User talk:213.66.81.80

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome![edit]

Broom icon.svg

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I greatly appreciate your efforts to fight vandalism and make constructive edits on Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but many editors recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (213.66.81.80) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 11:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

EMC article[edit]

Hello,

GENERAL RESPONSE AS AN OVERALL TRUISM:
REMEMBER: In science, even if an effect is observable does NOT thereby imply science "automatically" therefore also carries an explanation for such effect - or that it ever will. Or that one day a deeper explanation might be forthcoming. Or that any number of competing explanations might one day resolve into a (single) "deeper explanation". Look at aspirin.


I added an advert tag on Energetically modified cement because while the article tends to focus on the benefits, researchers, and capabilities of "energetically modified cement," and repeatedly mentions a process of "EMC Activation" that can be applied to pozzolanic materials, there is no explanation offered in the article of what the "EMC activation process" entails. There is no detailed description of the technology or the principles on which it is based, and so- for those without any familiarity with the topic, the "EMC activation process" is a meaningless buzzword. For such a well-referenced article, one would expect to see real scientific explanation for the core principle of how EMC activation works. Otherwise, we have no more reason to believe in the process than we do to believe in an astrological, mystical, or ritualistic explanation for materials strength.

Response: I think your point is a good one, but expressed very harsh. One of the issues is trying to balance an article for "readability". What you are saying is what I wanted to do in September if you read the bottom comment of the article's talk page. Could you have a look here and then read the below...
But can I ask why is the "understanding" of a process to the "nth" degrees so necessary. Many processes in material science are NOT understood in "ad nausem" terms. It is sometimes a deeply "heuristic" process?


As one of your references states, "The Energetically Modified Cement (EMC) technology consists of processing a blend of ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) and a pozzolan through multiple high intensity grinding mills to impart increased surface activation of the OPC and pozzolan particles."

Response: Which reference? A reference might state that, but in more accurate terms, there is no need at all to apply EMC process to OPC in order to yield the concretes, which by all accounts enough has been poured to exceed the entire amount poured in the Hoover dam. I hope you understand, that the concretes poured in Texas, did NOT involve any EMC method being applied to the OPC quotient making up the concrete that was subsequently poured?


So, if the technology in question is really just grinding a blend of cement and pozzolan, perhaps we should simply call it "grinding cement with pozzolan" rather than "EMC Activation."

Response: it is NOT "grinding cement" with Pozzolan - it is mechanical activation of pozzolan using mills which are not "grinding" in order to acheive the results. We must make a very strong distinction between that. They may be "grinding mills" but they are NOT used to grind. I hope you understand the dichotomy?


This simply underscores why "anyone" just cannot "rush to condemn" unless they have a grounding in the science. And the science is very real. For example:
  • The literature for SiC and Si3N4 have shown that certain types of processes lower the Huttig Temperature and as a consequence accelerate surface diffusion - ultimately there, the authors postulate that the observed behavior can be attributed to structure defects and lattice-strain resulting in the "excess" energy being "stored" within the crystalline structures (Kanno, Y., (1989) "Effect of Grinding on the Properties of Silicon Carbide and Silicon Nitride Fine Powders, Memoirs of the Faculty of Liberal Arts & Education, Part 2: Mathematics and Natural Sciences (Yamanashi Univesrity), 40, 35-41.)
  • Note the reference to "structure defects and lattice strain"? That is NOT grinding per se, which accounts for its result by a (mere) increase in surface area. I really hope you now understand the distinction.
SO: (a) (to use your words) the process really is NOT "just" grinding and (b) does NOT involve per se the grinding of Portland cement AT ALL in order to produce an EMC.


I could call the mixing of Portland Cement with water and aggregates "Artificial Stone Creation (ASC) formation", or some other such buzzword, but most would simply call it, simply, "mixing cement".

Response: No, no, no. You are really now stretching the elastic. You really could not. You would make a "joke" of yourself. Nobody who understand material sciences would take you seriously. Look at Calerra and their claims a few years' back about "pixie dust". Yes! That's right: at a serious symposium of material scientists, etc., when asked to account for the "Calerra method", the response was "pixie dust".
This is absolutely NOT the case here. "EMC Activation" is used in the article as shorthand for the process which produces the results STRICTLY LIMITED to the EMC process. Nothing more, and nothing less.


