulted in the loss of the first line of his restored comment. It should all be fixed now. In none of this was there ever an intention to alter the comments of others. When I do intend to alter the comments of others, I won't conceal it, you'll know. Tempest in a Teapot should be the alternate name of RationalWiki.
 * If people really want that "ridiculously annoyingly long wall of text" I archived to keep making the page too long, revert the restored archiving, I have no problem with that. --Abd (talk) 17:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Abd
Since we've arrived at a point where everyone has to just line up to keep reverting him, I think it's good policy to just determine that he's going to have to actually convince someone on the talk page of his proposed changes before he just makes them. Not that the heightening levels of bitterness and personal assault in his edit comments are fun, but it's getting tedious to watch people keep having to clean up.

Sound good? Abd, work out your proposed changes here before you make them to the main article again, thank you.-- 21:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Great idea, AD. Tell you what: I'll make small edits one at a time and self-revert. It's much easier to propose edits that way. Then they can be discussed here. There is another possibility, to draft an alternate article, say in my user space. Then the community can decide which article is best. However, there will be an issue of time. I don't have much, I had a little time and wasted most of it arguing for simple changes that should have been obvious. Thanks, Tweenk.


 * You are at least reading the paper. I think incorrectly, but tell you what. I'll read the article again and see if I can figure out what you are seeing and that you put in the article.


 * I think you have misunderstood something. Much of the cold fusion work involves cell designs that only produce excess heat, say, two-thirds of the time, even in skilled hands and the amount of heat is quite variable. Storms shows that the cells with no heat also had no helium, whereas when there was heat, there was helium, generally correlated at about double the expected ratio of heat to helium for deuterium fusion to helium. (Because about half the helium is released in the effluent gases, the rest is trapped in the palladium) So I suspect you are missing the forest for the trees, for that kind of behavior is strong evidence that the effect is real and not artifact. You are seeing the variability only.


