This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Here are a few links that you might find helpful:
You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; the wikipedia software automatically converts it to your username and the date.
If you have questions you can go to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type ((helpme))
on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
We're so glad you're here! -- Quantockgoblin (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
Kudos on your work - we can always use more Chemists around here... okedem (talk) 10:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading Image:Trans effect 2.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Polly (Parrot) 03:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Molecular bonding model, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((dated prod))
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add ((db-author))
to the top of Molecular bonding model. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
My main concern is that "molecular bonding model" doesn't seem to be a widely used term at all; I couldn't find any sources using this term at all, and therefore I believe it to be a neologism.Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated Chemical bonding model, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chemical bonding model. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep hanging in there. If the article gets deleted, we can always work to use some of the ideas elsewhere. Sorry I can not be more active right now, but I'm very busy. Keep in touch. I really would like to get these issues resolved. --Bduke (talk) 09:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. You've done excellent work on ligand. My slight concern is that you not dedicate your obvious skills on producing material that could prove semi-redundant with existing articles. But it is nice to see someone improve big articles vs create nichey ones.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. Slashme (talk) 14:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
OMCV - Great images ~ thanks for uploading them!
The gallery is always a nice option. Personally, I'd have a thumb-sized image next to each item. I think for "readably" it is nice to have the text interspersed with a few "pretty" things! PS don't worry about the few whistles, bangs and warnings posted above - everyone tramples about a bit when they start on wikipedia, I’m always forgetting to sign my posts (and getting told off) – you’re doing some very good quality edits so keep it up! Again thank for taking the photos and uploading them. - Quantockgoblin (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I see on Google Scholar that "Strauss" is used in more publications than "Straus", but I can't find either on Google Books. Do you have a citation to confirm the correct spelling? If so, this should go into the article, because then it's a commonly misspelled term. --Slashme (talk) 09:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
This seems like a good idea. I'll put in something and then later editors can streamline it. --Slashme (talk) 11:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes the majority of the fuel does burn, but resulting from incomplete combustion is sludge buildup in the engine. Unburnt HC emissions in the exhaust, along with the need for a catalytic converter is evidence of incomplete combustion. Monoxides are combustible, and the only reason a catalytic converter is needed is to convert these into dioxides. The addition of hydrogen to the combustion process facilitates the combustion of monoxides into dioxides in the engine, thus eliminating the need for a catalytic converter. Plus, at air/fuel ratios great than 30:1 the temperature of combustion is substantially reduced, thus the practical elimination of NOx formation.
I agree with everything else in the scams section. You are right on with most of your information and understanding. Lean burn engines are viable tho, and have been researched for decades. Also, you must draw a line with Brown's Gas; yes the name is invoked in scams, but Brown's Gas refers to simply a particular electrolyzer design (common ducted). Therefore you would be more accurate saying that "Brown's Gas is invoked in scams", but the technology as defined in the patents cannot be a scam. Noah Seidman (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The academic articles in oxyhydrogen, and hydrogen fuel enhancement should help clarify some things. The academic publications are from multiple and diverse sources. These publications are from all around the country. Yes, the vast majority of purported systems are scams. The foundation for fuel enhancement is lean burn engines. Any so called fuel enhancement system that does not override the ECU, or provide a means of achieving greater than 30:1 air/fuel ratios is definitively a scam. Noah Seidman (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
My intent has always been to separate the scam from the real. The academia on the subject of fuel enhancement I have always felt substantiates my passion for the concept. Albeit I only have a Bachelors of Electrical Engineering, and am no where near a PHd in Chemistry I feel I do have a fair amount of knowledge that is not completely useless nor incorrect. Considering the publications referenced in hydrogen fuel enhancement am I wasting my time with a futile technology? Is it completely impossible to increase the economy of an IC engine by operating it under ultra lean conditions? Is there no benefit to the ultra lean burn concept? Please understand my situation, I am only 25 and have been involved with this tech since my sophomore year in college; can all of this time invested in curricular and extracurricular education been a waste?
