Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hydroelectric cell


 * 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. Consensus from long-standing editors is that this article is unsalvageable. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Hydroelectric cell

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article was created, speedy-deleted, recreated, declined at AfC for being misleading pseudoscience, deleted as a draft at MfD, recreated and declined at AfD AfC for being plainly incorrect, and then recreated by another obviously connected user and eventually accepted at AfD AfC. See User_talk:Archana_Gupta247, User_talk:Ved_varun, and User_talk:Aseemj9.

In the state that I originally found the article it was a plain hoax and highly promotional, having been created and substantially edited only by SPAs, including 'Support HEC' (support HydroElectric Cell). The core topic of the article is essentially a galvanic cell that differs slightly from other existing technology. It works (in the sense that a galvanic cell works, not in the way originally claimed in the article) and appears to have had working prototypes created by the inventor, but the article claimed it creates perpetual clean and free energy which is obviously false.

I removed the false claims where I could identify them and put a lot of effort into fixing the reference bombing. What is left once the puffery and perpetual energy machine claims are removed is an slight variation on known battery technology, which has never been used commercially, produced on a large-scale, or garnered real notice from reliable sources. This product simply is not notable.  Pais  a re pa  04:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  Pais  a re pa  04:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  Pais  a re pa  04:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

*Keep: This technology has no false claims or fraud, this research is validated by observing the electricity generation by different reputed institutes research groups published in reputed journals doi.org/10.1002/er.4993, doi.org/10.1007/s10854-020-04880-9, doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01151.Aseemj9 (talk) 11:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: This is clearly created by an SPA, the history of this user relates to this article only. This is a repetition of the earlier deleted article, based on zinc. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: I have already expressed that I am fascinated with scientific discoveries and accept solar cell is a marvelous discovery as a green energy source for public use. In a similar way Hydroelectric cell discovery as a green energy source is emerging, therefore I wrote an article on it in Wikipedia for the students & public interest. I have written the article from the literature available in the internet. Believe me, I have no relation & connection with the inventors.Aseemj9 (talk) 11:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete A battery based on the oxidation of zinc is very old technology, nothing notable about it. The news articles describe it, however, as an energy source that consumes only water. Which is of course just fraud. Tercer (talk) 10:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: It is not a conventional Zinc-air battery. No electrolyte is being used in this technology. Processed ferrite made as oxygen deficient and nanoporous structure that is responsible to dissociate water molecules at room temperature, finally hydrogen and hydroxide ions move to zinc & silver electrodes to generate electricity. Hydroelectric Cell invention has been validated by several published research work in reputed international scientific journals (peer reviewed by top experts on the subject) besides a US patent US20160285121A1 granted. This technology has no false claims or fraud, this research is validated by observing the electricity generation by different reputed institutes research groups published in reputed journals doi.org/10.1002/er.4993, doi.org/10.1007/s10854-020-04880-9, doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01151.Aseemj9 (talk) 11:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per all the above. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - a brief overview of the cited articles seems to suggest that the technology here would fall under the general purview of a fuel cell, albeit hydrogen is being evolved in situ via reductants embedded in the splitting catalyst. That could be notable in itself, although maybe as a short paragraph in the fuel cell article itself. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with BrxBrx ) 17:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Thank you very much for understanding Hydroelectric Cell Invention, this article does not come under Fuel cell category but it is an alternative to Solar Cell & Fuel Cell for this you may check in the Chapter of a book from Springerdoi:10.1007/978-981-15-6116-0_13.Aseemj9 (talk) 11:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt per all of the above. Heck, this might even be eligible for G3 (hoax) and/or G4 (recreated from a deleted page). If it has been deleted/declined and recreated multiple times, I would salt the title, look out for any duplicates at other titles, and monitor the contributing accounts for continued disruption. Chroma Nebula   (talk)   19:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: This technology has no false claims or fraud, this