Talk:Water fuel cell/Archive 3

message: I thought I should copy over from WP:Fringe theories the following information from the Arbitration panel:
*Appropriate sources Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources require that information included in an article have been published in a reliable source which is identified and potentially available to the reader.  What constitutes a reliable source varies with the topic of the article, but in the case of a scientific theory, there is a clear expectation that the sources for the theory itself are reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals. Scientific theories promulgated outside these media are not properly verifiable as scientific theories and should not be represented as such.
...which means that the theories of Stanley Meyer may not be represented as scientific theories in Wikipedia until they have been published in reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals - which they clearly have not.  Supporters of Meyer's theories and believers in this fringe theory should therefore desist from continuing to add information that could be construed as indicating that Meyer's ideas are valid scientific theories.
SteveBaker (talk) 03:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You raise a perfectly valid point. I agree. Thank you. There is of course a level of subjectivity when evaluating what may be construed as "indicating that Meyer's ideas are valid scientific theories". If, for example, the New York Times has an article which states that Dr. So & So believes this device could work, then personally, of course only if we meet all the other wikipedia criteria such as having a properly balanced WP:NPOV article, properly referenced and cited, I would like to see the inclusion of that information. --CyclePat (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitration panel ruling over Pseudoscience and published theories. 

message: (Moved this section to the bottom of the page: Please add all new sections at the bottom.)
The very first citation of sources indicating that Stan Meyer had been found guilty of fraud in court does not point to a first-hand source; it points to a group discussion on Google where an article from a British newspaper is cited, The TimesOnline. If this was an actual court case--and I assume it is--shouldn't we be able to cite the abstract of the case in an American court archive instead? Surely someone out there can do better than this (not me; I haven't got the time).</small>   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.9.4.11 (talk) 11:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good luck. I asked this same question several months ago and got nothing. I made a stab at finding the court records, but it happened before these records were routinely stored on line.  I'm considering writing to the district court (Franklin County, OH, IIRC) for a pet project I'm working on and will post whatever I find out.Prebys (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did some searching today and came up with nothing.  Even the Times article is not online - they have only provided online archives up to 1985.  SteveBaker (talk) 01:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I also did some resaerch earlier this year.  Came up blank except what 3rd party websites have to offer.  The best bet would be info straight from the Court of record.I55ere (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I too would be interested in a transcript of the trial. If all else fails, is anyone interested in getting together to order an official transcript "on behalf of Wikipedia".  I'dd be willing to chip in 20$ to see an official transcript. Maybe we could even put forward a proposal to Wikimedia to sponsor a good part of the transcript. Whowever receives the original, would need to scan the documents, including all receipts and the courts official signatures and seals... The document could even be "republished" to wikisource or (have the scanned pages on Wikimedia) under GFDL, because the transcriber and his or her work would have been for hire so he or she could write the document for Wikimedia. --CyclePat (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: These claims are contested and challenged. They require referencing. Per WP:OR,
:"Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. "Original research" is material for which no reliable source can be found. The only way you can show that your edit is not original research is to produce a reliable published source that contains that material. Even with well-sourced material, however, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source you are also engaged in original research;"
Per WP:VER, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." An inline citation follows the guidelines of WP:CITE, which also states "The need for citations is especially important when writing about opinions held on a particular issue." and then elaborated how to maintain a reference section (which could be built using http://www.easybib.com). The following claims have been removed per the aforementioned challenge:  --FR Soliloquy (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is full detail in the patents, including a reproduction of the actual circuit diagram as written by Meyers. The patents are linked in the References section. The logical conclusion of what you want is that nearly every sentence in the article is a ref to several/all of the patents, which is not reasonable. As WP:CITE, which is a guideline not policy, says: "the examples are suggestions only. Each case must be dealt with on its merits." The WP:VER policy says (talking about the requirement for inline citations): "Alternative conventions exist, and are acceptable when they provide clear and precise attribution for the article's assertions," DMacks (talk) 02:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I will nowsoon (after revising the rest of the article) revert you edit per WP:OR it is your responsibility to please provide proper referencing which follow WP:CITE guidelines amd indicate the exact page numbers. --FR Soliloquy (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RM unreferenced claims challenged per Wikipedia's Guidelines and Policies 

message: --02:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is full detail in the patents, including a reproduction of the actual circuit diagram as written by Meyers. The patents are linked in the References section. The logical conclusion of what you want is that nearly every sentence in the article is a ref to several/all of the patents, which is not reasonable. As WP:CITE, which is a guideline not policy, says: "the examples are suggestions only. Each case must be dealt with on its merits." The WP:VER policy says (talking about the requirement for inline citations): "Alternative conventions exist, and are acceptable when they provide clear and precise attribution for the article's assertions," DMacks (talk) 02:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I will nowsoon (after revising the rest of the article) revert you edit per WP:OR it is your responsibility to please provide proper referencing which follow WP:CITE guidelines amd indicate the exact page numbers. --FR Soliloquy (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Challenge #1

