Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

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)

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hi,

Kudos on your work - we can always use more Chemists around here... okedem (talk) 10:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Trans effect 2.png

Image Copyright problem

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)

Molecular bonding model

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)

Molecular bonding model

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 don't think that one academic paper is going to cut it. Also, please don't forget to categorize the pages that you make; I've tagged most of your creations so far as uncategorized. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Chemical bonding model

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)

Ligand

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)

April 2008

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. Slashme (talk) 14:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Schlenk flask

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)

Re your messages on User talk:Slashme: Don't worry about grammar too much if that's not your strong point. We all contribute what we can; if you can add content which needs to be copy-edited, it's better that the content go up now in an imperfect form than tomorrow in a polished form. But that's just my opinion. If you like, you can always check the page history and see who last did a copy-edit: drop them a note if you are unsure of some text and they might swing by and polish a bit. Anyway, keep up the good work! --Slashme (talk) 08:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've given the article a quick once-over. Note the use of septum (singular) and septa (plural). Anyway, thanks again for your well-informed edits! --Slashme (talk) 08:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Straus flask or Strauss flask?

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)

I was looking up stuff on glassware to improve the valve section and found this on the Straus flask[1]. Basically I based the change to Straus on Kontes literature (catalog) and the fact that they claim to have created it. Prior to putting up this change I didn't know that Straus flask might be some sort of brand. If you can find something more conclusive that would be great and we put it as whatever is best. Regardless someone should definitely add a sentence about the two common spellings, who ever get around to it first I guess.--OMCV (talk) 15:12, 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)

Some Info on Lean Air/Fuel Ratios (Electrolysis Scams)

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)

I've responded on the talk page of Electrolysis of water where I will conduct all future correspondences on the subject.

I will say here that I am very concerned with the information provided on oxyhydrogen, hydrogen fuel enhancement, and Internal combustion engine#Engine Efficiency.

I would also like to add that the US patents offices primary concern is not to filter the factuality of claims but the legal right to claims. Although there at statutes against unproven claims many slip through due to the overall legal structure. In fact multiple nonfunctional perpetual motion machines have been successfully patented.--OMCV (talk) 03:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Noah Seidman

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 hope all the best for you and expect you will do fine. You are very well spoken and will find success easily. What you have learned about engines will serve you well as the cost of fuel rise whether you chose to work on substance or fraud. The study of fuel mixtures is very important and complex. That is why I haven't started working on hydrogen fuel enhancement I need to do the necessary research. I am certain that on board electrolysis will never be more than a scam but perhaps there is a setting in which filling up a gasoline and hydrogen tank would make sense.

My concern on wikipedia before all other things is the factuality of the information, both stated and implied. The way hydrogen fuel enhancement presents its gasoline/hydrogen fuel mixture information strays very close to the run you car on hydrogen scam.--OMCV (talk) 04:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Electrolysis of water

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)

I agree that it needs to be referenced but just because its not referenced does not make it original research its simply unreferenced. Before I reestablish the section I will have it fully referenced.

There are various forms of fraud all involve some sort of "false representation". This "representation" speaks to information which can relate to counterfeit goods, fabricated financial records, or technical information. The engine modifaction fraud on consumers and investors is based around technical information. Technical information has a scientific basis, or rather attributed scientific basis. Scientific fraud is not limited to referred journals, journals which appear to be referred, and proposal to funding agencies. Scientific fraud occurs whenever a person or group claiming to part of the scientific community provides information which they known is false to any form of media.

In the case of the engine modification the attributed scientific basis of the fraud is electrolysis of water. Hydrogen fuel enhancement is a page based largely on original, questionable or misreferenced research. Nor is hydrogen fuel enhancement the primary method to refer to the scam.

Outside the classroom water electrolysis is used in three primary major applications. First is the partial electrolysis of water to produce chlorine. The second use is the full electrolysis of water used in many oxyhydrogen torches. Finally perhaps the most well publicized attributed use of water electrolysis is in these engine modifications. It is because of the significance of these engine modifications the section was as long as it was, however I would prefer a short section. After you have a chance to look it over I was wondering if you would want to help with the content of the section Vsmith.--OMCV (talk) 04:06, 29 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)

I think you have a good point and I'll offer whatever support I can on the talk pages. Its amazing how controversial this subject is at times. The hardest part is that its extremely difficult to find relevant references for this subject matter since it so far from main stream science.--OMCV (talk) 06:14, 4 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)

Thanks, I figured that it was more likely that town gas was used for all gas based lighting purposes. Hydrogen is just so unwieldy but I guess limelight was a specialty purpose that made it worth while.--OMCV (talk) 04:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

assumes good faith etc

"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 pertinence does this have on anything? Please explain your self.--OMCV (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a story about mankind riding the sled of ignorance down the petroleum hill. I'm sorry it wasn't clear enough. The garage inventors do transmutation of elements then make endothermic implosions in what we call plasma reactors[[2]] Read C. P. Kouropoulos[[3]] for example.

I cant help but wonder where are the lab results and where are the peer review papers? Not even a news article? ghee....