 * Storms is indeed LENR editor at Naturwissenschaften, but it means the reverse of what you might think. They invited him to be LENR editor because he's the foremost active scientist in the field. For the same reason they asked him to write that paper. He did not review and approve his own paper. Again, forest for the trees: that a major journal finds it necessary to engage a LENR editor? For a supposedly dead field? What is wrong with this picture? --Abd (talk) 04:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 *  I'll make small edits one at a time and self-revert. It's much easier to propose edits that way. in other words not doing AD's proposed solution, the kind of solution a real wiki would use. -- il'  Dictator   Mikal  04:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You could maybe mirror the article as it is in your userspace, and then make the edits you want, pointing to the diffs. Peter Monomorium antarcticum 04:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly. I'd do that for major changes. Don't know if I'll have time for that. Or I'll make one change to the article, and if I think it's not going to be controversial, leave it. Tell you what. I'll do what I choose to do. Above, I accept AD's suggestion, as to intention. It will be that way or better. Mikal, self-reversion is a technique proposed -- and used -- on Wikipedia for editing under conditions of high controversy. Long story. Think about it. --Abd (talk) 04:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikis dont run with the "I do what i want" method. sorry love. -- il' Dictator   Mikal  04:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * They don't? Mikal, I've been editing wikis since about ten years ago, and I anticipated the concept almost twenty years before that. You were how old? Wikis do run on "I do what I want." Very much so. This one even more than usual. You do what you want, if others don't like it, they revert it. So? What I see here is that, AD's and PeterL's kind suggestions aside, users are trying to tell me how to edit. No, I'll do what works for me, and if people don't like it, they can revert it, delete it, whatever the community allows. --Abd (talk) 05:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't get involved in the science stuff, but if there are serious edit wars, I will lock down the page - which means ultimately that you'll have to propose your changes anyhow. So either you take up P's idea about making your own space (you say it's time consuming, how?  cont-a, cont-c, cont v and you're good to go), or you propose here and get approval.  Those are your options.  "doing what you want', really isn't. [[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot    oi, putain, genial, merci 04:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah. Obeh my authorite? I'm seeing an idea here of some sort of superior authority. Did I get that right?
 * No. Page locked, I don't care. It all relieves me of any responsibility. Because I came here, the page has somewhat improved, it's not quite as embarrassing. (I don't know of you guys have noticed, but a lot of material I wrote has been left in, and we'll get back to some of the rest, I suspect.) I have many ways to proceed, and I will choose them, not WfG.
 * The revert warring happened because there were bald reverts restoring a blatant error, finally fixed by Tweenk, and everyone else here seemingly refused to read the source in question, to check the text Gerard was insisting on, because they "trusted" him, and instead blaming everything on the fact that I was attempting to discuss it here. Because of no response, there was even more discussion, and more revert warring. --Abd (talk) 05:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you won't be doing as you please. We are not a free for all anarchy. -- il' Dictator   Mikal  05:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We aren't? I'll still do what I please, and so will you, and so will everyone else. --Abd (talk) 05:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, well, anyway, as Godot said: please either fork the article or work out proposed changes in talk. If you decide to make edits and then self-revert, that's completely your choice, but it seems as though it's just more work for you and will amount to getting approval here, anyway: all that will happen is that you make the edit, revert it yourself, then try to get approval here and most of the time having to rewrite them partially. Makes sense to me to just do those last two steps, instead. Not that I think anyone will particularly care if you keep editing and reverting yourself...-- 08:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, AD, I agree completely. I'm glad that you see that self-reverted edits are harmless. Here is what I intend to do: make uncontroversial edits directly, like spelling corrections. Make possibly controversial small edits and self-revert, placing a notice here for review and possible discussion. Make larger changes to a fork in my user space. I would add the most recent version of that article to the user page, so that direct comparison, total diff, can easily be seen. Okay?
 * If I have time, of course, which is rather doubtful right now. But at least we'll have a way forward. --Abd (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That seems fine, although strange and laborious.-- 00:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * For future record/those reading along at home, I made a copy of the article for him here. Peter Monomorium antarcticum 08:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Peter, the thought is appreciated. I do know how to copy pages. I've been a highly active WikiMedia Foundation sysop, after all. --Abd (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Article revisions and edist to edits.
I'm getting a bit confused about how we are going to undo Abd's inappropriate editing to this page. It had looked like hew was trying to correct it himself. But, unless I'm mistaken - always a high probability err probability - he's been reverted. Can we agree how we are going to fix it?--BobSpring is sprung! 16:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is what I did.
 * I first corrected the accidental removal of Bob_M's comments. There were actually two (what I'd accidentally deleted was the whole last section of the discussion, an interchange between Bob_M and myself). AFAIK, I did this correctly, except I do notice a small error. I place the restored text on the next line, I should have added another line feed.
 * Then, because there had been no response to my long response to Tweenk, that had gotten so many people upset, I archived it to history, so anyone can see it in its pristine glory without the page being burdened. That was purely intended to edit my own comment. Part of it had a following tl;dr comment from Bob M, so technically, there had been a comment, but my archiving did not conceal what Bob M was talking about, it merely reduced the page length, etc.
 * However, because of that line feed error, I missed a snippet of text, the first line of Bob M's restored comment. Easy to fix. I do make mistakes, folks. I will fix all this, I will revert the reversion of MtD, so that I can make what I put in history correct. I'll do it, as I did before, in two steps, with the archiving last, so that this, if considered improper, can easily be reverted separately. --Abd (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's fixed now. My last edit was the archiving. If I anticipated that this would be seriously controversial, I'd have self-reverted, but I don't think that, so I won't. --Abd (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Anyone interested in accuracy of the article?
As I attempted to point out before, the article has numerous errors of fact, it's not merely a matter of interpretation. One at a time. Just a few to start, from the lede. --Abd (talk) 23:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Error: "Palladium electrodes"
In the Fleischmann-Pons experiment, the cathode is palladium. The anode is generally platinum. A palladium anode would dissolve. --Abd (talk) 23:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. I've fixed this. Because this was clearly an error, there is usually only one palladium electrode in one of these experiments, the other electrode being the anode, and should not be controversial, I'm not self-reverting. --Abd (talk) 23:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, this and another change were reverted by David Gerard.. Both changes were explained here, and allowed to stand for quite some time. This particular change is the correction of a simple, blatant error. What I interpret from this is that at least one user reverts just to revert, based on who made the edit, with no care for content. In any case, I did again restore this particular change, and this time it has stood for 22 days.. --Abd (talk) 19:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Error: The report of Pons and Fleischmann was "irreproducible"
The source cited in the lede is http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf. That's Rothwell's analysis of publication and result classifications from the Britz database; Britz is a skeptical electrochemist who has long followed the field. Many people attempted, immediately after the press conference, and with inadequate information about the protocol, to replicate the results, and failed. (It was not announced that Pons and Fleischmann themselves, at that time, only saw the heat effect in perhaps a sixth of their experimental cells, and this only after months of electrolysis and after working for five years to improve "reliability.") Correction: at the time of the announcement, Pons and Fleischmann were seeing the effect in 100% of their cells. Then they ran out of the original batch of palladium. When they replaced it, they found they could not, themselves, reproduce the effect, for quite some time. Embarrassing! --Abd (talk) 02:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

