Talk:Patterson power cell

{{tph}}

{{Old XfD multi

|date = 12 May 2007 |result = Keep |page = CETI Patterson Power Cell

|date2 = 29 November 2011 |result2 = Keep |page2 = CETI Patterson Power Cell (2nd nomination)

}}

{{WikiProject banner shell |class=Start |1=

{{WikiProject Energy |importance=low}}

{{WikiProject Skepticism |importance=low}}

}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

| algo = old(30d)

| archive = Talk:Patterson power cell/Archive %(counter)d

| counter = 1

| maxarchivesize = 150K

| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}

| minthreadstoarchive = 1

| minthreadsleft = 3

}}

no measurement of transmutation products

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)

: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)

: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 Earthtech are known for good laboratory technique, even though this report is unpublished.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)

Patents

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)

: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)