Talk:Fuel cell (disambiguation)

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Comments[edit]

A distinction must be made between the patents and the almalgamation of the patents to make a "water fueled car". Currently it would be okay to say Meyer's claim for his many patents are for processes and a devices. It would be over extending our logic to assume all his patents are considered fraudulent. Because of the possibility to mislead readers and because it promotes a POV, though this bit of information is very interesting and true according to an Ohio state, to maintain WP:NPOV I recommend it not be included on this dissambiguation page. --CyclePat (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many times must we go round the same argument!! There is no undue or misleading "POV" here; as discussed in great depth at Talk:Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell, this device defies all known laws of physics, would be a perpetual motion machine, and was found to be fraudulent in a court of law. To summarise the gist of the article into a single word (in its latest guise, "fraudulent") is not a violation of WP:NPOV. Per WP:WEIGHT and all the rest of it, there are no other significant "points-of-view" that need balancing, particularly not in a one-sentence summary.

I accept that the patents were for a hydrogen-generation process of some kind, and not for a vehicle. But the article is based on the ones that did lead to the fraud judgement (if there are others, then they are not discussed). If you can think of a word that better summarises this gist (I was thinking of "bullshit", but I probably wouldn't get away with that!), then please feel free. But to avoid any mention of the pertinent points (psuedoscience, perpetual motion, fraud) is in itself misleading. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 16:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any use of his patents outside of the water powered car would fail the notability test. Therefore we should address what was notabile: that it was a fradulent device for powering a car. CyclePat your edits continue to be disruptive. Please stop.Guyonthesubway (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with using the core tenets of the invention as found within the table on the top right of the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Meyers%27_water_fuel_cell. You fail to disprove that you are promoting a POV, hence I still disagree. --CyclePat (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, you disagree, but the consensus (at least as far as the main article is concerned) is against you on this one; there is no violation of WP:NPOV; or in other words, the article is fair. A one-sentence summary that accurately summarises the lead of the article in question (which in turn summarises the content of the article as a whole) is therefore fair. What else, exactly, do you need "proved"?

I'll wait until you reply before I do any further edits, but just to let you know, I intend to revert, because you've replaced it with something more verbose which make less sense ("designed to violate the laws of thermodynamics" doesn't make sense). Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 19:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation fuel cell[edit]

Aviation or aircraft fuel cells are also called "fuel cell" [1], so should be listed here -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added. That sure is confusing terminology! DMacks (talk) 09:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]