For an outsider to the topic the article reads more like a marketing pamphlet and less like an encyclopedic article for this reason.

Response: I really think this is an exaggeration. Simply because a restrictive and exclusive term of art is used (which works for the article), you are then extrapolating in order to justify the tag.


I quote the guideline you cited: "For example, they may tell users to buy the company's product, provide price lists, give links to online sellers, or use unencyclopedic or meaningless buzzwords." In the context of the article as it is written, "EMC Activation" is a meaningless buzzword.

While I do not specifically doubt the presence of this "EMC activation" phenomenon (any moreso than any other untested claim), the fact is that the article itself uses "EMC activation" as a buzzword with no background information besides vague descriptors like "mechanical process" and "surface activation."

Response: I do not know what you mean by "untested claim" - but you are aware this is a phenomenon which is now older than 20 years and more so, has yielded enough concrete to re-build the entire Hoover dam. It is a bit of a "high and mighty" statement you make there?


Perhaps instances of the "EMC activation process" in the article should be re-worded in a more specific, scientific form, such that a newcomer to the topic could read about how it works.

Response: Your point in general terms about putting more about how it is THOUGHT to work (we are dealing with material sciences, which is highly heuristic, you understand?) IS a good one.
For rest, for reasons above, and that "EMC Activation" is a term-of-art adopted specifically for the article on an exclusive and restricted basis, adds to "encapsulating" the concept rather than to "muddy" waters. Consider: there are any number of postulates to account for EMC Activation. This article cannot act as original research and therefore to postulate one over another is "dangerous enough". To then "ally" the process (as your suggestion implies) with one over another is not only without scientific basis, but would be unacceptable bias and also making a postulation which is non-referenceable. The most that can be said is to say that (for example) "EMC Activation can be accounted for upon a number of theories, some of which may compete.... (and then list a few).
REMEMBER: In science, even if an effect is observable does NOT thereby imply science "automatically" therefore also carries an explanation for such effect - or that it ever will. Or that one day a deeper explanation might be forthcoming. Or that any number of competing explanations might one day resolve into a (single) "deeper explanation". Look at aspirin.

If the process is a secret proprietary technology, then this should be stated in the article. In this case it should also be stated who the owner of the technology is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.65.16.49 (talk) 08:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Response: I cannot disagree more. There is no reason to do so. To do so only increases the risk of someone perceiving that the article IS an advert. This article is about the EMC "phenomenon" itself: its field results, history and development. As such it is sufficient to mention (just once or twice only) that it is patented, and the leave it at that.


OVERALL RESPONSE:
I think your intentions are good, but in finer detail a little "naive" and "misguided". This is not meant negatively. I will work on an explanation these coming weeks but must consider carefully before making postulations. I would certainly ask for your guidance for how you think I should balance your requirement with the "no original research"? I hope this appeals to you and that you will respond constructively so that we do not fall foul of the number one cardinal rule for a scientific Wikipedia article: no original research.
Kind regards 213.66.81.80 (talk) 11:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


A quick comment here: "snake oil" concepts may well gain patents, if the concept being patented is technical and not well understood by the patent regulator. 50.65.16.49 (talk) 06:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


No it is not on my experience (I have 60 patents to my name/co-name as assignor). I doubt you have specific knowledge for your proposition and this is another "gut belief" example. Let me tell you : MY experience of "process patents" rather than "product patents" is that the former is EXTREMELY rigorous - and patent examiners are picked for the expertise. I have yet to correspond with a patent examiner which is NOT of PhD level.
So let me explain. To obtain a "process patent" it is my direct experience, one HAS to produce results. Or just forget it. That means real, hard, verifiable results. Let alone that the process must also meat the requirement for "patentability"
So the chances of "snake oil" as you so causally put it, is remote. Let alone in respect of technology around which there are multiple patents over 20 years. So forget the "snake oil" point. Maproom admits he has no knowledge of the subject and no knowledge of applying for "process patents".