Dan Haley witnessed how the DEO witnessed how transmutation of radioactive materials was accomplished. He also witnessed how 3 months later they claimed to have seen nothing.[[4]]

“Ere many generations pass, our machinery will be driven by a power obtainable at any point of the universe. Throughout space there is energy. Is this energy static or kinetic? If static, our hopes are in vain; if kinetic - and this we know it is, for certain - then it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of nature.” - Nicola Tesla - many generations ago

John Ernst Worrell Keely was of course already doing that when Tesla was still in diapers. lol Gdewilde (talk) 05:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I still don't know what this is pertinent to? How does what you say concern me? Do you want me to comment on the validity of the material you are presenting or perhaps interpenetrate what it means? I apologies for not playing this poetic game you seem to fancy but this material is best dealt with in direct prose.--OMCV (talk) 07:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Plethora or added sections

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)

Share material:"New material can sometimes be prepared on the talk page until it is ready to be put into the article." Go-here.nl (talk) 20:31, 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

As I stated earlier none of this material is from a recognized source. Since it is not from a recognized source it will never be put into the article. Please don't waste people's time with this nonsense.--OMCV (talk) 01:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Moving this line of dialogue to your talk page is not a response or an appropriate course of action. The sub-subjects below were added as a group and its valid to discuss them as a group. I repeat for the third time now, none of this material below cites recognized material. The efforts people have made to dispute these claims individually has been overly generous to the individual who original posted them.--OMCV (talk) 00:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I went looking for where you moved this discussion. I then realized you simply blanked the discussion which is unacceptable. If you want to discuss something with me off this page feel free to start a conversation with me on my talk page but don't remove my text from a talk page.--OMCV (talk) 01:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Gdewilde most recently moved this to a new section titled "should we have this on a talk page?". I have reverted it to its original position because I clearly think we should discuss this. The concerns I have highlighted, mainly the importance of sourcing questionable information are significant. Gdewilde has yet to respond to this. Instead Gdewilde has blanked this text and now moved this text. After this edit I will be researching the technical rules on altering others text and related sanctions since Gdewilde clearly doesn't understand the spirit.--OMCV (talk) 18:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The Ignore all rules tenant is not a valid reason to blank text on a talk page nor is this a matter of Gdewildes editing pattern as is suggested in the edit summary in which the page was blanked. The concern of this text is value of the content added below en mass. Its true this section does not address material in the main article but it does address material in the articles talk page which hopefully never becomes part of the main article. The concern is that these sections deal with controversial fringe ideas and are not referenced to any reliable sources. This is the fifth time I've raised this point without a response other than having the text deleted.--OMCV (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

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:

This article is restricted to those cars or motors which purport to extract their energy directly from water, a process which would violate the first and/or second laws of thermodynamics.

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)

Material form the popular media

Pasted from Talk:Water-fuelled car

This is a portion of text that once appeared on this page. It was top posted above a series of edits now listed as 24 added sections. The user formerly known as Go-here.nl and currently known as Gdewilde didn't feel this text was pertinent to the article and thus repeatedly blanked this text then finally moved the text to my talk page User_talk:OMCV. There are some important questions of this article's perspective addressed in this exchange so I have returned a portion of the text to this page. At the end of the text I will respond to what Gdewilde has offered in their text.--OMCV (talk) 20:10, 6 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)

Share material:"New material can sometimes be prepared on the talk page until it is ready to be put into the article." Go-here.nl (talk) 20:31, 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

As I stated earlier none of this material is from a recognized source. Since it is not from a recognized source it will never be put into the article. Please don't waste people's time with this nonsense.--OMCV (talk) 01:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Missing text moved to User_talk:OMCV.

The Ignore all rules tenant is not a valid reason to blank text on a talk page nor is this a matter of Gdewildes editing pattern as is suggested in the edit summary in which the page was blanked. The concern of this text is value of the content added below en mass. Its true this section does not address material in the main article but it does address material in the articles talk page which hopefully never becomes part of the main article. The concern is that these sections deal with controversial fringe ideas and are not referenced to any reliable sources. This is the fifth time I've raised this point without a response other than having the text deleted.--OMCV (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

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:

This article is restricted to those cars or motors which purport to extract their energy directly from water, a process which would violate the first and/or second laws of thermodynamics.

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)

This article is about an urban myth and a common commercial and scientific fraud with claimed physical phenomenons. While this might not be a page about functional science the claimed physical phenomenon makes it best dealt with through a science perspective. It is common for those with vested interests in these frauds to spam, subvert, and vandalize this page. It is possible that any given author has such a vested interest. The talk page is a good place to feel this out. Since the user name Go-here.nl was tied to a website associated with these frauds I might have been overly suspicious of the associated edits. 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?--OMCV (talk) 20:34, 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.....

"It is common for those with vested interests in these frauds to spam, subvert, and vandalize this page. It is possible that any given author has such a vested interest. The talk page is a good place to feel this out. Since the user name Go-here.nl was tied to a website associated with these frauds I might have been overly suspicious of the associated edits."

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:

inventor A is a fraud because B and C are,
inventor B is a fraud because A and C are
and inventor C is a fraud because B and A are

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:

I have a PhD inorganic chemistry. My interest and experience is in nonaqueous electrochemistry, air-free synthesis, inorganic thermodynamics, and energy related chemistry/issues.

