Talk:List of pseudoscientific water fuel inventions

Article move
This list has been moved from Water Fuel Museum, see Talk:Water Fuel Museum. Biscuittin (talk) 09:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is a mess. Patents aren't good sources, and most of the other sources aren't any better: blogs, WP:SPSs, wikipedia articles, etc. The various inventions are presented as though they work, and no mention is made to the impossible of a using water as a fuel. It looks like some hydrogen and/or carbide/acetylene fueled inventions may have snuck in there too. Yilloslime (t) 02:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This was originally part of Water Fuel Museum. Yes, the article is a mess... but it seems like a potentially notable topic, even though it needs really, really serious cleanup. If good sources aren't found, however, I would support deletion. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You people are something else, the gatekeepers of all "notable" truth! How dare you create this mess and then call it a "mess"! You demean the serious work of acconplished scientists and inventors, many of whom are deceased, as though you know more than they did! How arrogant! Where do you get off claiming to know what they really accomplished? Because a fossil fuel-fired world rejected their sfforts to change the paradigm? Wake up and let some progress out of this mess take place! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.90.204.182 (talk) 01:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to work with you on this. Please read and reply to my post near the bottom of Talk:Water_Fuel_Museum--the long, indented one. We're not trying to be hostile, but we do like rules. We're not going to get anywhere unless they are followed. By the way, I really want to believe that water can be used as fuel. I'm scared for the future of our planet, and would really be thrilled if there was such an easy way out. Like I said, I don't believe it, but I'm willing to listen to what you have to say. Just use fewer exclamation points. Twilight Realm (talk) 19:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Anon editor from Lexington, Kentucky: Please consider registering an account. It will make communicating with you easier, and make it easier for you to communicate with others. It's quick, free, and anonymous (you don't have to give away any real-world information about yourself).

When you're logged in, you can do many things that unregistered users cannot, such as creating new pages, uploading media content, moving pages and keeping track of changes to articles you edit frequently. It helps the community, too &mdash; Wikipedians will be more likely to remember who you are when you have an account name!

If you want more information on the benefits of creating an account, click here. And once you've registered, please ! Don't forget to sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ).

You also apparently haven't read much about how wikipedia works. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia←Start here, this is super important stuff
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

If you register an account and stick around, I think you'll find that you'll get farther working within, rather than against wikipedia's policies (as you are currently doing). Yilloslime (t) 01:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

merge - split - violation of WP:CFORK - List of water fuel inventions
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Water_Fuel_Museum#merge_-_split_-_violation_of_WP:CFORK_-_List_of_water_fuel_inventions. --CyclePat (talk) 06:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this was by consensus, if there are no further objections I'll remove the coatrack and merge tags Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the coatrack and merge tags are not appropriate. I have removed them. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion
I oppose deletion because I think it has been proposed for political reasons. I think water fuel is improbable but I don't think it is impossible so I think it is a legitimate subject for inclusion in Wikipedia. Both sides need to be less dogmatic. Biscuittin (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Patents
Are not reliable sources. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Patents are reliable for showing the existence of an invention (which might only be on paper) and a claim made in relation to it. They aren't sources for demonstrating that an invention works, nor do they claim to (some jurisdictions do prevent the filing of new patents for perpetual motion, on the grounds that it's contrary to accepted theory). As far as this article goes though, we're just trying to list peoples' attempts, not pass comment on their viability, and so a patent can still be useful to us.


 * It's also not necessary to use completely reliable and independent sources throughout. Demonstrating existence and notability is one thing, but even the lowliest self-published blog can be useful in addition. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Major re-structure and deletions by user:Yilloslime
I've just reverted a series of undiscussed section deletions by user_talk:Yilloslime. As you might have noticed I did a fairly large re-write on the article yesterday and was hoping to get some feedback through the talk: page (isn't that how we do things?). I can't say that I'm happy about these deletions, for several reasons:
 * Undiscussed. You don't rip big new sections off without talking about it first. Unnotified to the original editor too.
 * Ignoring an inuse tag. That's just rude.
 * WP:POV pushing. The sections removed were mostly the valid and accepted uses of water in relation to fuels. These things do exist, it's not all crank science out there. This appears to be an attempt to make the article one-sided and into nothing more than a list of crank inventions, hence a target of ridicule for anything connected with it. That's not WP:NPOV behaviour.
 * Stripping contextual introductions to sections. This article is titled "List of ...", but that doesn't mean (by any policy I can find) that introductory text is forbidden, particularly when the list is in several distinct sections. "List of water fuel inventions" is too big a topic to get your head around, because some of these inventions are hyper-electrolytic, some are gasoline pills, and those are quite different issues. Making this list comprehensible to the lay user (isn't that what we do?) begins by identifying which group they're in, explaining the context for that scientific dispute, and referencing to suitable backgrounders.

