Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Borghi's experiment


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was delete. I think more text has been written at this AfD than in the source material available on this subject, and in all the shouting, that concern simply has not been addressed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Don Borghi's experiment
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is an essay and an attempt to further the author's research, and is not suitable for Wikipedia as WP:OR. Toddst1 02:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's see what Wikipedia tells us about "essays":
 * 1) This is an essay...


 * a) An essay is a piece of writing, usually from an author's personal point of view

So, it no fits to the article Don Borghi's experiment, because the article describes a scientific experiment, and not a personal view point of the author.


 * b) Essays are non-fictional but often subjective 

So, it no fits to the article, since it is  objective , because:
 * 1- it describes a scientific experiment
 * 2- it describes the theoretical implications of the experiment
 * 3- These theoretical implications are based on arguments supported by mathematical calculations.


 * c) while expository, they can also include narrative 

So, it no fits to the article, because it is expository, but it does not include narrative


 * d) Academic essays
 * - Argumentative essays
 * Argumentative essays are most often used to address controversial issues - i.e. serious issue over which there is some evident disagreement. An argument is a position combined with its supporting reasons. Argumentative papers thus set out a main claim and then provide reasons for thinking that the claim is true. Acknowledging opposing views and either refuting them or conceding to them is a common practice in this form of essay.

So, it does not fit to the article, because in Don Borghi's experiment are exhibited arguments suported by the mathematics. I can accept Toddst argument if he proves that the mathematics in the article is wrong. Otherwise his argument is unacceptable


 * 2) ...an attempt to further the author's research

This is a speculation. What is under analysis in here is the article Don Borghi's experiment, and not any other further author's research. The opponents to the article must be objectives, and to attain themselves to the subject of discussion, which is the present article.

Finally, if Toddst tried to say that it is essay in the sence of a original scientific theory, again it does not fit to the article. Because no theory is exposed in the article. It only describes a scientific experiment, and its theoretical implications.

I would rather say that essay is the Toddst attemp in proposing the deletion of the article with a so poor argument W.GUGLINSKI 05:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete: Poorly sourced original research. In this case the COI has caused some problems. - Rjd0060 04:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Poorly sourced??????????.

My God, is it a joke? the article describes the Don Borghi's experiment, which results requires an deep reformulation of the principles of Quantum Mechanics, since from QM the Don Borghi's results are IMPOSSIBLE TO OCCUR.


 * original research ????? The article describes a scientific experiment. Where is the original research in here ?   It seems that, by missing arguments, some guys repeat what they hear from other people proposing deletion in another situations that however do not fit herein. W.GUGLINSKI 05:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Half of the information in the article is unsourced and should be removed as original research. If this was a truly notable subject, the article would have reliable source and external coverage of the subject, and it doesn't appear that this essay has either from the look of the article. — Save_Us _ 229  05:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Half of the information in the article is unsourced
 * ANSWER: The "citation needed" was provided to the article, and it is now according to the Wikipedia quality standard W.GUGLINSKI 00:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Isn't an experiment original research by definition? Unless there are secondary sources discussing the experiment, I don't see how this is notable. Maxamegalon2000 06:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete the experiment is not notable, though some searching on databases of academic journals showed that some of its results have been independently verified in reproduced conditions. Besides the experiment's lack of notability, the article concerns itself will all manner of implications outside the scope of the experiment that appear to be pure original research. Also my source puts the date of the experiment in the 1960's, not the 1980's. Handschuh-talk to me 07:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) CONFLICT BETWEEN SECONDARY SOURCES:
 * Maxamegalon says: Unless there are secondary sources discussing the experiment, I don't see how this is notable.
 * While Handschuh says: some searching on databases of academic journals showed that some of its results have been independently verified in reproduced conditions
 * THEREFORE THE SECONDARY SOURCES EXIST
 * 2) WHAT WE INFER FROM Handschuh'S ARGUMENT:
 * a) As there are some searching of academic journals showing that some of its results have been independently verified...
 * b) ...and as Don Borghi's experiment, if verified requires to change the foundations of Quantum Mechanics, then it obvious that the experiment is not notable because the physicists undertake all the efforts to avoid the experiment become notable. THIS IS CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE EXPERIMENT.