I've removed the science fraud section from the article. Firstly it isn't a science fraud, but a consumer fraud. Ther is a lot of hype out there concerning this, but a long detailed section in the electrolysis of water article was perhaps a bit out of place - a brief note and link to Hydrogen fuel enhancement would likely be adequate. The most serious problem was the lack of sources - as it was written the section was simply original research. The only inline links/refs were to youtube and news hype promotion. If such a section is to be added to the article, it should be short and adequately sourced. Vsmith (talk) 13:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Would you mind having a look at the last 2 edits to oxyhydrogen and either confirming that 'Automotive' doesnt belong or reverting its removal? Thanks! Just looking for another opinion... Guyonthesubway (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Thought you might find this interesting... apparently hydrogen actually -was- the gas of choice for limelight... http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/pageviewer?frames=1&coll=moa&view=50&root=%2Fmoa%2Fcent%2Fcent0025%2F&tif=00807.TIF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.2.7 (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
"Help people are building perpetual motion machines"; one scientist said to another. The other scientist responds: "but that is impossible". The first states: "but I've seen it and it has real science behind it." The other responds: "Then you are a loon." A forth scientist enters the room, the second jumps up and states "He believes in perpetual motion devices!" There is some mumbling about zero point energy, Æther and virtualized particles but the laughter attracted more attention. 2 + 3 laugh till the end of time and rub themselves with what little petroleum they have left.
the end
Gdewilde (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
What is the point of all of these edits? None of them refer to reliable sources. Sources such as science fiction, youtube, nightly news, and patents are notoriously unreliable for scientific information, each for various reasons. Respectfully, please explain your intent with these additions Go-here.nl. Thank you.--OMCV (talk) 03:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Discussion of user's username related edit-pattern issues moved by him to User talk:Go-here.nl#Removed from water-fuelled car
You added negative toned headers to my postings and complaint about my presence on the talk page. In contrast with your claims your discussion topic has no place on the talk page. I'm not the article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines
Then we have this:
So, there wont be any peer reviews either. I hope there will be but for now it is an article about Urban myths. You are confused, you think it is an article about science.
Here, a picture:
http://www.rexresearch.com/pantone/geetbig1.jpg
Must be a hoax right? Gdewilde (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Pasted from Talk:Water-fuelled car
What is the point of all of these edits? None of them refer to reliable sources. Sources such as science fiction, youtube, nightly news, and patents are notoriously unreliable for scientific information, each for various reasons. Respectfully, please explain your intent with these additions Go-here.nl. Thank you.--OMCV (talk) 03:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Discussion of user's username related edit-pattern issues moved by him to User talk:Go-here.nl#Removed from water-fuelled car
You added negative toned headers to my postings and complaint about my presence on the talk page. In contrast with your claims your discussion topic has no place on the talk page. I'm not the article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines
Then we have this:
So, there wont be any peer reviews either. I hope there will be but for now it is an article about Urban myths. You are confused, you think it is an article about science.
Here, a picture: http://www.rexresearch.com/pantone/geetbig1.jpg
Must be a hoax right? Gdewilde (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
LOL!
This is a GEET engine, it does transmutation of elements and it makes endothermic implosions drawering heat gradients from it's environments.
http://www.rexresearch.com/pantone/geetbig1.jpg
You claim to have a PhD in inorganic chemistry with an interest in energy related chemistry/issues.
Furthermore hereabove you annotated: While this might not be a page about functional science the claimed physical phenomenon makes it best dealt with through a science perspective.
The incredulous sources can be used to clear things up for the other talk page editors. We have to be extremely careful not to do wp:original research on the topic. But still, anything that what is an urban myth today can unfold in both a hoax and an actual technology. We can state current science doesn't allow for the technology.
Like when I give you a picture of a plasma reactor it becomes perfectly clear the last thing a PhD is interested in is how it works. Why would you want to know how it works if you can.....
O noes! No no no! You are actually the one sending the traffic to my homepage. All those editors had to visit my homepage to see if it was nasty enough to complaint about. The domain name was there for you, an editor working at the same article. It was my means of identification. It doesn't begin to be disturbing until you make it the parent topic of my contributions! I really don't want those visitors, they are suppose to work at the article here not view my website. I will horribly confuse them. You then progressed to say everything I posted was bogus. If people are still not visiting my website at this stage...
