Talk:Nicolae Vasilescu-Karpen

Sources refering to Karpen cell

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)

Removal of the most of (unreferenced) text on the Karpen Pile

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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.96.132.99 (talk)

Evidence needed

What kind of evidence is needed to show the continuous functioning of the device? A video material for example?--Hlfhjwlrdglsp (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The best evidence would be some references in a reviewed journal, probably(?)--Hlfhjwlrdglsp (talk) 20:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Karpen's Pile

This article published by IBTimes UK includes some good details and reference: uk.ibtimes.com "Karpen's Pile: A Battery That Produces Energy Continuously Since 1950 Exists in Romanian Museum" By Ovidiu Sandru | 27 December 2010, 12:22 BST http://uk.ibtimes.com/articles/20101227/karpen-039pilebattery-produces-energy-continuously-since-1950-exists-romanian-museum.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.100.109.55 (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Unreliable source?

I should note that in searching for alternative sources on the Karpen pile, I found half a dozen sites filling the Google results, with every one of them containing exactly the same text--an article by "Ovidu Sandru", who seems to be a writer at "GreenOptimistic.com". I'm not up to speed on Wikipedia's verifiability/notability requirements, but this source seems really sketchy to me (above and beyond buying into a new "free energy" device, which even established journalists don't seem to be opposed to). Is there a policy that will back up my gut feeling? 208.54.5.60 (talk) 04:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)