 * 3) Also my source puts the date of the experiment in the 1960's, not the 1980's.
 * Handschuh, please put your sources in here. W.GUGLINSKI 00:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, this smacks of original research. If it is not, which is unlikely, it needs references and citations all over to support the many claims made. dr.alf 08:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * it needs references and citations all over to support the many claims made
 * ANSWER: The "citation needed" was provided to the article, and it is now according to the Wikipedia quality standard W.GUGLINSKI 00:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment, 4 hits on Google Scholar for Don Borghi's experiment, one penned by W. Guglinski. dr.alf 09:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment for more by Guglinski, see Articles for deletion/Quantum Ring Theory. I'm not sure how this connects to the Borghi article but there seems to be some connection, e.g. reference 7 here is Guglinski's QRT book. —David Eppstein 16:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete At best, the second half of the article has to go as it is totally WP:OR. The experiment clearly fails the notability test anyway. So the page has to go. Alberon 10:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete, with a possible merge and redirect to Cold Fusion (ergo weak). Maybe there's a transwiki to another wiki somewhere, I'm not sure what would qualify as the receptacle for this.  I want to make it clear I admire user:W.GUGLINSKI's passion, and certainly acknowledge Mr. Borghi's work.  Problem is that this hedges on being original research (it's a standard experiment using scientific process, QED, original research), and ultimately boils down to a recourse on this experiment. Wikipedia, unfortunately, is not the place for this - we strive to be an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia is not the repository for publication of scientific experiments. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 19:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ...and an encyclopedia is not the repository for publication of scientific experiments
 * Rawr, the repository of Don Borghi's experiment is the American Journal of Physics, where his paper has been published in 1993. Here there is only a short description of the experiment, and its implications W.GUGLINSKI 00:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Title: Confirmation of Don Borghi's experiment on the synthesis of neutrons from protons and electrons 

Authors: Santilli, Ruggero Maria

Publication: eprint arXiv:physics/0608229

Publication Date: 08/2006

Origin: ARXIV

Keywords: Physics - General Physics

Comment: 12 pages, 3 figures

Bibliographic Code: 2006physics...8229S


 * Abstract
 * Following Rutherford's 1920 historical hypothesis of the neutron as a compressed hydrogen atom in the core of stars, the laboratory synthesis of the neutron from protons and electrons was claimed in the late 1960 by the Italian priest-physicist Don Carlo Borghi and his associates via a metal chamber containing a partially ionized hydrogen gas at a fraction of $1 bar$ pressure traversed by an electric arc with $5 J$ energy and microwaves with $10^{10} s^{-1}$ frequency. The experiment remained unverified for decades due to the lack of theoretical understanding of the results. In this note we report various measurements showing that, under certain conditions, electric arcs within a hydrogen gas produce neutral, hadron-size entities that are absorbed by stable nuclei and subsequently result in the release of detectable neutrons, thus confirming Don Borghi's experiment. The possibility that said entities are neutrons is discussed jointly with other alternatives. Due to their simplicity, a primary scope of this note is to stimulate the independent re-run of the tests as conducted or in suitable alternative forms.
 * http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006physics...8229S

No university or any academic physicist in the world wants to repeat the Borghi's experiment, since it defies the foundations of QM. After its publication by the American Journal of Physics in 1993, as punishment the journal was lowered in its category. That was an admonition to other editors: they would have to take care on what papers they approve for publication. After that time Don Borghi experiment become a tabu. There is not publication of papers in peer review journals confirming its results, but there is not either any publication of experiment claiming that the results are wrong.

That sentence, published in my book, said by the Nobel Laureate Dr. t'Hooft, he said it to me, when we had a discussion by the internet: “There is much more wrong with n=p+e, but most of all the fact that the ‘experimental evidence’ is phony”

Of course Dr. t'Hooft could claim that he did not say it. So, he could suit me in law. But in such a case the people would ask him:

“Well, then are you agree that is correct the result obtained by Don Borghi's experiment ?“

Dr. Hooft would have two alternatives:


 * He answers YES, and so I would be saying lies, however he would be agree to the results of the experiments. And he dont want to confess it.


 * He answers NO, and in such case he confesses that I wrote the truth. Therefore there would be no reason to suit me in law.