The wind powered car I design is 100% abandon ware. It utilises inflatable body that works like an air bag thus therefor allowing for a light weight high speed vehicle that is also safe! This means you can do what you like with the invention and it doesn't need water to fuel it! The challenge of this invention was to make a perpetual car that doesn't involve technology people do not understand. Of course physicists naysayers claim it doesn't capture more wind while driving up the wind. And again they do fantastic heavier than air reasoning again in the face of working models again. Just like the last time and the time before and the time before that.... that sentence is intentionally boring I can tell you that much.
The article is for heavier than air automobiles that use fuel (water to be specific) For you specific the GEET is a suitable subject.
"The question is what is to be done with the endless flow of popular print media, science fiction, youtube, nightly news, and patents? How are they to be treated on talk pages and in the text itself?"
What about you learn how it works sir?? Mkay? Is that such a weird thing? I mean you are the PhD? Write us a paper about it?
http://www.rexresearch.com/pantone/pantone.htm
Stop the cheap skating I hear that crap the year round. Lets see you (the professional) figure out how the GEET works.
For crying out loud your colleagues have denounced the device and everyone around it a hoax while being willfully ignorant towards the fact there are working models.
That's not science.....
The lack of good technology is the direct cause of mass death and a petroleum clock that runs 5 times as fast as it should burning off precious time we need to develop further alternatives.
Your professional opinion that something is a nothing is deemed far more valuable then that of some garage inventor or a farmer. That flapping your arms up and down and claiming to be in need of 3rd party peer reviews is highly unsientific. You are a person to you know? You can just write some papers yourself. No joke here. From here it looks like the scientists just sit there spewing insults in full ignorance.
Tell me it isn't so, prove me wrong, show me the physical evidence that there is in fact research on the topic. They all responded like you.
So there will be massive death and you are going to apply denial to the solutions before looking? WooooT! Lets speed up the depletion process yeah why not? Dismiss things .... like before looking at it? ha-ha And you don't see anything wrong with this picture either? Don't forget! Your opinon is actually worth anything. Mine has the value of a wikipeidia talk page. I'm trying really hard to explain now, lets see how far you get? Or have you given up already on the planet? People die every day, it would be nice if you could grow that understanding of yours like today? I dunno? Why not? What is the big deal here?
I'm really sorry I deleted your contribution okay, we spend a lot of time on this. I should have given you an answer.
The Verne reference was there because it is fun to read. It's like sticking forks in your hair against the drop bears, the Verne reference is like the heavier than air flying machine for the debunkers. I needed some one to tank the aggression that perpetuates the preconceived arguments and scientific dishonesty. I shouldn't have done that, it was intended as a contextual joke really but ended up a tactical error. You didn't mind, you even read the page. Reading Verne is never a waste of time. lol
But then you explain to me what a patent is 2 times in a row? What does your pretending I don't know what a patent is have to do with Aquyagen? What shocking inacuracy in rating the magnitude of my intelect. (tata)
The comments are so general it doesn't really matter what patent you stick above them, the comment still fits the topic.
The most popular circular reasoning is:
The best part about this joke, or shall we say the part I like the most about it is that adding additional working inventions to the mix actually makes all of them more fraudulent. The curtain closes, the lights go on and everyone goes home.
Looking under yull brown I see that 1 liter of oxyhydrogen gas implodes to 1 liter of water. It doesn't extract heat while imploding either. That is what they are trying to convince me of?
How serious do you take those comments? How useful do you find them?
On your page I read:
Here is a picture........
http://www.rexresearch.com/pantone/geetbig1.jpg
Do you see the picture?
Here is the video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5238596150388648518
Are you honest enough to agree this technology does in fact exists?
This are not random examples but I have chosen this because it will teach you things that will allow you to preform the miracles we so desperately need.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMNCebzgCgg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2KRRgjcJTg
If you are going to cheap skate around the topic again we can only discuss that kind of scientific approach. But when you do understand how the GEET works the Meyer Cell stops being a miracle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXo7CVFI5Sk http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=raviwfc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Md8-wvV2jHM
Stanley Meyer's brother http://xogen.ca is also a chemist. He claims to have turned Stan's technology upside down. It can now clean oceans and supply all the energy we need. Meanwhile thousands die per day from just a lack of drinking water. (ehm!)
It's not surprising to see the GEET also runs with oxyhydrogen added to the fuel, it absolutely needs something combustible for it to work.