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.

Gdewilde (talk)

Wow that is a lot. I appreciate you writing all of this. Its clear that you understand that I don't expect any perpetual motion machine to work based on the laws of thermodynamic. I prefer to disprove perpetual motion by identifying the offending loses. I enjoy identify the processes where energy is lost since those are the areas where a system can be improved. Since I don't rely on the laws of thermodynamic to dispute perpetual motion machines I have to apply my understanding of the world. I have first hand experience when the system involves electrolysis since I've done a fair amount of research in the field. In regards to things like the hydrogen/oxygen implosion I have even earlier experiences. In high school our water electrolysis experiment was coupled to launching a rocket powered by a hydrogen and oxygen explosion. Latter as an undergraduate I did a lot of outreach for grade school students in one experiment we compared the flammability of gases. A normal demonstration included helium(doesn't burn), oxygen(doesn't burn), hydrogen(burns with a visible flame under our conditions), and a hydrogen/oxygen mixture which essentially detonates when exposed to an ignition flame. The idea of a H2/O2 implosion is crude. The transmutation of elements is something for expensive super colliders and frankly I think our money would be better spent researching alternative energies or medicine. Beyond this I'm well read on the workings and limits of internal combustion engines as well as fuel cells. Its fair to say I have a firm and broad grasp of physical phenomenon. But I do not need of this knowledge to know the arguments against frauds on the pages that interest both of us are substantial and in no way circular.

I do not support or have a vested interest in the proprietors of fossil fuels, although they do sell a product that preforms as advertised. I think the addiction to oil is a good analogue. The oil companies have peddled false security for too long. No one knows how much oil is left in Ghawar Field except the Saudis which isn't good. There should be third party over sight of all oil fields. The role of anthropogenic climate change is also underestimated. Oversight is something I believe in. The situation is more serious then the popular media realizes. None of my feels about such subjects negates the fact that people in there garage or companies like Genepax or HyDrive Technologies Ltd. are looking to rip off honest customers and investors. They are peddling false hope. Not everyone is well read in science and many are easily bamboozled. I can't tell if you are bamboozled or a bamboozler. I already knew the Jules Vern quote you offered and I thought it was strange that you presented it in an incomplete way. I thought it was deceptive. I didn't explain the workings of a patent for your sake but the sake of the audience. Most people don't know the limits of patents. If you do understand the limits then the citation of patents to support a technical idea is again deceptive. Further more why don't you want people at your web page? Why would it confuse them? Based on many of your edits (and creative spellings) clarity is not your foremost concern.

These energy system frauds are essential a variation on snake oil. This is a serious issue for many reasons each of which I wish I could detail but I can only hit a few significant ones. Fraud distracts people form real solutions (why develop solar systems if we have something that can run on water). False technology reduces peoples confidence in alternative energy technologies in general (why should I trust a battery powered car these inventors are all crack pots). Honest people spend their money on the technology expecting results (how many owner operators have bought a HyDrive system). The sum of the energy related snake oil's impact actually puts the fossil fuel companies in a more secure situation by preventing the development of authentic alternatives.

I'm sorry I can't discuss all the specific technology you mentioned above. If you want to present the technologies one at a time in a focused manner I would be happy to respond. I could explain to you their short comings and/or fictitious aspects. I don't expect you to trust me based on my degree, its only posted as a matter of disclosure for when I edit more technical pages. I only want you to consider the rational of my argument, it doesn't matter who's making the argument. Please research these technologies more thoroughly, you might be disappointed. Finally you might like to know that the peer review process is in place because of scientist distrust each other as much as anyone else. Peer review is oversight and it keeps people honest which is essential if funding agencies are involved. The criticisms I'm offering is just at taste of what goes on within scientific discourse. I'll end this by suggesting you would do well not to believe everything you see on TV or YouTube.--OMCV (talk) 06:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Peer review moves the scientific boundaries all of the time. It might not advance with every paper it does as a whole. This means the borders are not static at all. It would be wrong for you to assume the scientific understanding will never improve beyond that what we have today.

Furthermore by that very same logic you should know that everything that has ever been peer reviewed already existed before that time. First in an undiscovered state then in a state where it was not understood. Eventually though hard work it was brought up to the standards we demand. You cant take that hard work for granted. It absolutely requires effort. Just like Wikipedia the goal of the documentation is not to be completed but to be clear and maintain high standards. We both appreciate reading around this place, that proves it is a method that works. This means there are professors who have the most magical ideas in the back of their head but they wont disclose them at this time. For you and me it means there is a hell of a lot more out there then that what is documented. You can imagine how big the gap between the peer reviewed information and that what can be imagined is. Not all data is information, the imagination allows for complete nonsense to exist. The gap is huge for it should be. To assume the combined imagination of the species can-not already contain the answer describes nothing beyond it's unimaginative author. Gdewilde (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with almost everything you have to say here. I have two comments. First you might over estimate how much I value peer review. For example Nicolas Leonard Sadi Carnot scientifically described the steam engine (1824) for peer review more than a hundred years after Thomas Newcomen built a functional commercial external combustion engine(1712). The development of technology is at times independent of the full science necessary to explain it but the basic principles are always well understood. Its the very basics you are weak on. Second look at SteveBaker's comments on Talk:Water-fuelled_car#New Grand Unification Theory makes Perpetual Motion Possible. Consider what he has to say seriously as it relates to the claimed technologies that interest you. No one on wikipeida wants to hamper progress of useful technology or the dissemination of information. I would much rather tinker with stuff related to chemistry if I knew these popular frauds where well documented. It might be worth while to take some science and/or engineering classes.--OMCV (talk) 06:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

common ducted oxyhydrogen gas

"If you want to present the technologies one at a time in a focused manner I would be happy to respond."