However, eventually, after a few months, more persistent researchers did reproduce the core finding: anomalous heat in the palladium deuteride system. (Pons and Fleischmann also reported low levels of neutrons, which was later shown to be artifact. The Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect, as it is neutrally called, is not associated with any major radiation.)

Rothwell reports, page 18, that anomalous heat was found in 153 peer-reviewed reports, as listed in the Britz database. There is no support in the paper cited for the claim made in the text.

Britz classifies papers into positive, negative, and neutral. Many papers were not investigating heat at all, but were looking for other signs of fusion, such as neutrons. Britz, for historical reasons, classifies no-neutron papers as "negative," although, in fact, they have no bearing on replication of the heat effect, and only on a naive idea that the FPHE, if real, must be like ordinary deuterium-deuterium fusion (which would produce copious neutrons). So Britz's classification overstates the true "negative" position.

Given this, Britz classifies, as of Rothwell's analysis, see the linked pdf, p. 10, 291 experimental papers as "positive," and 215 were "negative." More positive than negative.

The idea that the original work was never reproduced seems to be based on the early results, plus later reports showing what became uncontroversial: the lack of neutrons. This "irreproducible" claim has not appeared in peer-reviewed journals in relevant fields for many years, if it was ever seen there, it is only found in the popular press, which often repeats old conclusions as if they were fact.

The source not only does not support the text in the article, it contradicts it. --Abd (talk) 23:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've made a change from "irreproducible" to "difficult to reproduce," which is true, well-known, and is consistent with the sources, "irreproducible" is not. Right or wrong, artifact or not, many others have replicated the effect. I have self-reverted per the requests made above, I invite anyone to revert the change back in. After a decent delay to allow for objection, I'll do it myself. --Abd (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. --Abd (talk) 13:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Together with the error correction above, this was reverted without any discussion. I know the arguments on this issue (both sides) like the palm of my hand. I've been told, however:
 * Abd, work out your proposed changes here before you make them to the main article again, thank you.--AD (Moderator) 21:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If I give the reasons for the change without facing a specific question or issue, it would very likely be considered too much Talk. So this is Catch-22. Not a big surprise. One of these days, I may make the change, or something like it, again, if there is no objection. "Irreproducible," though, is highly misleading, repeating a myth that has been held outside of the journals for about twenty years. The situation in the journals *never* supported it, since there have been hundreds of replications of the basic effect (anomalous heat in palladium deuteride), and that's been covered in many reviews over the last six years or so. "Difficult to reproduce" was definitely true, and can easily be shown, including by reports of scientists who tried, failed, whose failures were reported, and who later succeeded in showing the effect, which was published. --Abd (talk) 21:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