message: --02:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Challenge #2

message: I do not agree with the 2nd sentence of your following statement : "I wish to simply say that "Meyers described his cat using the word fish".   That's a big difference - and it's why all of your other complaints are irrelevent." However, I do agree with the first. True, it okay to say that Meyer's' described his terminology differently but it's better to have a reliable source that says this. For example,  In fact we can say his definition doesn't coincide with many things, which any regular educated person can determine... in fact, there is very much in our world that does coincide... even two identical Ipods can technically be different. That is a philosphy anyone can figure out. But once we start saying that his definition closelly resembles an electrolosis cell I think we are stepping into original research. Hydrogen, can be produced in many ways. My brother once told me about how we can do it with bacterias... and supposedly there's many other chemical ways! But to help speedy the process of this section of the debate, I will concede. For key point #1.
#The device, as you say, is called a "fuel cell". I believe more often then less, it is a called fuel cell and not a "water fuel cell", but I think the article currently makes this issue quite clear. (So despite the fact that I may have an issue with the name of the article being called water fuel cell vs. fuel cell, I think there is no real issue)
#Hard facts are hard to denny. There is no dennial of the proper definition of the term "fuel cell" by other dictionnaries. 
So - I do agree with (1), (2) and (3), but I dissagree on how it's beeing presented. Yes!  You may summarize source material, so long as you don't change its meaning! Otherwise it's a synthesis; What I fear, is that by indicating this device closelly resembles an electrolytic cell, is that we not only summarizing Meyer's definition but change its meaning. If we change the meaning, then it important to either have a reference to prove it's not original research. To avoid an analytical phase, see my previous recommendation, whereas we would only state the facts and try to conform to WP:PSTS. I must however concede, I do like the way the article is currently. (But you must also remember, we've been discussing this for how long now! Perhaps I've come to accept the article or perhaps I've been assimilated into understanding!) Finally, here's the bad part... the claims regarding a resemblance to the electrolytic cell... Who says it resembles this?  This isn't really a matter of win or loose, it's a matter of what is the correct thing to have in our article. I too don't want to spend to much more time on this. Perhaps, we should think about a particular poll question regarding this matter? --CyclePat (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Break for editing

message: :
:A water capacitor is a capacitor using water as it's dielectric medium. They are used in high power applications like pulse X ray or high power lasers. They have various unique properties like their ability for self-healing, the ability to act like a fuse i.e. the water "boils" and disconnects the circuit. But even using high purity water (to reduce the conductivity) they only work for a very short time before they short. (see Permittivity)
::"A pulsed power system composing of a Marx generator and a water capacitor has been used for a long time, and is a mature technology"
:The z machine uses banks of Marx generators to create all kinds of anomalous effects like free energy.
I feel it should first be an article then be part of this page, (be~it in a far less elaborate way) I think the Marx generator alone shows it is a real component, that component would be something real we can include in the article. Of course I didn't find sources for the properties but it's far more likely to find documentation on using a water capacitor as a water based fuse or for high-power power-supply. We might even get lucky and find real documentation that describes the dielectric breakdown from usage. But doing that on the Meyer article it would be original research? Or not? This page should of course have a link and/or a few lines IMHO.
I feel it reduces the need for original research. Lets give the reader an idea of the material? I'm not going to convince myself I know what Meyer was doing. What I can do is collect information on the topic and present it in such a way that some one who does have the knowledge can go do something useful (read another article)
Oh, this is by no means intended to lend credibility to the Meyer cell. I feel the reader and the editor should at least be able to figure out what the components are? A page about water condensators should allow us to differentiate between Meyer speak and actual scientific wordings.
I mean the water fuel cell is more of a water capacitor as a fuel cell? no?
Any thoughts?
(draft:User:Gdewilde/Water capacitor plz edit) Gdewilde (talk) 12:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt that the "water capacitor" meets notability requirements for inclusion in wikipedia as a stand alone article. Googling, I'm not seeing too many hits and most appear non-reliable. I haven't put much effort into it, but I don't see any evidence that the term has a consistent meaning (i.e. joe uses the term to refer to one thing, will jim calls his unrelated device the same thing), or that capacitors using water as a dielectric actual exist. Yilloslime (t) 17:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed someone, perhaps you Gdewilde, had put a link in our article about water capacitors. I removed this link not only because it was red but because of preciselly the issue raised by Yilloslime. Personally, I see nothing currently stopping you from starting an article on "water capacitors" and if it ends up talking more or only about Meyers device, then we'll deal with WP:CFORK later on. p.s.: I think this article has come a good ways in the last few edits. Thank you everyone. --CyclePat (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Water Capacitors are well understood and their breakdown is well documented. Try looking at the Journal of Applied Physics Vol. 93 No.6 dated 15 March 2003I55ere (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lets make a section & article about [[water capacitor]]s 

message: [deletion of papers and patents]
*: Process and apparatus for the production of fuel gas and the enhanced release of thermal energy from such gas
*: Method for the production of a fuel gas
*: Controlled process for the production of thermal energy from gases and apparatus useful therefore
*: Gas generator voltage control circuit
*: Electrical pulse generator
*: Gas electrical hydrogen generator
*: Start-up/shut-down for a hydrogen gas burner
*: Hydrogen gas burner
*: Hydrogen gas injector system for internal combustion engine
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdewilde (talk • contribs) 20:25, July 16, 2008
And Why? --CyclePat (talk) 03:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  deleted Stanley Meyer's patents and Stanley Meyer's papers 