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

[1] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkrCCo4Q0cI (forward it to 5:00)
[6] - http://www3.merriam-webster.com/opendictionary/newword_search.php?word=brownsgas&last=0
[7] - http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT3262872
[8] - http://www.keelynet.com/energy/oxyhyd2.htm
[9] - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3953634519146582505#5m10s
[10] - http://www.ucsofa.com/videos/rgasram.ram
[11] - http://www.watertorch.com/whatis/whatis1.html
[12] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czZ9kn70Y7I
[13] - http://www.eagle-research.com/browngas/fabuses/possib.html
[14] - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3715048222637469571
[15] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-temperature_electrolysis

Gdewilde (talk) 18:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Lets start with the idea Browning's gas. This is just a neologism for the gas that is evolved from any form of electrolysis. The construction of the cell does not change the products or their properties. The suggestion that it has any unique properties is a misconception.

Within your first paragraph you are not clear as to whether you are talking about processes associated with the electrolysis of water or combustion of hydrogen and oxygen. The idea of half dissociation is also a misconception. Water will disassociate but into specific product such as H2O2 or H2, and O2 depending on conditions. It can also form a number of radicals as you alluded to but none of them are sufficiently long lived to exist bound the electrodes at which they are created. Often things can't be halfed in the molecular world since they are operating in discrete steps. This stepping function is the cause for the name of quantum mechanics. You include a number of facts that lack relevance to the discussion. The numbers associated with the expansion of water as it is electrolyzed to hydrogen and oxygen as well as the the velocity at which it subsequently burns is nothing but distracting trivia.

You have a lot of citation for your implosion idea but I have personal hands on experience to contradict this as well as established science. When 2 moles of gaseous hydrogen react with 1 mole of gaseous oxygen the result is 2 moles of gaseous water and a lot of heat. The heat actually makes the volume of the resulting 2 moles of gaseous water greater than the original 3 moles of gas. To understand this it would be worth your time to investigate the ideal gas laws. I have combusted hydrogen oxygen mixtures many times and they never implode. This is similar to suggesting the reacting a hydrocarbon fuel with oxygen would result in liquid water, dry ice, and an implosion. It is utter absurdity. For god sake many rockets get their thrust from the combustion of hydrogen and oxygen. I don't care if you hit the books or do the experiment just stop listening to the empty words of frauds. This claimed implosion phenomenon is key to the technology and without it there is no technology.

Cite your knowledge of the China's research. Someone is feeding you bad information. It would also be good to define what you mean by an experiments, do you mean sample runs, projects, individuals working, or something different. If this fact was personally fabricated you would do better to say china has more than X researchers working on Y projects. The idea that a chemical reaction has an impact of nuclear chemistry is willful ignorance. If this was true than those working on nuclear power would use it to dispose of waste.

Again you are unclear when you say "ability to reduce radioactive samples by as much as 94%". Do you mean a specific radioactive material or any material? A specif form of radioactive emission or any type of emission? Is the sample otherwise unchanged and only its radioactivity reduced? If so how? Answering how would result in a Nobel Prize.

I'm sorry I can't discuss every point. Before we agree to some basics there is really no point. I've already gone on longer than I should. The key points follow:

Browning's gas is 2 mole of H2, 1 mole of O2, and some water vapor.
Browning's gas is produced through a standard form of electrolysis with all the associated limitations and efficiency losses of standard electrolysis based on the given design.
H2(2 mole) and O2(1 mole) combust to form heat and water vapor (2 mole). The heat causes the water vapor (2 mole) to expands larger than the starting gases (3 mole). The expansion depends on specific conditions.
Adding H2 and O2 in small amounts to the combustion chamber of a well designed engine doesn't alter its performance in any way. Here I'll define a small amount as a mass ratio of hydrocarbon to hydrogen greater than 100 to 1. This concentration is far greater than what people claim to use in most hydrogen fuel enhancement scams.
Pre-vaporizing a fuel does not assist an engine unless its designed to have pre-vaporized fuel.
The exhaust of a well designed engine (which doesn't include two strokes) contains very little useful chemical energy.
To extract the heat energy from exhaust (combined cycle) requires heavy equipment reducing the power to weight ratio rendering the system useless for transportation purposes but great for making electricity at a stationary location.