research is validated by observing the electricity generation by different reputed institutes research groups published in reputed journals doi.org/10.1002/er.4993, doi.org/10.1007/s10854-020-04880-9, doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01151.Aseemj9 (talk) 11:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per, WP:SNOW, WP:OR, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:FRINGE. It purports to be some sort of magical energy cell. We have never published original research such as this, even with media/news reports. We even require fringe theories and quackery to have substantial coverage in reliable sources. Permanently block its re-creation. Bearian (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: This technology has emerged recently in 2016. It has been widely covered by https://sciexaminer.com/news/science/scientists-urge-commercialization-hydroelectricity-cheaper-source-electrical-energy-46.html http://energynews-ng.com/indian-scientists-generate-power-fresh-water/  Won Special Recognition - RE Technology / Product Innovation in a Global renewable energy platform UBM India  https://www.prnewswire.com/in/news-releases/industry-stalwarts-mark-their-presence-at-the-4th-edition-of-renewable-energy-india-awards-by-ubm-india-693679791.html https://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/55230/20161222/indian-scientists-are-using-water-to-generate-electricity.htm With time this technology will find more coverage.Aseemj9 (talk) 11:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - I tagged this as a hoax in September 2020. I now believe that this is a simple galvanic cell with a slightly novel form of electrolyte. It is certainly not notable and I don't believe it warrants any mention in Galvanic cell until it is demonstrated to be a useful and practical device in significant use and with reliable sources outside of academia reporting on novel findings. Fails WP:GNG by a very long way.  Velella  Velella Talk  21:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have already expressed that I am fascinated with scientific discoveries and accept solar cell is a marvelous discovery as a green energy source for public use. In a similar way Hydroelectric cell discovery as a green energy source is emerging, therefore I wrote an article on it in Wikipedia for the students & public interest. I have written the article from the literature available in the internet, so there may be the possibility of text repetition.   To make this article more impressive & authentic I decided to write a humble request to the inventors for providing some unpublished picture of the hydroelectric cell for uploading in the Wikipedia article .They were kind enough to send some good picture of the cell to me and I was unaware of the fact that it is not my picture but I considered it my own picture. That is my mistake. Now I have created my own schematic and replaced the hydroelectric cell picture. Please believe me, I have no relation & connection with the inventors.Aseemj9 (talk) 11:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * This article is not a hoax, this research is validated by observing the electricity generation by different reputed institutes research groups published in reputed journals doi.org/10.1002/er.4993, doi.org/10.1007/s10854-020-04880-9, doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01151.Aseemj9 (talk) 11:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Paisarepa I again thoroughly read the research articles on hydroelectric cell and found an exhaustive experimental evidence showing oxygen vacancies, nanopores and hydronium ions presence on the ferrite surface. They are not using any electrolyte that is must in galvanic cell. What I understand from the articles is that “ A nano-porous and oxygen deficient surface of ferrite/oxide material provides highly reactive surfaces for dissociation of water molecules into its constituent ions H+ and oH- at room temperature. It happens without use of any acid/alkali/electrolyte/UV light because of oxygen deficiency in ferrite and nanoscience. Further, hydroelectric cell generates electric current and voltage out of it by using Zinc as anode and Silver as cathode attached on a ferrite pellet”. Hence, hydroelectric cell invention is unique and supersedes conventional dry cell, Volta/ Galvanic/Daniel Cell. In Hydroelectric Cell water is consumed to generate H3O+ and OH- ions and forms zinc-hydroxide and hydrogen as by-products. It does not produce carbon dioxide gas, any toxic by-products. Hydroelectric Cell invention has been validated by several published research work in reputed international scientific journals (peer reviewed by top experts on the subject) besides a US patent US20160285121A1 granted. Till now about 25 papers have been published citing Hydroelectric cell.  This article has no false claims, this research is validated by observing the electricity generation by different reputed institutes research groups published in reputed journals doi.org/10.1002/er.4993, doi.org/10.1007/s10854-020-04880-9, doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01151.Aseemj9 (talk) 11:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please do not insert your comments into the middle of others'. It makes for very hard reading. In addition, you only need to say "keep" once; doing so repeatedly is considered impolite. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2021 (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.