Talk:Huemul Project

message: I concur that this page is ridculously unclear and biased.  Someone qualified should address the inadequacies...  February 5th, 2006
This article is full of opinionated and critical phrasing. I am not familiar enough with the subject to edit it myself. --DV8 2XL 16:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality violated 

message: Please, include that material again. Jclerman 01:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commission 

message: The kind of non-neutral POV I found in this article is unacceptable. Say what you will, but you simply cannot rant in favour of Richter and against everybody else without proof, and certainly not in that tone regardless of evidence. Two independent commisions declared his work wrong. That should be enough. Oh, and for the record, Wikipedia is not a democracy. You need to present credible evidence from reputable sources, maintain an encyclopedic tone, and gather consensus from other editors. I've commented out the questionable text just for the sake of discussion, although it clearly should be deleted completely if it stays in its current form. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, . If you don't want to discuss, fine, but you won't get biased and irrelevant content into the article. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richter's work 

message: I didn't want to unblock the article to copy edit it, so I created Huemul Project/Work. Plase, revise it, so we can move it to the article ASAP. Mariano(t/c) 14:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixes 

message: I work in the Instituto Balseiro and therefore I am personally interested in the contents of this article.  I have recently added some information, and hopefully made it more accurate. Further comments are welcome. 
Luzu 22:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent additions 

message: Recent vandalism in this article has been unstoppable, please discuss changes here before editing the article. All edits with no consensus will be considered vandalism and removed without any advise. Thanks. --OneEuropeanHeart 22:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Is not to be used to dispel edit warring or revert wars. See the protection policy for how to deal with this.
I will remove the semiprotection. Please deal with this in other ways. Zocky | picture popups 06:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: One of the POVs is clearly based on attacking an institution, and the responsible is one editor under several IP addresses who ignores warning messages. I think the page should be fully protected, but I'd like Zocky and all other outside parties (i. e. people not involved in the recent wave of edits and reverts) to understand the problem. See also the history of Comisión Nacional de Energía Atómica and other related articles. I won't protect the page by myself right now since I feel I'm involved in this, so I request Zocky or any other watching admin to consider that measure. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please read this before editing the article

message: I have removed the latest additions of  to this page. I will remind everyone that accusing others of violating Wikipedia policies without proof is in itself a personal attack. Insulting someone while hiding behind an anonymous IP is a grave offence, so nobody should accuse another user of doing it without proof. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal attacks indeed 

message: I have commented out (not removed) the material related to the history of the CNEA and its offshoots, nuclear plants in Argentina, costs of nuclear energy, etc. They are irrelevant in this article and interrupt its flow. Someone should integrate the good parts of it into other articles (I don't have enough background to do that).  --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 20:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevant material about CNEA etc. 

message: It's all about the generation of energy from nuclear reactions in Argentina. CNEA stuff is very relevant. 200.82.18.124 14:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted back to more informative version 

message: CNEA's stuff is very relevant. And it is a NPOV, of course. 200.43.201.251 14:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted back to more informative version by 200.82.18.124 again 

message: 200.45.6.252 20:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted back to more informative version by [[User:Vsmith|Vsmith]] 

message: I have protected this page again, in order to stop vandalism from IPs in the ranges 200.45.6.*, 200.82.18.* and 200.43.201.*. If you're an admin seeing this and you're thinking this is not a valid protection, please carefully check the history of this article and see how one person using multiple IPs consistently adds controversial content, gets reverted, refuses to discuss the changes, and then goes back at it unrepentantly. Established editors of this page are tired of constantly reverting this vandalism. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protection 

message: On the other hand, according to Mariscotti's account, Richter worked during the war as a collaborator of Manfred von Ardenne's laboratory, in a separate  private lab of his own, and his work on fusion was never published in the peer reviewed literature.--200.43.201.109 18:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manfred von Ardenne 

message: An anonymous user keeps inserting this phrase:
( note that Balseiro's calculations can be used against ITER too, given that both methods try to exploit the same nuclear reaction)
into this article.
This statement is wrong. Both methods may refer to the same nuclear reaction, but what Balseiro's calculation shows is that at the low temperatures achived by Richter the reaction will not work. In ITER, on the other hand, much higher temperatures can be produced, so the reaction does take place. It appears the phrase is based on a misunderstanding of the physics involved, so please stop insisting on it. Luzu 18:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remark on edit about Balseiro's calculations 

message: An anonymous user keeps deleting a paragraph about Richter's erratic behaviour (which prompted the establishment of the scientific review panels of his work). This is well documented in Mariscotti's account, and relevant to the history of the project, so  please let it be.
The wrong statement about ITER and the value of Balseiro's calculations has again been reintroduced, in spite of the comment in the above section, which explains why it is wrong. The reintroduction was done with no discussion or justification provided.
Maybe protection should be re-established in view of these and other actions of this anonymous user.
Luzu 14:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richter's behaviour, ITER and Balseiro's calculations 