I hope that helps. I'll discuss these points with you as much as you like. I won't be able to agree to any of this technology until you prove these well known facts false. If you are interested in authentic and not well developed technology you might want to look at controlled charge combustion also known as Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition. It is a practical applications of a number of the concepts you are grasping at. I hope you realize that I'm critical because I want to see real advances in this field.--OMCV (talk) 05:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Some Other Stuff

Heres some other info I've taken a liking to:

Variable compression ratio, fast burn engines [5]

Hydrogen injection using reformer technology should extend the lean burn limit in such a design further realizing the otto cycle.

Six stroke engine design Crower_six_stroke

Noah Seidman (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The Crower_six_stroke is a very neat idea. You know I'm skeptical about the reformer stuff but a good reformer with the right fuel cell could be much better than an ICE. There still needs to be a lot of work to be done in area.--OMCV (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

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)

I just added a rather harsh comment. Its not meant to be personal but its consistent with my beliefs. I think you are doing a good job on the page. I won't change your edits but I will try to convince you to change your own where I think they should be changed. Again thanks and no hard feelings.--OMCV (talk) 03:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Those who are feed up with the Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell debate have a right to their frustration. Meyer never stated in his patent or latter in life the nature of his water fuel cell. There are no diagrams or examples. After watching a couple hours of video coverage on him the term seems to change with convenience. Even inside the patent the term doesn't seem static. No one can ever say what he truly meant at any given moment they can only infer. This is similar to a news paper reporter will infer a proper noun for a pronoun when quoting a person. Quoting the patent in detail gives far to much attention to quackery just as all the nightly news coverage did. A succinct summery is more than reasonable. As for citations of every detail it doesn't seem necessary. According to WP:FRINGE when there is a absence of peer reviewed information on a subject the burden of citation shifts to the idea identified as FRINGE. Not completely but in part. This allows people to state perpetual motion machines are nonfunctional without finding a citation since that is mainstream science. You might disagree on details and I would like to hear what you think. What I think is important here is the spirit of the rules. The legal lines are not as hard as some think, if you are in law you must realize there is a great deal of gray involved or the courts would never be necessary. Everyone in this debate seems to be operating in good faith. Not every interpretation is original research sometimes its just a translation. Such translations are necessary when considering the ideas and speech of those outside the scientific community since they often do not know or use the established language of science. For example Oxyhydrogen, HHO gas, Aquagen, Magnegas, Brown's gas, amoung others are technical sounding neologisms (except for oxyhydrogen which is historic) that all refer to a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen gas. This translation must be made before subjects can be discussed in proper scientific language. Its pretty clear that Meyer misused the term fuel cell, why not state it.--OMCV (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

If you are having trouble with persistent violators of WP:FRINGE, have a word with User:ScienceApologist. He's been critical in keeping many areas of the encyclopedia free of pseudoscience. --Dragon695 (talk) 03:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Gdewilde

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)

Good to know, thanks for the information Oli. I guess poking a hornets nest isn't a good idea. If you read this Gdewilde I won't post or interact with your talk page unless there is a very specific concern.--OMCV (talk) 22:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

ha-ha, I pointed you to that page so many times. I understand you had a bit of a rulerish feeling with it. But what else can I do?

The only advantage a talk page has over a forum IMHO is that we can sort things and create a cohesive working document. I know it's not allowed by the rules entirely but it's not forbidden either. I delete things in good faith, not because I find it annoying stupid but so that we can work better and more focused. A lot of users just need a bit of help with focusing, just one good title will make them much more productive.

Perhaps you can help with the Paul Pantone article. This is again an urban myth, American fraudsters article but I seem to be the only one trying to expand it and it needs well sourced science and it also needs critique. Have a look what you can do, Arthur the comedian reverted the actual page so you have to look for it in the archives a bit. He doesn't really explain why he deletes everything but I'm sure you can pick a chunk on the talk page and help expand the documentation some what.

Do read up on his court spectacle also. There the why question should really come up. I even put the court recordings on the talk page.

Just have a look. :-) Gdewilde (talk) 23:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Gdewilde (talk) 23:55, 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.

See the lay out here:[9]
It now looks like this:[10]

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)

COI

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)

personal attacks

Just as a note this link doesn't mention you Gdewilde.--OMCV (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

discussing my homepage on talk pages

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Prodego&diff=231154339&oldid=231079942

Discuss blocking me in edit summaries

"Undid revision 230490520 by Gdewilde (talk) why was he unblocked" [[12]]

Yours is not an improvement of the article and the description is a personal attack.

My version: [[13]]

Your version: [[14]]

"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]]

This template must be substituted.

Gdewilde (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason I asked why Gdewilde was unblocked was because of his associated edits. This was a nonspecific comment and inappropriate for an edit summary, I apologies. At the time I was simply trying to oppose the edit wars Gdewilde was undertaking to change the meaning of the articles content.--OMCV (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The block on Gdewilde was a good one here is another example of his handy work.--OMCV (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Italics??

