User talk:Kirk shanahan/Archives/2010/February

Deflection of charged particles

"emission of highly energetic charged particles emitted from the Pd/D electrode when this system is placed in either an external electrostatic or magnetostatic field" -- That's from the 2007 SPAWAR charged particle detection abstract. Why is it not a "deflection"?

Why do you call deletion of the table of SPAWAR CR-39 results "militant"? Is "militant" more accurate than the word you used in the previous sentence, "suppress"? 99.27.202.101 (talk) 14:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

W.r.t your first question: If charged particles are emitted, then they would be deflected by an electric or magnetic field. Please note your quote is of the published SPAWAR group position that an external mag or elec field is required to get emission, but also note that during 'The Galileo Project' Little proved this was not true and Mosier-Boss agreed and recommended a protocol change based on that, at least accoring to Little's report on his Web page. I don't believ Little makes stuff up, so I believe it.

Where was that recommendation of a protocol change made? 99.27.134.160 (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

30. S. Little, “’Extraordinary Evidence’ Replication Effort”, http://www.earthtech.org/CR39/index.html Kirk shanahan (talk) (Look under the 'Magnetic Effects' section.) 13:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

How can that page, with its modification date of April, 2007, be a response to the charged particles paper published in June, 2007? 99.56.138.51 (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

From that page "Pam Boss reported (during the March 2007 APS meeting) (...)" <---- the page was updated with the results that were announced at the APS. The paper reporting those same results was published later, but the results were already known. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. And one also needs to realize that both sets of authors (Little and the SPAWAR group) were originating reports based on their joint experience. Yet when The SPAWAR folks published, they reverted to the prior 'state-of-the-art'. Why? Probably beause the Galileo Project results conflicted with what they wanted to conclude. Kirk shanahan (talk) 12:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

W.r.t you second question, the deletion was not the 'being militant' I was referring to. I was referrring to the fact that I had become somewhat fanatical myself in trying to get Wikipedia to balance the article with inclusion of the antiCF side of the story. In fact, that was a short-lived phase as I have determined I am unlikely to prevail over the CF fanatics in the long term. I hate to waste my time, so I have moved on to more productive avenues, thus my delayed response to you. Kirk shanahan (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope some day you will be interested in accurately representing both sides. If you can do that, I would be willing to bet you could become one of the most effective editors of cold fusion the encyclopedia has yet seen. 99.27.134.160 (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This comment definitely requires a response. It is a fallacy to believe that any Wikipedia editor must only add what appears to be neutral information to a given page. I seriously doubt that is possible to obtain anyway, since everyone has a bias. In fact, the Wikipedia idea is for multiple editors to add pieces of information that together present a neutral article. I was specifically asked to add the 'con' view to the Wikipedia CF article because the editors at that time recognized it was 'pro' biased. It was not my job nor desire to try to repeat what was already there, or to significantly alter what the prior editors had added. My 'job' was to add the 'con' side. Unfortunately, when I did so, Pcarbonn block deleted it all, for spurious reasons. I subsequently gave it my best shot to get the information returned to the page, and failed to overcome the actions of the numerous pro-cold fusion fanatics that haunt that page. Those fanatics have successfully denied the Wikipedia reader an intelligent explanation of why cold fusion claims are not persuasive. It's a sad state, but I can do nothing about it.

What is really funny though is that the proCFers say exactly the same thing in reverse! They claim the CF article is so 'con' they can't understand how an organization (Wikipedia) claiming to put out neutral article could have written it! Of course an unbiased look at the article shows it has a history section, which is not as 'pro' as they would like, and a lot of information on what is claimed by the CFers, but precious little on why what they claim is bogus. The latter is why the article is unbalanced, not because of some incorrectness in the presentation of the proCF case. All their comments do is show the intensity of their fanaticism. Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact the neutrality policy WP:NPOV is one of the most fundamental policies here. 99.56.138.51 (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly! So why is the CF article so biased??? Kirk shanahan (talk) 12:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)