message: In the first paragraph, I have introduced a mention of the ranges in temperature used in ITER and Richter's work, in the hope of relying on facts and not subjective assesments like flawed or pioneering.
I  have once more  removed some incorrect remarks explained earlier in the discussion.
I again call on the anonymous user who introduces these changes to please refrain. Thanks
Luzu 21:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have taken the liberty to simplify the text, especially the intro paragraph, in order not to confuse the reader with too many figures or comparisons. I moved the text about the Lawson criterion after the results of the commissions' assessment, since it felt logical to explain the reason for the failure there. I'm trying to keep myself cool enough to make sensible edits, but I want to make clear that I consider our "resident anonymous" a vandal, and will treat him as such until he decides to discuss issues civilly, and preferrably under a registered username, rather than hiding under multiple IPs and accusing me of POV edits and vandalism. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 11:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent edits 

message: Now the issue of plasma temperatures is a bit clear. --200.45.150.179 01:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lawson criterion 

message: Just a short note to clarify that the anonymous user modifyng this text has again introduced wrong physics argumments. Quantum tunnelling is not relevant here, because it is already considered in the calcuilations. And the fact that  ITER uses the same reaction that Balseiro considered is not relevant either. The whole point is the temperature  reached. This is what the Lawson criterion is about. That part seems OK to me, maybe it could be expanded, somebody  may give it a try in the future.
However  an anonymous user that cannot understand the difference  should refrain from insisting always on the same points. He apparently has erased repeatedly all allusions of the other members of the first review panel (Bancora), the second review panel (Gans and Rodriguez), etc. These facts can be  checked in Mariscotti's account and other sources. I vote for this anonymous user to be blocked, since he is hindering a more balanced view of the article. 
Luzu 13:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's useless to block him because he employs a dynamic IP address. He's fully aware of this, and I suspect that's why he doesn't want to register with a username. He's even tried to pass for several different people before. I intend to revert any non-trivial change to the article that he makes, unless discussed and backed up by good references; in doing this, I'm exposing myself to the possibility of being accused of edit warring or of abusing my administrative privileges. Nevertheless, I will block an offending IP on sight if its edits are excessively disruptive. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: PS: See User:Pablo-flores/Vandal notice. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The fact thet Balseiro considered quantum tunnelling in his argument stands. The argument our anonymous contributor tries to make, is itself misleading. A factor of five would not change things too much. The temperatures reached in a setup like the one Richter used are orders of magnitude too low. The setup is part of the problem. The 'singing arc' used by Richter, which is described in Bancora's report (mention of this report is sistematically erased by the anon. user) is incapable of reachin more than 300000 K (30 eV average energy even considering the tail of the Maxwell Boltzmann distribution is not enough).Luzu 18:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lawson criterion and quantum tunnelling 

message: An anonymous contributor keeps erasing all references to the report by Bancora on the first review panel on Richter. No reason is given for this. Given that Bancora's conclusions were important, and his scientific criticism adressed the experimental setup, complementing Balseiro's work, it is important to keep the reference. Please give your reasons for this deletion or stop deleting. You are hindering the development of this article by uselesly erasing the work of others. Luzu 13:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bancora's report 

message: Please use Balseiro's report estimates against Richter to predict the optimum non controversial Muon-catalyzed fusion temperature as described in Rafelski, et.al. "Cold Nuclear Fusion". Scientific American, 257, 1987, p. 84. Those authors reported an experimentally measured optimum reaction temperature near 900ºC.--200.43.201.253 13:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry but this is getting way beyond the point. Muon-catalyzed fusion is a different matter altogether, the muon makes the whole difference, (hence the name muon-catalyzed) and neither Richter nor Balseiro nor anyone else at the time knew about this possibility. In any case, the reaction is not capable of producing energy, a fact which was recognized very soon by its discoverer LW Alvarez in 1957. He said that for a short time, they believed they had solved all the worlds energy needs when they first discovered the phenomenon. However they soon realized that the process used more energy than they generated. 
This is the difference between a real scientists and Richter, They have the ability, the humility and the common sense of checking their results, and being critical about them, before calling a press conference. Luzu 13:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Things are getting confused here. Please clarify your arguments. In the muon-catalized fusion, the reaction takes place at a lower energy threshold and therefore lower temperature. Thus a calculation of the temperature needed to reach this threshold will give a lower temperature. Why is this an argument against Balseiro? He was calculating the temperature of known fusion reactions at the time. Or are you implying that Richter knew of a low temperature reaction that he would not reveal? Thanks for an interesting discussion. Luzu 18:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Such questions are indeed beyond the point. We cannot include that kind of speculation, even if it sounds interesting and sensible to do so, because that would be original research. By stating that the temperatures were too low for Richter's device to maintain a fusion reason, it's understood that the article refers to the method employed by Richter, not to muon-catalyzed fusion or any other method. However, if you think it's important to clarify that, it would be better to state it in full, as a footnote. The word "believed" makes the whole sentence unnecessarily vague. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Richter's device was intended to work like a muon-catalyzed reaction with electrons in place of muons (muons are much like short lived heavy electrons). The point is that Balseiro does not take into account the electrons present in Richter's experiment. --200.45.6.67 00:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You are making a serious mistake in physics. The electron and the muon are indeed similar, but there is a big difference in mass. The muon is more than 200 times heavier and this makes the whole difference in lowering the electrostatic barrier. In a molecule of hydrogen (or deuterium or tritium) bound by a muon instead of an electron, the nuclei are much closer than for the same molecule formed by an electron. This is due to the difference in mass, and it makes the coulomb barrier lower and easier to tunnel through, therefore making fusion more probable ("catalyzing" it).Luzu 12:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Testing Balseiro's calculations 

