User talk:Cardamon

Welcome, Cardamon!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions!
You might like to check out our tutorial, a resource created especially for new users like yourself.
You also may want to introduce yourself to the community at the new user log.
I would suggest a look through our policies and guidelines.
If you have any questions, you can ask me on my talk page, or at our questions forum.
I hope very much you enjoy being here with us, and I wish you luck with your contributions.

- Zapptastic at 03:17, Friday, September 13, 2024 (UTC)

Source for Biodegradable plastic article

The Biodegradable plastic article has several sentences that are the same or very similar to sentences in this one paragraph source: http://www.bio-tec.biz/biobatch.html . Is it a copyright violation? Or did you perhaps write both sources? Cardamon 15:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I wrote all sources...

FTC Guidlines for environmental or claiming biodegradable. I would suggest you view the article. You can not claim biodegradation if your plastic product can't be thrown in a landfill due to 94.7% of all plastic in the US is thrown there. So you can't claim biodegradable.

2. Degradable/Biodegradable/Photodegradable: It is deceptive to misrepresent, directly or by implication, that a product or package is degradable, biodegradable or photodegradable. An unqualified claim that a product or package is degradable, biodegradable or photodegradable should be substantiated by competent and reliable scientific evidence that the entire product or package will completely break down and return to nature, i.e., decompose into elements found in nature within a reasonably short period of time after customary disposal.

Claims of degradability, biodegradability or photodegradability should be qualified to the extent necessary to avoid consumer deception about: (a) the product or package's ability to degrade in the environment where it is customarily disposed; and (b) the rate and extent of degradation.

3. Compostable: It is deceptive to misrepresent, directly or by implication, that a product or package is compostable. An unqualified claim that a product or package is compostable should be substantiated by competent and reliable scientific evidence that all the materials in the product or package will break down into, or otherwise become part of, usable compost (e.g., soil-conditioning material, mulch) in a safe and timely manner in an appropriate composting program or facility, or in a home compost pile or device.

Claims of compostability should be qualified to the extent necessary to avoid consumer deception. An unqualified claim may be deceptive: (1) if municipal composting facilities are not available to a substantial majority of consumers or communities where the package is sold; (2) if the claim misleads consumers about the environmental benefit provided when the product is disposed of in a landfill; or (3) if consumers misunderstand the claim to mean that the package can be safely composted in their home compost pile or device, when in fact it cannot.

Example 1: A manufacturer indicates that its unbleached coffee filter is compostable. The unqualified claim is not deceptive provided the manufacturer can substantiate that the filter can be converted safely to usable compost in a timely manner in a home compost pile or device, as well as in an appropriate composting program or facility.

Example 2: A lawn and leaf bag is labeled as "Compostable in California Municipal Yard Waste Composting Facilities." The bag contains toxic ingredients that are released into the compost material as the bag breaks down. The claim is deceptive if the presence of these toxic ingredients prevents the compost from being usable.

Example 3: A manufacturer indicates that its paper plate is suitable for home composting. If the manufacturer possesses substantiation for claiming that the paper plate can be converted safely to usable compost in a home compost pile or device, this claim is not deceptive even if no municipal composting facilities exist.

Example 4: A manufacturer makes an unqualified claim that its package is compostable. Although municipal composting facilities exist where the product is sold, the package will not break down into usable compost in a home compost pile or device. To avoid deception, the manufacturer should disclose that the package is not suitable for home composting.

Example 5: A nationally marketed lawn and leaf bag is labeled "compostable." Also printed on the bag is a disclosure that the bag is not designed for use in home compost piles. The bags are in fact composted in municipal yard waste composting programs in many communities around the country, but such programs are not available to a substantial majority of consumers where the bag is sold. The claim is deceptive since reasonable consumers living in areas not served by municipal yard waste programs may understand the reference to mean that composting facilities accepting the bags are available in their area. To avoid deception, the claim should be qualified to indicate the limited availability of such programs, for example, by stating, "Appropriate facilities may not exist in your area." Other examples of adequate qualification of the claim include providing the approximate percentage of communities or the population for which such programs are available.

Example 6: A manufacturer sells a disposable diaper that bears the legend, "This diaper can be composted where municipal solid waste composting facilities exist. There are currently [X number of] municipal solid waste composting facilities across the country." The claim is not deceptive, assuming that composting facilities are available as claimed and the manufacturer can substantiate that the diaper can be converted safely to usable compost in municipal solid waste composting facilities.

Example 7: A manufacturer markets yard waste bags only to consumers residing in particular geographic areas served by county yard waste composting programs. The bags meet specifications for these programs and are labeled, "Compostable Yard Waste Bag for County Composting Programs." The claim is not deceptive. Because the bags are compostable where they are sold, no qualification is required to indicate the limited availability of composting facilities.