<HUMOR> you bastard! Using italics inappropriately! I will push for an indef ban! </HUMOR>

WOW

		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)

Re: Sockpuppet

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)

After looking at the rules it appears this is not an appropriate allowance. It most closely resembles a "Good hand, bad hand" accounts or "Avoiding scrutiny". Please use your main account when dealing with such a sensitive subject that is really out of hand. I says that its out of hand speaking as a main stream scientist who doesn't have time to point out that "SURFACE AND COATINGS TECHNOLOGY" from elsevier is probably not the best place to look for a review of "cold fusion". There may be some worth while research concerning more recent forays into cold fusion, not likely but maybe; as for the work of Pons, Fleischmann, and Bockris its all bunk and the article should state that more clearly.--OMCV (talk) 05:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that I am legitimately segregating controversies, which I agree have gotten out of hand, from the rest of my effort here. Alternate accounts are allowed for segregation. I have done a number of literature searches on the topic, and have seen no reason to believe that Hubler's work is out of the mainstream at all. Have you? What do you think of the Szpak et al. response to Shanahan that in-cell recombination can not be occurring because of the volume of water produced from recombining the evolved output gases? IwRnHaA (talk) 05:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

OMCV, Your accusation of Bockris' work is without basis. Please read the article. A 3-professor panel did find the accusation of spiking groundless. Same for Pons & Fleischmann. You may have opinion, but sources are the ultimate basis for wikipedia editing. Pcarbonn (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, I don't know who IwRnHaA is. I found this thread after looking up his talk page. Pcarbonn (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You seem to suggest that I am the "bad hand". If you think so, please explain how I have been bad. Please note that the COI request has been rejected. Pcarbonn (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response but there are often other priorities. There is a lot here I prefer to keep my notes consice but I don't think it will matter much because I'm not going to discuss contraversal material. I think its interesting that Pcarbonn self-identified as a "bad hand". I have no interest in Pcarbonn's conflict of interest its just sad to see him misrepresenting science. I was actually a thinking IwRnHaA was a possible "bad hand". For example IwRnHaA undermined the value of the DOE report relative to a peer-reviewed journal and I found that a questionable position. Since he had no history I couldn't tell if he should have known better. That is the core of my objection. I would understand another account if working on "cold fusion" would jeopardize your professional reputation as it would for anyone working in nuclear physics or electrochemistry. The only old folks who can afford to touch this field since Pons & Fleischmann had their drama fest of bad work, data, and scientific practice.

I would have commented on the Cold fusions talk page concerning the DOE reports before writing this but Olorinish voiced ideas similar to my own. I currently believe that IwRnHaA is a "developing hand" and he simple didn't understand the value the relative value of scientific evidence. For example the journal "SURFACE AND COATINGS TECHNOLOGY" has an impact factor of 1.68. This is compared to a serious review journal like "Chem Rev" which has an impact factor of 22.76. I'm not saying that an article in "Chem Rev" is about 20 times as representative as something in "SURFACE AND COATINGS TECHNOLOGY". Sometimes the article from the "lesser" journal is more important and sometimes its beyond inconsequential. But I don't want you to think an impact factor of 20 is normal, perhaps the most important journal for original chemistry research is "J Am Chem Soc" which has a impact factor of 7.89. This 7.68 is still a huge leap over 1.68 but it gives the scale the proper context. Context and placement is also important for example "J Am Chem Soc" publishes on everything related to chemistry but most journals are more specialized. For example "SURFACE AND COATINGS TECHNOLOGY", doesn't seem the best place to get something concerning nuclear physics/electrochemistry reviewed or read. The value of that review is doubtful and not up to the standards for a wikipeida intro of such a heavily cited subject. In contrast the DOE report is in the right weight class (your edits reflect this and I appreciate that IwRnHaA). Now the review in the "International Journal of Nuclear Energy Science and Technology" is published in the right place but its a young journal and so it doesn't have an established impact factor. Again here its just important to keep this papers perspective balanced against the literature as a whole. The minority does not get to choose the light in which its presented. The fact there is no timely response might just mean this review doesn't deserve one and the old critiques are more than sufficient.

The original cold fusion was very bad science. For example I believe Bockris was vindicated from spiking his solution but confirmed to have been too dumb to realize the impurity was there to begin with. As for your comment Pcarbonn, I could have just as easily been eluding to Bockris' "secret energy producing catalyst" or claims of chemical transmutation with iron and potassium and carbon to yield gold. Any of this would have tarnished his cold fusion work. Sufficient to say, even if Bockris' work is peer reviewed its not trustworthy. We all know a scientist in our own field that publish bad/questionable data some just get more attention than others. This is one of sciences dirty little secrets and the difference between the theory of peer-review and the practice.