213.66.81.80 (talk) 07:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

All right, to start off this reply, I am not "in league" with this Maproom fellow. I have merely posted my own opinion on the article, in and as an article..

Now, I posted my reasonings for adding an advert tag, which I believe were justified. Simply stated, the article does not explain EMC Activation. This is not a point of opinion. The article does not explain the process. Therefore, for Wikipedians unfamiliar to the topic (e.g. Maproom) the article reads like an advertisement, because an unfamiliar, new topic is presented, and from the information presented in the article, the concept of EMC stands on shaky ground (that ground: an unexplained process referred to as EMC Activation.)

Comments were added to my reasonings for the advert tag. Other users added further comments in response, which ended up in off-topic discussion and accusations of fraud.

These comments did not, however, undermine the initial reasoning for adding the advert tag.

This issue continues to be sidestepped. EMC Activation is not explained in the article! That is the issue.

Removing the off-topic comments on my explanation is acceptable. However, deletion of my comment overall from the article talk page constitutes censorship of opinion, which is inappropriate given that it only suggests reasonable courses of action, and no fraudulent claims whatsoever. Simply an explanation for why the article deserves an advert tag. Which, in its current state, it does.

Thank you. 50.65.16.49 (talk) 09:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


In response to the above by 50.65.16.49:

First of all, thank you for your time for taking time to respond. It is not "censorship" because we can ventilate sensibly here - and you yourself posted your comment here anyhow. What is important is that openly defamatory comments are not repeated. This aspect could be escalated already by me but I have chosen to give "benefit of the doubt" that Maproom was simply "over zealous" and made a mistake. So I have "self-policed it" in a manner which is sensitive to a range of competing issues, but at all times on the basis that unfortunately, your comments were polluted by a defamatory comment which was then repeated.

I suggest that we focus on YOUR concerns about the article - yes?

The article is NOT an article about the EMC Process. It is about Energetically Modified Cement. As I wrote to Maproom yesterday:

  • There is a whole section devoted to the process. But the article is NOT about the process. It is about Energetically Modified cements. The article fully explains what it is about. It is NOT what you think it is about and there is a sharp difference.
  • I have stated that the issue for deeper explanation is not about explaining the mechanism in any greater detail (I could write an entire paper) - it is Wikipedia's OWN policy on "no original research".


Because a deeper explanation is bootstrapped by Wikipedia's OWN policy, you believe that the article requires an advert tag, despite the admonishment given in the guidance for the placing of such tags.


I can assure I can write an explanation, but given there is already a section about the EMC Activation process, given the ample time I have spent responding to your original post (which you posted here anyhow), given the article is NOT about EMC Activation, and given the "bootstrap" issue, I am repeating my invitation for your guidance.

Please do not react "defensively" - but please balance consideration in the above para carefully and let me know how you think I should proceed --- because I assure you I can write an explanation but I am very worried it will constitute original research. The reason is quite simple: the effects of EMC Activation are scientifically measured and accepted - not only in the academic environment (and by third party academia) but also in the application-environment (e.g. various US DOTs) where the results are very rigorously tested to ensure (for example) the highway you are driving on does not collapse.

Having in mind more concrete made from EMCs have been poured in Texas (i.e, under the TX DOT regime) than the entire Hoover Dam, then given all of the above, either we find a way for me to write a deeper explanation (if you really persist) or the advert tag comes off. Because an explanation is already there. If you do a google search on (for example) "mechanical activation of minerals" you will see it is a known scientific phenomenon. The explanation for such a phenomenon is of course an entirely different matter and that is where the "bootstrap issue" becomes very strong. But you may have a different pov on whether the "bootstrap issue" really is a potential issue - but that is why I am asking for your input.


213.66.81.80 (talk) 09:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

emc explanation added[edit]

Hello,

I am satisfied with your recent changes to the EMC article, provided that the facts stated are referenced.