That performance cant be compared to an ordinary engine is quite obvious. The motor doesn't have any power until you mix in the hydrogen.
Running a car on normal electrolysis uses so much electricity compared to an electric motor that just the advanced electrolysis is not going to be enough to run it in a closed loop.
The Stanley Meyer article shows the patent image. There are disolved gases drawn, those come from the exhaust obviously.
Look how obvious it is?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW_LQqJk740
you don't have to do anything of course, it's just a suggestion.
Commonly known as Browns gas[6] it was first described in 1966 by William A. Rhodes US Patent No. 3262872[7][8]. The electrolyzer is specifically designed not to separate the gas rather make a soup of diatomic hydrogen, monatomic hydrogen, diatomic oxygen, monatomic oxygen, water vapor and electrically expanded water. The reaction takes the water to sub-critical state 1860 times it's original volume afterwhich thermolysis takes place on the target surface. The nozzle stays cold while the arc temperature depends on the target material. Compared to electrolysis & hydrogen it takes less current to half-dissociate water, we get more heat, it burn at 2487 m/s (mach 7.5), and implodes with a 1860:1 decrease in volume[9][10][11][12][13][14]. Any leftovers breakdown through thermolysis at 2500°C[15]. The burn is translating heat into fuel and fuel to heat at the very same time. Just like a forest
Brown also gifted the technology to the Chinese government who to this day have government scientists doing brownsgas experiments. I hear 5000 at the moment. That means it is definitely not free energy don't you agree? If there was any obvious way to make free energy then they would have figured it out by now. A brownsgas flame gets the rest of it's properties from it's target. The most obvious difference with an hydrogen torch is in that it can sublimate tungsten. And it's ability to reduce radioactive samples by as much as 94%
I have no problems believing that what ever you burn along with browns gas will indeed burn and when something is burned up I don't find it unlikely that there could be useful energy there. More like the other way around, if you burn things up I would think we may expect extra energy.
It even comes with it's own oxygen. In the nanoseconds directly after detonation of petroleum in a piston the browns gas can continue to burn/explode the fuel. The combination makes for a self propagating explosion that implodes[1] far below it's starting volume. You have to detonate the mixture far out of phase so that you have enough fuel volume and the correct timing.
There is nothing free, it's just far less wasteful you see?
That an a lot of poor descriptions.
REFERENCES
Gdewilde (talk) 18:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Heres some other info I've taken a liking to:
Variable compression ratio, fast burn engines [5]
Six stroke engine design Crower_six_stroke
Noah Seidman (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for helping out at the article Water fuel cell. You've helped contribute in a positive manner which is shaping the article to look pretty nice. --CyclePat (talk) 03:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
With respect, User:Gdewilde is entitled to remove comments from his own talk page; see Wikipedia:TALK#User talk pages. Best regards, Oli Filth(talk) 22:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
You seem to have generalised objections to my presence on wikipedia.[6]
“ | While I know Steve enjoys arguing with you I'm not convinced you should be wasting anyones time here. I realize you are likely young but you have to show the capacity to learn. | ” |
Please wp:assume good faith, remember, this is you:[[7]] not this:[[8]] The later is a waste of your effort. We will both age faster from that kind of discussions. The logic behind my edit is simple: There isn't enough space for 2 quotes in the current lay out and they are differently formated.
You see I didn't mean any harm? The one is italic the other is not for example. If you don't want to waste your time then discussing me or any other editors on talk pages and edit summaries is not the way...
I have a lot of ideas, I know how people respond to that. I won't bother you with those. Meyer definatly had some weird ideas there, lets not believe a word of it untill we see it? What is wrong with that philosophy? Dont you agree with it? I think covering your eyes kind of makes it hard for the natrual flow of things.(ehm)
If you think Meyer has an alternative interpretation of things you haven't seen nothing jet, there are patents where the author claims the device detects mind-power complete with pseudo-scientific Chi references that go back thousands of years it seems. In this way the cathode ray tube was patented long before the TV was invented. The Rothschild's (I believe it was) patented all possible configurations of a tube, the invention was thus already patented. If I ask you to read something and it is not up to the standards you demand from a publication then that meta information is exactly why I asked you to read it. Not for any other reason.
What is going on here is that you are wasting your time on this pathological pseudoscience nonsense man? The transcript I asked you to read was only a few pages long, you clearly didn't enjoy it? right? This while there are so much good scientific topics screaming for attention. Am I really preventing you from working at those? If so I'm deeply embarrassed.
You can see I have always added sources to everything I do, it's your job to validate those sources not to complaint about it, you chose an urban legend to work at. Those require sufficient ignorance to be interested in, I'm sure you understand. Here is an excellent reference: [[11]]
Anyway, I don't mean any harm okay? You got that part I think... Gdewilde (talk) 23:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
User:SteveBaker is claiming a Wikipedia:COI as a reason to revert my most recent edits of Oxyhydrogen, and Hydrogen fuel enhancement. Do you agree? Your NPOV opinion is greatly appreciated considering our grounded and progressive scientific debates in the past. Noah Seidman (talk) 03:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Water-fuelled_car&diff=prev&oldid=222723870
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Water-fuelled_car&diff=prev&oldid=222595853
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Water-fuelled_car&diff=230280478&oldid=230271693
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Prodego&diff=231154339&oldid=231079942
Yours is not an improvement of the article and the description is a personal attack.
"why was he unblocked" does not suffice as an explaination for doing this.
I assume good faith and question your use of italics here: [[15]]
Gdewilde (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
<HUMOR> you bastard! Using italics inappropriately! I will push for an indef ban! </HUMOR>
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
"I've listen to three hours worth of one of his presentations…" Thanks for going above and beyond the call of duty in the fight against stoner pseudoscience. Yilloslime (t) 03:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC) |
It was that or the radio while I worked on other things. But thanks, I like to think I use my time wisely :).--OMCV (talk) 04:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I am an admitted sockpuppet, and you are right, there are rules and you might not know that those rules have allowances for certain reasons. Is wanting to avoid being smeared by wikidrama not a valid reason? IwRnHaA (talk) 04:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
The cold-fusion hypothesis published in "Infinite Energy" is nevertheless PUBLISHED. Wikipedia requires verifyable sources of the data that is put in its articles. It is easily verifyable that that hypothesis has been published, therefore it should an acceptable reference for the cold fusion article. Certainly, even the magazine has on one of its first pages some paragraphs of fine print that basically say something like this: "(1) If we think some notion is being presented rationally, we likely will consider it publishable; and (2) The reader should take everything here with a grain of salt." Nevertheless, a Hypothesis is a thing that doesn't have to do anything more than "be plausible". The place where it is published should not matter at all (and such places may be limited, if many major publications have editors that refuse to look at anything about cold fusion). In this particular case, the author sent the thing to the organization-that-publishes-the-magazine (not knowing that that the organization was so small that that was also the magazine editors), just to see what opinions the organization might have about it. It was quite a surprise that it was accepted for publication. Perhaps it would have passed inspection/dissection at other publications, but the author never even thought about sending it to them. (I ought to know; I'm the author.)V (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Since you contributed to the ANI discussion that led to this, you may wish to contribute to the topic ban discussion here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Proposed_topic_ban:_User:Pcarbonn_from_Cold_fusion_and_related_articles. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the CF talk page, you wondered, "what CF proponents like Jed and PCarbonne will think of it." Neither of us are allowed to respond. PCarbonne has been banned for a year, and someone keeps erasing my comments.
I hope they do not track down and erase this one.
Here are some of my deleted comments:
"If you are going to discuss 'Experimental Failures' perhaps you might also mention 'Experimental Successes' and widespread replications. Just a thought.
I do not think that "Energy Comes in Bursts" is correct. It does sometimes, of course, but not always. The word "burst" is sometimes used in the literature to describe continuous high powered energy production, but it sometimes continues for long periods in stable output, so I think the term is confusing and should be avoided. "Skeptics" have sometimes asserted that bursts are always short and might be explained by endothermic chemical heat storage between bursts, but this is incorrect. Many "bursts" are far too large to be chemical, and there are no endothermic storage events. If there were, they would be even larger than the exothermic events following, because they would be shorter, and thus they would be readily observable, and also in violation of the known laws of chemistry. . . ."
- Jed Rothwell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.158.255.197 (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)