"They were unable to replicate their process publicly after the press releases."
This little gem was added by Hipocrite and supported by some others. It's not even wrong. Most history of this is about the "Press conference." Science is not normally done by press conference, but it became a habit of all sides in this mess for a time. (Pons and Fleischmann were not ready to announce, it was rushed for legal reasons, per the requirements of University of Utah legal staff.) In any case, most new experimentation isn't "replication," rather, it seeks to build on earlier work, determine optimal operating parameters, etc.
 * Pons and Fleischmann continued their work, reporting positive results, after the press conference, and late into the 1990s.
 * There is a rumor that there was a point in 1989, however, where they ran out of the original batch of palladium, and new palladium did not work. My guess is that this is what the writer of that snippet had in mind. They were later able to find palladium that worked. Others use co-deposition techniques that don't depend on a solid palladium cathode having just the right nanostructure. Others use nanoparticle palladium, gas-loaded, an entirely different approach.
 * Most scientific work is not done "publicly." It may or may not be reported publicly. The writer may have had in mind something like a "public demonstration." Public demonstrations are not a normal part of the scientific process; for one thing, they can easily be faked. If one doubts the reports of a scientist, one might similarly doubt any public demonstration. Rossi has held many public demonstrations of his "Energy Catalyzer," and they are almost entirely worthless, even where they seemed quite striking on the face. Independent replication is what science depends on for corroboration, generally. Especially independent replication that uses better or different measurement methods.
 * The idea that the Pons and Fleischmann results were never replicated is a myth.
 * The truth would be that exact replication has rarely been done in this field. Rather, value was placed on reproducing the effect using different methods of working with palladium, different calorimetric methods, etc. However, one of the supposed negative replications on which the 1989 ERAB Panel review depended was that of Melvin Miles, of the United States Naval Laboratory at China Lake. The ERAB panel review was rushed, for political reasons, billions of dollars of hot fusion funding were seriously threatened. (I followed all this at the time, and didn't discover the truth about cold fusion until about 2009. Until I read the actual scientific literature, I pretty much assumed the same as everyone else. In 2009, I read almost everything, certainly all the major skeptical material.)
 * Miles eventually started seeing the anomalous heat, and went on, later, to show that helium was being produced commensurate with the heat. Once this was confirmed, had this been routine science, it would have been all over, i.e., while it might still be possible to find some very complicated artifact that could produce this result, it became extremely unlikely. But this wasn't normal science. It had already been declared "dead" by some Very Important People who don't like to admit errors.
 * Miles tried to report his now-positive results to the Panel. He claims they did not return his phone calls.
 * There have been 153 reports of anomalous heat from palladium deuteride, if we count only what has appeared in peer-reviewed journals. This is from a source cited in the article already. These are not "exact replications," so pseudoskeptics use this to make this misleading claim of "never reproduced." That would be like claiming that Galileo's sighting of moons of Jupiter was never replicated because nobody else used the same telescope, or, for that matter, looked at the same time. Others found the moons in different positions, isn't that suspicious? Why can't they agree with each other?
 * There have been more than a dozen experimental groups which have confirmed that helium is being produced commensurate with the heat. That takes this work far beyond what Pons and Fleischmann found, demonstrating a nuclear product -- much of the early skepticism was based on supposed lack of nuclear product.
 * Pons and Fleischmann originally reported neutron radiation, and speculated on fusion reactions based on that finding. Their measurement of neutron radiation was artifact. They were not, after all, nuclear physicists, and were not familiar with the vagaries of neutron measuring equipment. They were leading electrochemists, and, yes, reputable and respected as such.
 * The basic discovery of Pons and Fleischmann has been confirmed in hundreds of labs around the world, and articles are now routinely published in peer-reviewed journals, including major ones, which treat the original discovery as established fact. Helium is now routinely measured in some labs as confirmation of the calorimetry.
 * It's about time to drive a stake through the heart of this "not replicated" myth. Of course, who am I to challenge the religion here? --Abd (talk) 02:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The process here
I changed some of the occurrences of "irreproducible" to "difficult to reproduce," which is accurate (and which would include irreproducible as a limit). The text in a number of places makes a claim contradictory to "irreproducible," pointing out -- incorrectly -- that more efforts to reproduce failed than succeeded. Even one success would make "irreproducible" incorrect. One may still assert some kind of systematic error, but "irreproducible" is totally bogus, and was so since 1989, when some independent researchers, including at least one funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, began to see the same heat effect. --Abd (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm now being routinely reverted due to being, allegedly, a crank. I just went through the article again and changed all "irreproducible" comments to "difficult to reproduce," which is accurate. Irreproducible is head-in-the-sand ignorance.
 * I also removed the claim that the Storms review showed a majority of experiments with no excess heat. That seems to be based on a histogram, Fig 4. I originally considered that this histogram had been misread. Reviewing it now, I am revising my opinion, at least pending further review. If I haven't already been reverted, I'll change those bits of text. The way the data has been presented is misleading, but not exactly incorrect. I don't know how to reconcile this with other information I have, which shows that a majority of papers have been showing excess heat. There is some confusion between "reports" and results for individual cells.
 * Note that one independent report of excess heat would be a "replication." The chart shows far, far more than that. The point of the chart was to show the scatter, how many reports showed significant excess heat, far above the maximum error ("well below 2 watts," from the original publication of that chart as referenced there). --Abd (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter, TheoryOfPractice reverted. Apparently RW doesn't mind looking really stupid to anyone who knows the literature. This is entirely aside from snark. --Abd (talk) 00:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Started user page to consider the reproducibility question
At the request of a number of users on my Talk page, who created a user page for me, I have covered arguments relating to the reproducibility question on User talk:Abd/cf. Anyone is welcome to, in good faith, add arguments not mentioned by me, or to correct errors or present unrepresented considerations. I will use the discussion there to inform my activities here, if there is participation. Otherwise, you can all suck eggs. I DGAF. --Abd (talk) 02:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Error: The 2010 Storms review paper was in a "journal on life sciences and environmental sciences"
The journal is Springer-Verlag's "flagship multidisciplinary journal." They apparently needed to classify it somewhere in their publishing structure, and placed it in the category claimed. It does publish many papers that are related to life sciences; however, they prefer papers which cross disciplines. The issue is probably mentioned because someone wants to imply that they would not have resources to properly review the paper. The paper was reviewed by experts in relevant fields, which would include physics and chemistry. Calling Naturwissenschaften a "life sciences and environmental sciences" journal is simply made-up for polemic purpose.