It is no difficult to understand why Don Borghi's experiment has not notability. But of course that the time shall make justice to Don Borghi in the future. And people will ask him perdon, like today they ask perdon to the ashes of Galileo. W.GUGLINSKI 23:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment So at least you accept the experiment is not notable at the moment. If that changes in the future then the page can be recreated. Alberon 00:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply: Alberon, I think Wikipedia would have to promote the truth, independently of the fact either that truth is notable, or not, when such a truth is supported by strong proofs, as it is the case of a scientific experiment published in a scientifc peer review journal. Interestingly, a rober that stoles things from people, but has notority, has articles published about him in Wikipedia, while an article about a scientist, who made an important experiment published in an important journal of Physics, cannot be kept in Wikipedia, because the experiment is not seen with good eyes by the scientific community, since the experiment defies the dogams in which the theorists believe.  So, because the scientifc community neglects Don Borghi's experiment, and by this reason it cannot get notority, it does not merit to be kept in Wiki pages.  So, from the statements of Wikipedia, it can support notable claims, even if they are not true, but neglects true facts, if they are not notable because there is a conspiracy of the scientific community against facts that threaten their interests. W.GUGLINSKI 01:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Your analysis is more or less accurate. You may want to read our policy page Verifiability, which states that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."  Our policy page Notability may assist you as well. --Maxamegalon2000 02:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."


 * Look at what a beautyful sentence:
 * YOU can help Wikipedia change the world 
 * How can someone, or something, change the world?
 * Sure that not by spreading lies. Lies dont change the world.
 * Only the truth changes the world. World is changed only by spreading the truth. That's why so many worry to face the truth, because the truth can change their way of life, based on trying to keep lies.
 * Other way to help to keep lies is by trying to hinder the truth to appear. It's another way of trying do not allow the world to change. Which obviously is contrary to the Wikipedia slogan  W.GUGLINSKI 07:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * One more thing: Alberon, you cannot forget that even among the Wiki members there are persons (probably physicists) interested to hide some facts that they want people do not know. And sure that these persons will try a strong attempt for deleting any article that they consider to threaten the current theories of Physics that they defend. W.GUGLINSKI 01:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment That is nonsense. Just look at the history of physics throughout the 20th Century. Time and time again, the established order was overturned when new observations showed the then current theory was flawed. Peer Review works very well. Einstein hated Quantum Mechanics and tried to shoot it down for years, but he failed because the evidence was against him. There is no Grand Cabal of Physicists deliberatly trying to delete your pages on Wikipedia to hide 'the truth'. Wikipedia is not a scientific journal, we can't really evaluate the value of new research or theories. Also since this is an encyclopedia it should only carry notable entries. Note that Wiki does have a page on Cold Fusion even though the vast majority of researchers think the evidence is against cold fusion taking place. Alberon 09:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So where are the arguments for notability? Where did you put the reliable sources?  Certainly this is verifiable, but where does this now fall into the scope of what Wikipedia is for - and vaguely important, where does it fall into the realms of what Wikipedia is not?  All I see here are a restatement of the abstract, and something akin to saying, "Fools! I'll show them all!".  That's not going to win anybody to your side - understanding and utilizing what WP is for, however will.  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 16:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy close before this guy turns the AfD into yet another iteration of "War and Peace - The Textbook". JuJube 08:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - strip out the parts already covered in cold fusion and bubble fusion and what is left is an unsalvageable, badly written, POV article on a non-notable experiment. Gandalf61 15:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC) (not a member of the Grand Cabal of Physicists ... or am I ?)


 * not a physicist defines what is a notable experiment:
 * What is notable in the realm of Physics ? Don Borghi is known by many physicists, in spite they neglect it, because they dont want to change the principles of Quantum Mechanics, as required from the results of the experiment.  So, within the scientific community the experiment has notability.  The experiment has not notability among the laymen, because the midia does not write articles about the experiment, because the physicists do not permit it.  But is Wikipedia devoted to the layman only?  If there are honest physicists who could be interested to know the experiment (but they dont know it because the experiment is not mentioned in the universities), have the wiki users the right to hinder those honest physicists to get knowledge on Don Borghi's experiment in the Wikipedia pages? W.GUGLINSKI 03:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The text bellow is repeated several times in the article, because somebody was asking "citation needed", in spite of actually it was not needed. That's why I was obliged to incorporate the text several times when the "citation needed" appeared along the text.
 * Need help:

However, for the elegancy of the article, we would rather to eliminate sucth text, and to replace it by a note, or something like that.

I dont want to do it, because it's possible somebody will claim again "citation needed". So, I ask somebody to solve the question.