message: I did some calculations on the efficiency of Stanley Meyer's contraption over on the Water fuelled car talk page. Read this: Talk:Water-fuelled_car#How_much_hydrogen.3F.  It shows (unless I screwed up my math) that the devices that Meyers demonstrated to the media produced 13 thousand times too little hydrogen to power a typical car at 30mph.  I find this extremely compelling - but it would be nice for someone who is a Meyer supporter to double-check my numbers - because if you can't, I just blew the Meyers claim out of the water (so to speak). SteveBaker (talk) 02:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How much hydrogen? 

message: Troll or nut?  Somebody archive or remove that pile of stinking crap from the talk page...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyonthesubway (talk • contribs) 14:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you can calibrate Hawk by his statement (above) "I am sure that When Columbus said the earth was round that people like this guy spoke up about the laws of that time.". I respect SteveBaker and OMCV's efforts, but suspect they are wasted.Prebys (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's worth at least attempting to explain the science to potential editors of the article - unless we all understand where we're all coming from, we won't be able to produce an article that passes consensus.  It's certainly annoying to have to reply to people like this - but because this is an encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit - we have to deal with this kind of thing or we'll just have edit wars in article space - and we REALLY don't want that to happen.  Wikipedia has plenty of disk space - we don't have to arbitarily curtail this kind of discussion - if you don't need to read it - don't read it.  Removing such discussion is actually wasteful of disk space because all of the old versions are retained.  SteveBaker (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, I agree. It just gets frustrating sometimes.  In fact, when I first heard the Wikipedia concept, I was sure that people like Hawk would completely dominate, making it totally useless. The reality has turned out much better. One of the very few cases in my life where I've been too cynical.Prebys (talk) 16:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Hmmmm, thats hydrogen as fuel. NOT water as fuel! You might as well say hydroelectric dams are using water as fuel rather than gravity as the source of energy. Noah Seidman (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, it's water as fuel.  The whole thing is about Meyer's "Fuel Cell".  There's even a section where the author attempts to explain why it doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics.  I first read the website as "theoNionproject", and assumed it was a joke.  Sadly, it wasn't.Prebys (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also, that guy is not a scientist.  His bio at the end of that document says that he spent 40-some years as the executive officer of various naval vessels and subsequently has managed some ship building companies.  Retired Admirals get those kinds of jobs because the company that hires them correctly assumes that the "old boy network" will result in more lucrative navy shipbuilding contracts.  That gives him ZERO scientific qualifications.  He's been a manager for all of his career (Hint: That's practically the definition of the word "Admiral").  He probably knows a lot about how to order people around - but ZERO about energy, thermodynamics, hydrogen production and anything else we care about here.  As for the document itself: Before he goes over the edge into la-la-land, he starts off essentially saying:  "We're running out of fossil fuels - we should run our ships on hydrogen - but if we use electrolysis we'll have to put in more energy than we get out." - Hooray!  Yes!  You're right Mr Admiral guy!  But then, instead of writing about how it will therefore be important for the Navy to build power plants to power our bulk hydrogen generation facilities, he goes off into la-la-land and starts babbling on about zero point energy using diagrams of atoms with neat electron orbitals that would have been appropriate 100 years ago.  But that's not unexpected because he's not a scientist and he's used to having people salute him and say "Sir! Yes Sir!" and not to have people lying to him about their inventions.  Since we are not permitted to place undue weight on the comments of fringe theorists - we may feel free to ignore this document and any comments the guy may have about Meyer's machines - because he has no relevant qualifications and has not been widely published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. SteveBaker (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I'm familiar with the type.  I worked for a while on the ill-fated Supercollider.  Because it was such a large project, they brought in some retired admirals to manage some key components.  Their idiocy was legendary.Prebys (talk) 13:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Whether he reads it or not, I advised him to read our previous discussions.  This stuff has been hashed through.  I have experimented and built the contraption.  SteveBaker's measurements are spot on the mark.  The article is progressing very well.  The hardest point to come across is that this is electrolysis and not some new discovery.  The articles on electrolysis and thermal dynamics are well written, but may be too technical for the average reader to comprehend when directed to them via links.  Attempting the math could well be trying to write Chinese (coming from someone who neither speaks, reads, nor writes Chinese).  Remember, most magazines and newspapers are written at the eighth grade level.  That is the target group for these "great discoveries".  Thermal dynamics and electrolysis need to be explained at that level.  I'm by no means suggesting rewriting the articles, but perhaps a well written, off-site web page written by well known celeb/scientists (Steve Nye, Mr. Wizard, Myth Busters) could do alot to ease the congestion, then readers could be directed their site via links in the article for clarification.  With a better understanding of the sciences, a look at the WP articles would be better understood and received with less hostility and belief that this is just a giant conspiracy.I55ere (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previous section is trash.