The page cited as a source, http://www.springer.com/life+sciences/journal/114. actually says
 * ''Naturwissenschaften - The Science of Nature - is Springer's flagship multidisciplinary science journal covering all aspect of the natural sciences. The journal is dedicated to the fast publication of high-quality research covering the whole range of the biological, chemical, geological, and physical sciences. Particularly welcomed are contributions that bridge between traditionally isolated areas and attempt to increase the conceptual understanding of systems and processes that demand an interdisciplinary approach. However, this does not exclude the publication of high-quality topical articles, which will continue to be the core of the journal.


 * ''Naturwissenschaften is only interested in publishing the very best of research, and the selection criteria are scientific excellence, novelty, and the potential to attract the widest possible readership, reflecting the multidisciplinary nature of the journal. The journal publishes Reviews, Original Articles, Concepts & Synthesis, Short Communications, and Comments & Replies. With the Comments & Reply section, NAWI aims to stimulate scientific discussion or elaborate on opposing view in response to an article published in the journal.

The paper in question was a Review, so labelled, and it was on the first page of the issue.

So how was the source interpreted as showing that it's a "Life sciences" journal? It's the page title, created because Springer-Verlag has lumped its "flagship multidisciplinary journal" in with life sciences journals, for administrative purposes. (Many or most papers currently being published are in some way associated with Life Sciences, as well.)

This is a great example of a citation that misleads, for all the gullible reader has to do is read the title of the page and it seems the claim is confirmed.