Regards 50.65.16.49 (talk) 08:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi there: Thank you very much for making and taking the time and effort to review and message me. I can assure you everything is well-referenced. This article is already so well-referenced I am worried it could be too much. But, be assured, I will be "attacking" (in positive sense lol) the mechanical activation aspects in due course. It takes time to focus the references needed for that into a logical step, and yet make it "simple".

I want you to have in mind that this article already has a B rating (WP:BCLASS), which in Chemistry Portal is not easy. And it is my ambition to drive that even higher. For this reason I may "trouble" you from time to time with details of how it is moving along so that you can drop me a note if you wish

On the basis of what you have written, I will now remove your advert tag.

Thank you again.

Kind Regards

I have placed the above on the page's talk page, and written to you separately.

Taking EMC to GA status[edit]

Hi, thanks for the message on my talk.

Yes its sad for the encylopedia that Jon hasn't came back, although one can't blame him as genuine scholars seem to be less and less welcome. Is he well now in real life? I'll say a prayer that he's fully recovered.

If you want to progress the article beyond a B rating, the next stage is Good Article (GA). I've been the main writer for a couple ( Lord Keynes and Currency war ) plus reviewed about 12, so I could possibly help. However, since Uni Ive been more drawn to economic and social problems rather than science, so I'd only be up for doing about 5% of the work.

My main contribution might be to re -write the lede to make it more compliant with things like WP:MOS. Would you be cool about me doing this? If not, I could still offer some general advice about the GA process. It would probably be over the Christmas week, as next week is already packed with TTD. Let me know what you'd prefer. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Hej! Thanks again for the considerate post. To be honest posting edits on talk pages first doesnt really appeal to me, as it doesnt seem to be an efficient use of time. But if I do get round to rewriting the lede, I'd preserve as much of your work as possible, plus I'd drop you a note here and would not mind at all if you revert. In the meantime, if you'd like a proper scientist to collaborate with you on the article I'd recommend you consider inviting User:Materialscientist. Happy new year! FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


A discussion at the administrators notice board[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

the discussion is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Adult_supervision_needed_at_Talk:Energetically_modified_cement -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Do NOT remove posts from talk pages unless it is abundantly clear that they are disruptive, for instance. Thank you. In addition, if you want anyone but an expert to understand what you're talking about, consider writing your posts so that a lay person isn't completely turned off by them. I mean, "So, an EMC made from "Class F" is "In spec" if the concrete it produces meets stipulated performance characteristics AND provided that the DOT has 'changed its rules to ALLOW the EMC to be part of its project specifications" is just barely intelligible for a poor schmuck like me. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your text. It is not about "dumb schmuck" and I do not think you are and anyway I would NEVER insult anyone's lack of prior knowledge. Why would I? But, at the same time, I also know that I am not an expert on the majority of the specialist subjects that have made it onto Wikipedia and therefore personally I would always defer. In fact, half the problem here is that I have written the page to "appeal" so that complexities can (hopefully) be understood. But not to exclude the reader, but to hopefully give a greater understanding of what is a very complex subject. I don't mean just EMCs but the entire universe that the subject "opens". I do not get it right all the time. But I have written highly complex sections on concrete pozzolanic chemistry, to try to explain something that even a lot of cement chemists do not understand.

The plain fact is, I have tried to "contextualize" a lot of the complex writing by explaining its relevance. Maybe we have a different tradition of encyclopedia in Sweden. But I would like to think an encyclopedia is there to "educate" and not just "state". This is where I think what has been my willingness to "explain" has instead been misconstrued as "promotional". We just come from different traditions as to what an encyclopedia is. The Swedish version of Wikipedia is nowhere near as "sensitive" to this. Because in Sweden it is important to explain things properly so that there is an education. Because thge "pedagogical" impact is always seen as so important. That is how us Swedes write. 213.66.81.80 (talk) 02:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Notification of sockpuppet investigation request[edit]

I have submitted a request to SPI in order to determine the nature of your connection to User:Jono2013. Snow (talk) 06:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban[edit]

By the consensus of the Wikipedia community, you have been topic-banned from editing regarding the subject of cement, broadly construed. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)