To be honest I'm not current enough with work in "cold fusion" to be a good judge of the field. In general its very bad science practiced by people who are looking for jackpots. I'm not optimistic about the field as a result and thus I choose to read stuff I find more promising. But I did read Biberian review and saw how casually he dealt with the flaws in Pons & Fleischmann experiment. It was disconcerting. I will focus on the electrochemistry because I understand it well and most physists don't, just as I'm baffled by radiation and nuclear ash. The issue of faradic effiency and overpotential of the system need to be well addressed and they are not. As far as Szpak et al I don't know if I should trust their work if they are publishing with Fleischmann. At the very least they have a tendency to over look significant phenomenon. For example are they "drying" gases before recombining them, are they using traps and a toepler pump or a compariable methode? How much of that volume is to to evaporated water? I haven't read their paper I don't know when I will. In any case I would much prefer you use your regular account IwRnHaA but if you are determined not to I hope that you are at least fair in your attempts at arbitration.--OMCV (talk) 03:51, 21 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)

To begin with self promotion is frowned upon on WP. I'm not one to enforce rules but I will point it out when people seem confused. These two edits, [1] and [2], are pretty clear cases of self promotion. Further more "where" something is published matters a great deal. WP has identified the mainstream (especially in science) as NPOV, fringe ideas are to be described through the perspective of the mainstream according to WP:Fringe. A journal such as "Infinite Energy" is most definitely fringe. You are right we should describe your article in the context I've described as long as its significant. What does significance entail? Being heavily cited by other is the academic community or public media at large. As a foil lets say someone writes a article about The Tempest for a intra-college journal, should they try to get it cited on the page dealing with Shakespeare? Lastly please read WP:Verify more closely.--OMCV (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

This is from the Verify page: "Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them." Since cold fusion outside of muon catalysis is being pursued by a minority and that group is considered by many (including, apparently, various Wikipedia editors) to be a "fringe", it obviously follows that the hypothesis qualifies as being an appropriate reference for the cold-fusion article. Also, you proved yourself to be one of those anti-CF editors (read: biased and not-NPOV) when you wrote: "insignifcant reference in a field with many many potential sources" without proving the statement. Remember, a main reason CF is not accepted is because of the lack of an acceptable hypothesis. Note that "acceptable" and "accepted" are two different things. Something that is acceptable can never become accepted if nobody ever reads it! The fact that the hypothesis was published means that the editors, and whatever reviewers they called upon, thought it was acceptable; if they hadn't accepted it, it would not have been published. (I sent them something else on a different topic, and they said "it should not be published", so now you know they have SOME standards. :) Finally, "self-promotion" involves promoting SELF, not an Idea. Where, in adding a reference to an Idea, does it automatically follow that I'm promoting myself? Does this mean Thomas Edison would be prevented from describing the phonograph, in a Wikipedia article? How can you want accurate descriptions of things in WP articles while keeping persons who know the most about those things from writing those descriptions? So, here are the two biggest theoretical objections to CF in the main article:

Nuclear reactions would occur at low temperatures if the nucleii could be forced close enough together. The average density of deuterium atoms that can be obtained in palladium is vastly insufficient for fusion to occur according to known mechanisms. The average distance is approximately 0.17 nanometers, which is too far apart to allow a significant rate of fusion through quantum mechanical tunneling. In fact, this distance is farther than the separation of nucleii in D2 gas molecules, which do not exhibit fusion.

There is no known mechanism that would release fusion energy as heat instead of radiation within the relatively small metal lattice.[96] The direct conversion of fusion energy into heat is not possible because of energy and momentum conservation and the laws of special relativity.

One way to answer the first begins by studying just how hydrogen exists inside of palladium. The hypothesis talks about "metallic hydrogen" as a hypothesized substance that is widely expected to be able to exist. Well, if hydrogen can exist as a metal, why can't it exist as an "alloying agent"? I've read that when hydrogen soaks into palladium that process is itself somewhat exothermic. The two elements have practically the same electronegativity, so a chemical reaction can't explain it. But if the hydrogen is changing state from gas to metal, alloying with the palladium, that might. The result, either for metallic hydrogen or for hydrogen-as-alloy, is that the atoms have voluntarily given away their sole electrons to the "conduction band" of the metal, and have thereby become bare nuclei. Since they are surrounded by conduction-band electrons, none of which is actually in orbit around those nuclei, it follows that any thermal motion of the nuclei could randomly set them on a collision course that would not be interrupted by an electron shell. In muon-catalyzed fusion, a muon is able to shield the two protons inside two deuterons from repelling each other, until the Strong Force can begin. In the conduction band, loose electrons can randomly pass between two deuterons, having the same effect. The biggest difference between the two is that the muon orbits one of the deuterons and actively helps the two deuterons get together, while here fusion could only happen if the deuterons are on a nearly perfect collision course; the electrons are merely preventing repulsion. The tiny size of bare nuclei logically leads to a requirement that the base metal be "fully loaded" with alloying deuterium, to maximize the collision possibilities --and the CF effect is frequently failed to be observed when the deuterium load is inadequate.

One way to answer the second is to note that one consequence of muon catalyzed fusion is, fairly often, the muon shoots away from the reaction site with a considerable amount of energy. To better appreciate that, note that because a muon is 206 times as massive as an electron, it orbits 206 times closer and the force of electrostatic attraction is 206*206 times the attaction between proton and electron in an ordinary hydrogen atom. That attraction is doubled during fusion because two protons are present --but the muon can often somehow acquire enough energy for it and its mass to escape that attraction. Well, in the metal's conduction band we have Quantum Mechanics portraying electrons as "cloudy", and many of them can be spending small parts of their time between two fusing deuterons. Electrons and muons behave practically identically when interacting with other particles, so any process that can give energy to a muon can also give energy to an electron. And any electron that shoots away from the site of a fusion, in the conduction band, can be immediately replaced by any of many many others, since all are attracted by the protons in the fusing deuterons (two at a time, even). The net effect is that the energy of fusion can be almost entirely passed to the loose electrons of the conduction band, and they can move in many directions to balance momentum. There would be no gamma ray, and the reaction can take the form of D+D->He4, meaning no neutron is released. More than 15Mev of released energy, by that particular reaction, would mean fewer total reactions to explain the observed heat. And there wouldn't be an alpha particle to detect, since at the end the He4 nucleus would just hold on to the last two electrons that were attracted from the conduction band, and put them in orbit. Nobody talks about "metallic helium"!