message: Semi-protection should not be used:
*As a pre-emptive measure against vandalism before any vandalism has occurred;
*As a response to regular content disputes, since it may restrict some editors and not others (see the protection policy for how to deal with this);
*In the case of a static IP vandal hitting a page (blocking is preferable to semi-protection);
*To prevent vandalism on the day's Featured Article. Semi-protection for a very brief period is acceptable to remove excessive vandalism from the page, or to combat a high number of dynamic IP edits. For a rationale of this, see Wikipedia:Don't protect Main Page featured articles. Other pages linked from the Main Page may be protected if under attack, though more leeway should be given with these than with most articles.
*To prohibit anonymous editing in general.
200.45.150.227 15:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: When not to use semi-protection

message: The article makes reference to "delay's" where "delays" would be correct ("After the announcement, and because of delay's in Richter's work[...]").  Also, I have no desire to take a side in the edit war of October 2006 which apparently led to the current semi-protection, but I'd like to comment that the contested clause, "based in a reading ouput [sic] of a faulty spectrometer", isn't correct English.  Correct English for that would be "based on the reading of a faulty spectrometer".  Things are normally based "on" other things, not "in" them; it's "the" reading because we're talking about a particular one (namely, the one from the faulty spectrometer); and "output" doesn't seem to carry any useful meaning here. 67.158.72.8 04:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two copyedits 

message: This site: [Huemul Project] has a site about this failure.Agre22 (talk) 01:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Videos about this failure

message: > produce nuclear fusion energy before any other country based in a lithium-deuterium nuclear reaction and deliver it in milk-bottle type/size containers
This sounds very much like the modern 1990s platinum-palladium milk jar "cold fusion" claim, which is still an ongoing dispute, with some renaissance in the latest years. Maybe mr. nazi was right, but his ideals were a too advanced for the early 1950's? 87.97.109.177 (talk) 20:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cold fusion link 

message: > to explore the possibility of inducing thermonuclear reactions in deuterium using high explosive-driven convergent shock waves
Is this correctly described as the application of ballotechnic science? 87.97.109.177 (talk) 20:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ballotechnics 

message: Although I'll be adding bits and pieces over the next few weeks, the rewrite of this article is now largely complete. Much of the information comes from two papers forwarded to me by Regis Cabral, but I have also found a number of other new sources in English. As such I have removed the Spanish references, much of the external links, and cleaned up as much of the prose as possible.
On the still-to-do list are clarification of the budget numbers, which make no sense, clarification of the wartime claims made in "Hitler's Bomb", and the interesting fact that one of the authors quote appears to have interviewed Richter personally, and the work in question suggests this was may years after the fact, which nullifies the "disappeared" mention from new scientist.
If anyone has additional sources, please add them!
Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As later edits note, Richter returned to Argentina as was extensively interviewed. As a result of this I have largely dismissed the New Scientist article as poorly researched, which is basically par for the course for that magazine. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite largely complete 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Huemul Project. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050915164702/http://www.physicstoday.org:80/vol-56/iss-1/p32.html to http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-56/iss-1/p32.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080202171718/http://www.physicstoday.org:80/vol-57/iss-3/p14.html to http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-3/p14.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080202160754/http://www.aip.org:80/pt/vol-57/iss-3/p14.html to http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-57/iss-3/p14.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050312022924/http://www.physicstoday.org:80/pt/vol-58/iss-1/p14.html to http://www.physicstoday.org/pt/vol-58/iss-1/p14.html#ref
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified