Talk:Nicolae Vasilescu-Karpen: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
[[User:George.barbarosie|George.barbarosie]] ([[User talk:George.barbarosie|talk]]) 12:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC) |
[[User:George.barbarosie|George.barbarosie]] ([[User talk:George.barbarosie|talk]]) 12:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC) |
||
'''Removed most of the Karpen Pile text''' |
'''Removed most of the Karpen Pile text''' |
||
I have removed most of the text on the Karpen Pile. No sources where cited for the extraordinary claims made and the text did not belong on wikipedia. Not wanting to remove the concept of the Karpen Pile totally I have left a short text on it, clearly pointing out that there is no evidence for a perpetuum mobile. |
I have removed most of the text on the Karpen Pile. No sources where cited for the extraordinary claims made and the text did not belong on wikipedia. Not wanting to remove the concept of the Karpen Pile totally I have left a short text on it, clearly pointing out that there is no evidence for a perpetuum mobile. |
||
Revision as of 18:32, 10 June 2010
Biography: Science and Academia Stub‑class | ||||||||||
|
Physics: Biographies Stub‑class | |||||||||||||
|
Do I even need to mention that this article lacks any credible sources? The Karpen cell conetnt should be removed from here and put in a separate article, or at least make it as clear as possible that all the allegations about the Karpen cell being a perpetuum mobile are not sustained by any evidence whatsoever. It is also alleged that the Karpen cell has been patented. This should mean that the scientific principle that would allow such a device to operate would be already part of the public domain.
I repeat, as far as I can tell there is no scientific basis for any of the allegations in the "inventions" section of the article. None of the external links refer to any scientific journals or papers, except for the Dogaru & Cazacu paper, of which we have no idea as to where it was published or if it was peer-reviewed. As far as I can see there is next to no information anywhere on the Internet regarding this Karpen cell. It is wholly unclear as to whether the cell is supposed to work as a chemical electrolyte cell or a heat transfer generator.
George.barbarosie (talk) 12:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Removed most of the Karpen Pile text
I have removed most of the text on the Karpen Pile. No sources where cited for the extraordinary claims made and the text did not belong on wikipedia. Not wanting to remove the concept of the Karpen Pile totally I have left a short text on it, clearly pointing out that there is no evidence for a perpetuum mobile.
Of course proper references either way would be good, but extraordinary claims with no references should not be left standing in the meantime.
Honn (87.96.132.99) - 19:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- Stub-Class biography articles
- Stub-Class biography (science and academia) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (science and academia) articles
- Science and academia work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- Stub-Class physics articles
- Unknown-importance physics articles
- Stub-Class physics articles of Unknown-importance
- Stub-Class physics biographies articles
- Physics biographies articles