What are your objections to that hypothesis (and where in it is any self-promotion)? 216.54.28.10 (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on your fine theory and good luck promoting it. If an assertion/material is your own then promoting it is conventionally considered self-promotion, your right the language could be more exacting. Perhaps they could call it self's-assertion-promotion. An effort to change vernacular convention would go well with your efforts to name CF differently then the programing language named after CF. I won't bother citing policy to you about self-promotion, it doesn't matter that much to me. If you push your luck someone else will cite policy for you.

As far as citations concerning cold fusion you might want to stop by Jed Rothwell's page called LENR-CANR.org to take a look at the size of the pro-CF literature. There is a lot. I'm sorry I didn't offer proof for this volume of literature (most of which include theory) in my other note. As I stated earlier I think you need to consider your papers significance at this moment. Perhaps one day your theory will be considered a serious and insightful piece of work but that day has not yet come.

I also add that alloying two elements involves forming a multi-centered chemical bond called metallic bonds (regardless of electronegativity differences). You might also be interested to read about palladium hydrides; terminal, non-classical, and interstitial. I don't know much about nuclear physics so I can't help with that. Have a good one.

If you are in favor of promoting accuracy in WP articles, then you could do better than to call something a "theory" when it is clearly titled "hypothesis". The difference is "supporting evidence", so Evolution qualifies as Theory, while Creationism is merely/only a Hypothesis. In this case, the hypothesis tries to explain the things that CF researchers generally claim are factual (for example, in experiments involving a very thin layer of palladium, it is claimed that ordinary neutron-releasing fusions can occur, so the hypothesis considers this to be a consequence of there being enough conduction-band electrons locally available to initiate fusion, but not enough, due to the thinness of the metal, to carry away so much energy that the special D+D->He4 reaction occurs). The hypothesis also suggests some things that might be examined, to gather supporting evidence. One of those things is the possibility that in muson-catalyzed fusion, the muon might sometimes carry away enough energy that the D+D->He4 reaction can occur (obviously if it CAN, then many electrons should be able to do that, also). Another is the notion that "metallic deuterium" might be inherently nuclearly explosive. What you wrote about metallic bonds in an alloy would have no place in pure Metallic Deuterium --and if MD is nuclearly active, then cold fusion is simply the result of MD being diluted by some other metal like palladium. Not to mention that after studying the link, your comment about metallic bonds seems irrelevant. YES, electrons of both host-metal atoms (like palladium) and hydrogen are free to move around if they have alloyed. Since that's what the hypothesis says, too, I don't see that you have presented any problem. Moving on...at the HalfBakery I suggested that if cold fusion can occur in an appropriate superconducting metal (especially a Type II superconductor), then those energized conduction-band electrons, if the hypothesis is valid, ought to be detectable as an electric current (especially if we can add a magnetic field to help direct them).

I don't know of any other proposed hypothesis that can explain all the claimed facts, and I'm quite sure that a main reason most other proposals are not widely accepted is simply because they are not able to explain everything. Even the unexpected excess heat observed by space probes at Jupiter and Saturn can be explained as the consequence of cold fusion at a slow rate in the very considerable volumes of metallic hydrogen they are expected to contain. This notion hasn't been out long enough, published, for me to have seen any significant feedback yet (and the print run of "Infinite Energy" is only about 5000 copies, that doesn't help). Your own remarks I consider to be more facetious than well-intended. After all, if you really thought the hypothesis was acceptable, wouldn't YOU be willing to post a reference to it in the main CF article? Or, perhaps you could encourage some of the other detractors, who know more nuclear physics than you, to examine it.... V (talk) 07:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of topic ban

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, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

We can't respond!

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)

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Image copyright problem with Image:Trans effect 2.png

Molecular bonding model

Molecular bonding model

AfD nomination of Chemical bonding model

Ligand

April 2008

Schlenk flask

Straus flask or Strauss flask?

Some Info on Lean Air/Fuel Ratios (Electrolysis Scams)

Noah Seidman

Electrolysis of water

assumes good faith etc

Plethora or added sections

Material form the popular media

common ducted oxyhydrogen gas

Some Other Stuff

Thank you!

User talk:Gdewilde

COI

personal attacks

discussing my username on talk pages

discussing my edit patern on talk pages

discussing my homepage on talk pages

discussing my homepage on talk pages

discussing my homepage on talk pages

Discuss blocking me in edit summaries

Italics??

WOW

Re: Sockpuppet

Discussion of topic ban

We can't respond!