Now if anyone has a specific problem with any of these sections, then work on it - no-one is claiming that they're perfect. If anyone has a general issue with my approach to the overall article here, then let's talk about it. Rememeber though that we're dealing with an article so poor it was AfD'ed and no-one has touched it for a week since. It needs _some_ sort of re-structuring to make it workable, it was no use as it was. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say put a reference to the oxyhydrogen article and be done with it. There no need to dupe whole sections of that article. Its a list, list the topics and put a reference to the article in there.   If there isnt a lot written about a specific topic, there's probably a reason.  Guyonthesubway (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Augmentation of petroleum fuels
Why is this section here? None of these topics involve water as a fuel... and this is a list of 'water fuel' inventions, isnt it? Thats been hashed over a bunch of times over at water fueled car. I suggest that this article maintain the same strict inclusion criterea. Guyonthesubway (talk) 14:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This isn't an article about water-fuelled cars. It's an article about "water" and "fuel" in some combination as a claimed invention for the purposes of power generation (taking broad meanings of "fuel"). Now which of those cited aren't within that scope? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, the article is about water fuel which I read as water as fuel not water and fuel. And water as fuel is certainly the meaning that has guided the development of the article since its inception, at least until very recently. Yilloslime (t) 16:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Andy, I suggest that you take a look at the Water Fueled car, oxyhydrogen, hydrogen fuel enhancement and stanley meyers articles.. it would actually be useful to have an omnibus article discussing the various flavors of using water as a enhancement, catalyst, fuel etc. A great example of the distinction is a carbide fueled car/lamp. Its certanily not powered by water, any more than a gas fueled car is powered by air. Thus far, I've thought this article was restricted to the 'fuel' form.   Guyonthesubway (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If the consensus is to keep this article as the narrowest possible list, then I'm happy to abide by that &mdash; although I still don't think it's meaningful to the lay readership. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * How ever these topics are handled, I think a clear distinction needs to be made between technology that works on the one hand, and the scams, frauds, and psuedoscientific stuff on the other. Mixing these topics together will only create confusion. This article has--and I would argue should--focus on inventions purported to use water as a fuel, something that's precluded by the laws of thermodynamics. Yilloslime (t) 19:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Archie Blue
I've removed this line for many reasons. One of the more compelling arguments not presented in the edit summary is that this entry relies solely on a primary source and thus constitutes original research, and we just don't do that here. Rklawton (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced dubious material
In accordance with the Arbitration Committee Decisions on Pseudoscience and this article's clarified focus on pseudoscience, I propose removing "Cold Fusion" from this list.

1) "Cold Fusion" is squarely in Group 3 "Questionable Science", not Group 1 or 2 "Pseudoscience". 2) It's no more a "water fuel invention" than "hot fusion" is. 3) The main purpose of inclusion seems to be to contribute more broad-brush taint to a larger field, which is POV. 4) The entry is completely unsourced.

1) Cold fusion's purported effects are indeed contentious in the scientific community, but they're far from universally considered to be pseudoscience among serious and well-trained scientists.  The field certainly does have a following of not-so-well-trained enthusiasts with a pseudoscientific zeal (which is understatement!), but that's actually immaterial to the real science that is going on in the field.  Try not to be distracted by the groupies, that would be unencyclopedic and unscientific.  For one example of some of the real science, click here (beware the large fraction of unrelated pseudoscientific groupie videos in the "suggestions" column on the right side of the page).

2) "Cold Fusion" as a term in-use has evolved to cover a wide spectrum of supposed phenomena. It's not just a "water fuel" thing.  But by the very same reasoning, hot fusion would also be called a "water fuel invention" merely because it's possible to get the actual fuel by processing water along with other inputs (of energy and materials).  By continuing this careless reasoning, any process where the consumable energy source is hydrogen could be called "water fuel invention".  This would include H2-gas internal combustion, H2 fuel cell, and "hot-fusion", as well as cold fusion of course.  In these cases, if water was used as the source of D2/H2 gas or D2O, it would be only one input into the production of whatever would be the on-board consumable "fuel".  And even then, water isn't actually necessary to the production of the actual fuel, there are many other sources of D2 and H2. So, it's not a "water fuel invention" any more than a H2-gas powered internal combustion engine could be called "water fueled". If you wanted, you could get the deuterium needed for either cold or hot fusion from water, but hot fusion isn't called a "water fuel invention", so why would cold fusion be called that? There's no good reason. Water simply is not the "fuel" for conceived cold fusion systems.

To refine the point, if there actually was a "water fuel invention" related to cold fusion, that invention would only be whatever the on-board/in-situ system was that took care of processing ordinary water into whatever was needed for the actual energy-producing process. That's if such a system could be carried on-board or installed as part of an energy plant. Since the energy density of D2 of D2O under (purported) cold fusion systems is so high, it would likely be unnecessary to process on-board anyway. But, only with such an added-on system could water be possibly thought of as "fuel". But such a system isn't cold fusion (nor hot fusion), it's just an ordinary process separating deuterium from protium. And, that process isn't in dispute at all.

3) "Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience." The current text is not a "fair representation" of the CF unorthodoxy.  It ramrods a case for "pseudoscience" by it's inclusion, and seals it with a few nasty words on the side.  As I've argued in 1), the field is Group 3, not Group 1 or 2. Even the Wikipedia Cold Fusion article is schizophrenic about whether it's "pseudo" or not, which by definition makes it Group 3 because it's legitimately debatable. So, the one-sided story in the wording strongly whiffs of NPOV.

4) The entry is completely unsourced. Immediate removal is justifiable for that reason alone.  Reinstatement would require reliable references for the (implied) assertion that the field is in Group 1 or 2 under the Arbitration Committee Decisions on Pseudoscience.  Inclusion would also need reliable refs establishing it as a "water fuel invention".

Ubewu (talk) 03:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course the cold fusion section has no place in this article.--82.137.15.218 (talk) 15:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

inventors with only patents
There were some inventors that are sourced exclusively to patents. They don't appear to be covered in any reliable sources. Obtaining a patent doesn't mean that the invention works, or that the invention is going to revolutionize the field of fuels. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of everyone who managed to get a patent on a given field!

Please present reliable sources when re-adding them. Try newspapers, magazines, etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of pseudoscientific water fuel inventions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080214190405/http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2007/07/08/hydroman.ART_ART_07-08-07_A1_4V77MOK.html to http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2007/07/08/hydroman.ART_ART_07-08-07_A1_4V77MOK.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081226045539/http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20081220-179008/Inventor-82-gets-20-years-for-estafa to http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20081220-179008/Inventor-82-gets-20-years-for-estafa

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)