There is more, but this is more than enough for today! --Abd (talk) 23:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Given that there was no response on this, and the "life sciences journal" trope is clearly an error, I went ahead and edited the section, and added some comment in the footnote about the subject of Storms being on the editorial board. I was reverted by Sophie, no surprise. I reverted her to finish my editing. We'll see what happens, but this pattern has clearly been established. What I add or remove is reverted just because of what I supposedly am, rather than the content. So much for "constructive dialog," except ... the jury is still out. It tends to stay out on a wiki. --Abd (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Sophie reverted again. Revert warring to maintain a blatant error. Cool. --Abd (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Trolling
An editor very familiar to me from Wikipedia, who, in 2009, started revert warring on Cold fusion, who had no interest in cold fusion or knowledge of the literature (on all sides), and who simply edited to maximize irritation, has arrived here, doing the same thing. His first set of changes, I rolled back, but that was revered by User:David Gerard, so I left it. He then threatened to make more changes, and carried out the threat. While I don't *normally* revert war, I just used tools to slow this down, and I've asked Tweenk to take a look, since what Hipocrite is mangling is largely what Tweenk wrote. I restored the last David Gerard version and Protected the article for a day. While I don't advise it, I won't oppose the lifting of protection by any RW sysop. Below I'll explain why each edit is inappropriate, though I will first partially accept one of the edits, which was a half-truth. --Abd (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Voxhumana unprotected the article quickly and restored Hipocrite's changes, so I'm not responsible for the state of it. That's fine. Below are the problems with the Hipocrite changes. --Abd (talk) 22:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Andrea Rossi was indeed convicted, though "felon" is a term that may not apply in Italy. His conviction was also reversed, later. See the Wikipedia article Andrea Rossi (entrepreneur). I will edit the article to correct the misleading insertion, hopefully that will be acceptable. --Abd (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, his conviction was not fully reversed, and you don't speak Italian. He remained convicted for illegal dumping. Hipocrite (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously not a felony. I did read a translation of the article referenced from Wikipedia's article. The upshot of the article was that Rossi was getting away with a handslap.
 * I did some more research on this. is a translation of Rossi's version of the history. There, it's acknowledged that, Of all 56 prosecutions, the ones which led to imprisonment ended with acquittals; only 5 of the prosecutions for tax crime ended with convictions (with some custody imprisonments). All of the other prosecutions ended with acquittal or for statute of limitation.
 * Putting this together with the Italian source linked from the Wikipedia article, the standing convictions were for "tax crime," not what would be called felonies. However, that is Rossi's material.
 * New Energy Times did extensive investigation of Rossi. Krivit provides source materials at . However, I could find nothing really clear. If you have a source for conviction of illegal dumping, cite it. Rossi claims the only convictions were for tax crime. The latest article I found indicates:
 * After years of investigation and controversy, Rossi was finally sanctioned only for minor events related to non-compliance that had obtained permission for the disposal of waste. Google translation of.
 * "Minor" strongly indicates that these aren't what we'd call felonies. The harmonization might be that he essentially failed to pay for a dumping "license." I.e., a tax. Given that the whole dispute was over whether or not these materials were "waste" or "fuel", Rossi might be right that he got screwed over. They were *retroactively* called "waste."
 * Rossi seems to have no difficulty entering the U.S., he's here often. "Convicted felon" seems highly unlikely.
 * Look, the guy can apparently afford lawyers. If RW wants to call him a "convicted felon" even though it's totally unnecessary -- Rossi's reputation for honesty totally sucks -- I'm not doing anything more about it.
 * On the other hand, he has a much more relevant history of failing to deliver what he's promised. That's a lot more on point than "convicted felon." I could write something up, I'm familiar with it, but why should I bother when everything I put in is reverted out, no matter how well-sourced? --Abd (talk) 02:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Abd - you are a well known CF crank who was banned from Wikipedia for spouting your nonsense. I had to put up with your bullshit at WP, I'm in no mood to put up with it here. I don't know if another editor has followed you here, but I'm also here, and I know all too well about your crank tactics. VOX HUMANA  22:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What goes at Wikipedia stays at Wikipedia.  Don't drag WP baggage over here; it just looks pathetic.  23:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Weaseloid. I did mention Wikipedia when I saw similar behavior repeating here, behavior that caused huge disruption there (including a massive ArbComm case). Otherwise, I'd not have bothered. RW is very different, I'm quite aware. --Abd (talk) 23:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete "convicted felon."

 * Yes. See above for evidence. --Abd (talk) 13:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No He was convicted. Hipocrite (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Of a felony? It appears not. --Abd (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Since he's paying you to write this, I would expect that you'd say that. Hipocrite (talk) 15:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I wish. Rossi may know of me, I've written reams of criticism warning cold fusion researchers from supporting his claims, and I'm respected in the field. Notice what I have suggested instead of "convicted felon," below, which is actually more on point. He'd pay me to indicate he's unreliable? Hipocrite, your panties are showing.
 * Simple question. He was convicted of something. Was it a felony? A felony is a serious offense. The report we have calls it a minor offense, i.e., a misdemeanor or an infraction, to use U.S. terms, and is actually complaining because he got off with a slap on the wrist. It's irrelevant to the article to even mention it. Unreliable? Now, that's the issue! --Abd (talk) 16:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Add "notorious for failing to deliver promised products."
Yes. links can be provided. --Abd (talk) 13:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)