The text is the following:

Cold fusion's most significant problem in the eyes of many scientists is that current theories describing conventional "hot" nuclear fusion cannot explain how a cold fusion reaction could occur at relatively low temperatures, and that there is currently no accepted theory to explain cold fusion.[27][28] The 1989 DoE panel said: "Nuclear fusion at room temperature, of the type discussed in this report, would be contrary to all understanding gained of nuclear reactions in the last half century; it would require the invention of an entirely new nuclear process". Current understanding of conventional "hot" nuclear fusion shows that the following explanations are not adequate: (a long list comes after this text). —Preceding unsigned comment added by W.GUGLINSKI (talk • contribs) 01:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment One small problem with that. That block of text doesn't fulfill the need for a citation. All you need is a link to an a website independent of you that shows your assertion is supported elsewhere. However, the greater problem of your page remains (just as it did for the other ones you started). The pages you've started are all geared around presenting your theory to the world. But Wikipedia is not a place to advertise something to make it notable. It is, instead, an encyclopedia of all things notable. Your theory to date has not gained notability either inside the Cold Fusion community or in the general scientific community at large. Strip away your theory and there isn't much there that justifies keeping the page. Alberon 10:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Alberon, It's funny that you was the first one to improve the article, as we see in the article's history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_Borghi%27s_experiment&action=history, where you wrote:  "Edited in an attempt to remove bias in favour of Cold Fusion. Original point 3 had to be totally deleted".  So, at that time you had an opinion different of this one that you have now.  Because if at that time you believed that the article does not suit the Wiki standard, you will not waste your time editing it, because nobody wastes his time with a thing that he belives do not have merit.  I understand that you suffered influence of the person that posted several templates in the article, and claimed that it needed citations. After all, it makes no sense to waste time with something that merits to be deleted (if should be your opinion at that time). W.GUGLINSKI 12:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Dont need help anymore I already edited the article, and it is according to Wiki quality standard now W.GUGLINSKI 12:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I tried to edit it so that it became a viable page. If I had succeeded then I would have come here and changed my vote. If you can make any of the pages you start viable I'd be happy to defend them. Frankly, I don't agree that the article isn't in need of any more editing and I'm quite certain it will be deleted if left in that state. Alberon 13:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 *  Frankly, I don't agree that the article isn't in need of any more editing 
 * Ok, Alberon, then please tell us what you think needs more editing.
 * As you say "I tried to edit it so that it became a viable page", this means that you recognize that there is some merit in the article. Then let us try to become it a viable page. W.GUGLINSKI 00:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * VANDALISM: The article Quantum Ring Theory at Temple University was posted at 00:19, 15 November, as we see in the article's history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quantum_Ring_Theory_at_Temple_University&action=history
 * And at 00:20, 15 November the user Jj137 edited a template marked for cleanup
 * So, Jj237 read the article in less than one minute, and concluded that it requires cleanup. Is it possible?
 * No, it isnt. Actually Jj237 did not read the article, and did not appraised it.  He read only its title, and when he saw Quantum Ring Theory he quickly posted the template.
 * This is vandalism. And shows that there is a conspiracy of some users, although everybody claim that there is not W.GUGLINSKI 13:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment It was speedily tagged yes, but it's hard to disagree with it. The article does need a great deal of work on it and might be a candidate for deletion itself. It reads very much like an advert for your book and it attacks a rival publication and it's done in a very similar style to all your previous Wiki pages. Though the user who created it is Edig2000 rather than you. Please tell me that's not you wearing a sockpuppet to try and slip this new page under the radar. Alberon 13:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ...and it attacks a rival publication:
 * Please show where is the attack. Did I claim that the rival book is wrong?  No, I didn't.
 * Actually the article shows facts only, as follows:
 * 1- There are two books - this is a fact
 * 2- The two books are rival (this is a fact) because they present two different views concerning the future revolution in physics (this is a fact)
 * Where is the attack ? Please show me !!! W.GUGLINSKI 14:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This should be continued on the discussion page for this new page, but the Conflict of Interest WP:COI is obvious. You say the book you wrote is right and the book they wrote is wrong. Alberon 14:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree it's answered in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Quantum_Ring_Theory_at_Temple_University W.GUGLINSKI 17:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see how this is notable. Maxamegalon
 * the experiment is not notable Handschuh-talk to me
 * The experiment clearly fails the notability test anyway. So the page has to go. Alberon
 * If this was a truly notable subject, the article would have reliable source and external coverage of the subject, and it doesn't appear that this essay has either from the look of the article. — Save_Us _ 229


 * Delete: This isn't notable per AS of WP:ARB/PS. Wikipedia isn't here to reveal suppressed theories. However, I must admit that I'm not sure why this would be suppressed. Is there some reason why the mainstream physics community would want to? --Philosophus T 03:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * ON THE NOTABILITY OF THE DON BORGHI’S EXPERIMENT


 * Why the academic theorists do not allow
 * Don Borghi’s experiment becoming notable


 * The results of Don Borghi’s experiment, if confirmed in universities, requires the total reformulation of current Theoretical Physics. So, his experiment introduces a conflic of interests in in the realm of Physics, as follows:


 * 1- The interest of Science : Concerning the question of the science’s development, there is interest to repeat the Don Borghi’s experiment, in order to discover definitivelly if its results are correct. Because if Don Borghi’s experiment is confirmed, the current theories of Physics must be changed.  Therefore for the science the experiment’s confirmation, or not, has a fundamental interest.


 * 2- The interest of academic theorists : As Don Borghi’s experiment threatens the current theories taught in universities, and the academic theorists want to protect their prevailing theories, there is not interest to confirm the experiment in the universites.

But there is another reason why the academic theorists do not have interest in repeating Don Borghi’s experiment. It is because they believe that are correct the current theories, and therefore the results of Don Borghi’s experiment cannot be correct.

That’s why the Nobel Laureate in Physics Gerardus ‘t Hooft said: “There is much more wrong with n=p+e, but most of all the fact that the ‘experimental evidence’ is phony”.


 * So, Dr. ‘t Hooft bets that Don Borghi’s experiment is wrong. After all, Dr. ‘t Hooft awarded his Noble Prize with a theory developed on the foundations of the current prevailing theories.  And therefore there is a conflict of interests: 


 * a) For if Don Borghi’s experiment is correct, the theory from which Dr. ‘t Hooft awarded the Nobel has been developed on the basis of doubtful principles.  But he cannot believe that his theory can be under the shadow of any suspiction.  Then it’s obvious that he is sure that Don Borghi’s experiment is wrong, and Dr. ‘t Hooft supports his conviction in his theoretical views.  So there are hard reasons why Dr. ‘t Hooft doesn’t want to see such experiment verified in any university.


 * b) But many theorists (like R. M. Santilli of the Institure for Basic Research) have interest to verify the experiment, because they think that there are some troubles with the prevailing theories. And if Don Borghi’s experiment is verified and confirmed, their suspiction will be confirmed too:  that is, there are indeed serious troubles in Theoretical Physics.


 * I bet that Don Borghi’s experiment is correct. My suspiction is supported in theoretical reasons, as happens in the case of Dr. ‘t Hooft.  So, we disagree in the way we see the foundations of Modern Physics.
 * That’s why in 2001 I suited in law two Brazilian universites, in order to oblige them to perform the Don Borghi’s experiment in their laboratories. They are:  the Federal University of Minas Gerais-UFMG, and the Federal University of Juiz de Fora-UFJF.
 * As a judicial support, I used the Brazilian Constitution, which prescribes that any university must promote the science’s development. So, as the Don Borghi’s experiment is of the science’s interest (as explained in the item 1 above), then I used such an argument, trying to convince the judge to oblige via judicial the two universities to perform the Don Borghi’s experiment in their laboratories.  Unfortunatelly the judge did not give to the Brazilian Constitution the respect that it merits, and he considered that my request had not judicial support to oblige the two universities to perform the experiment.


 * As conclusion, Don Borghi’s experiment is notable 
 * in the realm of Physics
 * But the academic physicists undertake very hard efforts in order
 * do not allow that such notability of Don Borghi’s experiment
 * leak to the knowledge of people.
 * W.GUGLINSKI (talk) 00:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * ISN'T DON BORGHI'S EXPERIMENT NOTABLE IN THE REALM OF PHYSICS ?

Ruggero Santilli had previously contacted physics labs in the USA, Europe, Russia and China asking them to test the possibility of a synthesis of neutrons from protons and electrons (Don Borghi's experiment), but had been consistently rejected. Hence the experiment, which is extremely simple and can be repeated by practically any reasonably well equipped researcher, was performed at the Florida laboratory of Santilli's Institute for Basic Research.

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:_EaIm6dj_FMJ:hamdendtdos.jiancss.com/archives/62566/+%22Don+Borghi%27s+experiment%22&hl=pt-BR&ct=clnk&cd=13&gl=br W.GUGLINSKI (talk) 02:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. And given the above, perhaps watch for re-creation, requiring a new deletion. Michaelbusch (talk) 03:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.