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/grnrule/guides92.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callsign (talk • contribs) 05:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and the URL. What has happened to your User page? Cardamon 23:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Bio-plastics etc.

Hi, Mrs Trellis. About your recent edit to Biodegradable plastic, I'd just like to point out that "tons" is perfectly good spelling in the United States of America. So is "metabolize", which you changed in a previous edit to that page. Of course, you also eliminated some genuine mistakes. This is really no big deal, but I thought I'd mention it. Cardamon 23:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Noted your comments about my edits - I changes tons to tonnes only because they are the internationally accepted SI units for this measure of mass and as they so closely align with tons it seemed to make more sense - especially as the plastic indiustry is international. I changed metabolize to metabolise because I had thought that the original authorship was a brit using Commonwealth English . I may have been mistaken in which case my apologies - just trying to keep articles within WP guidelines ! Mrs Trellis 08:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply on my talk page. I'm okay with tonnes. I have no idea what Callsign's nationality is. Bio-Tec Environmental, to which s/he keeps inserting references, is located in the state of New Mexico. I notice that s/he replied here to my question about copyright by saying that s/he had "written all sources". Cardamon 20:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Copy + Paste Moves

Please do not make copy+paste moves between articles. At the top of every page in Wikipedia, you will find a move button. Feel free to use it when correcting a simple spelling mistake in an article. Regards alphaChimp^(talk) 04:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I have fixed your error. See Hieronymus machine. alphaChimp^(talk) 04:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize that. I'll do it that way next time. Cardamon 04:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

No worries. A lot of people don't know. alphaChimp^(talk) 04:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

RfC on UKnewthat

Just wondering what you think of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Uknewthat? Cardamon 08:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cardamon, as I've taken admin action and may have to take more, it's best that I don't get involved in the RfC. Thanks for letting me know about it though. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Beam dump

Thanks for your work on the subject. I had never heard of a beam dump for charged particles, but in retrospect, their existence should have been obvious. It looks pretty good already; I had imagined it would sit around a lot longer when I first wrote it. --Joel 08:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

My administratorship candidacy succeeded with a final tally of 81/0/1. I appreciate your support. Results are at Wikipedia:Recently_created_admins#Durova. Warmly, Durova 14:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Original resarch spotted

According to your report on Feb. 9. 2007, you spotted an original research in the following text:

Before the present general relativistic cosmological model was developed, Albert Einstein proposed a way to fix his so far incomplete equations by adding to them a constant. The constant would come to be known later as the cosmological constant. It is a necessary part of Einstein's equations till today.

One might note, that there exists an opinion among those astrophysicists and cosmologists who still think in terms of Newtonian physics that Einstein added his cosmological constant to dynamically stabilize a cosmological scenario that would necessarily collapse in on itself due to the gravitational attraction of the matter constituents in the universe. Since, as they would put it, such a universe would need a source of "anti-gravity" to balance out the mutual attraction. However, in Einstein's theory there is no mutual gravitational attraction in the world so there was no danger for the universe to collapse. The cosmological constant was then a way of fixing the math of the equations to reflect this fact. It is similar to a contant of integration that is added to a solution of any integral to reflect particular physical conditions (in this case the assumed by Einstein the stability of the universe). The cosmological constant were put back to zero by cosmologists who took charge of maintaining the general relativity after Einstein turned his attention to other projects. They wanted to reflect their idea that the observed in 1928 expansion of the universe will slow down due to the gravitational attraction of the matter constituents in the universe. The cosmological constant was restored back after astronomical observations proved in 1998 that the the observed expansion of the universe is not slowing down but accelerating.

Would you mind telling me which part of this text is original research according to you? (Note that the text in italics is left from the previous version to clarify the issue) Jim 15:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Testatika AfD

Hi, in this edit, you wrote "... this bloated farrago of speculation, bollocks, unreliable sources, and reliable but not irrelevant sources...". Given what you had written in the first half of that sentence, and what others (particularly EMS) had said elsewhere, I would have expected you to mean "unreliable sources, and reliable but not relevant sources... ". Although of course I may have misunderstood your intention. Regards, — BillC ^talk 17:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

BillC, thanks for pointing that out. Cardamon 20:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

useable is a spelling mistake according to AWB and Google.

Google and AWB Typo list ~~ AVTN ^{T C}_{V A} 21:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I am going to raise this issue with AWB, I am sorry if it has caused any inconveniences. Can you please check here, and add anything extra you would want to add.~~ AVTN ^{T C}_{V A} 16:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Cardamon 00:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Category deletion

I'm not sure what I think. I created the category because there was a problem with certain subjects being categorized solely as scientific/pseudoscientific when there was more subtlety than that. I never particularly cared for the category's title, but I think there is a need for such a category to include the wide range of fringe science that is ignored by the mainstream. --ScienceApologist 00:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Does it matter?

Not sure if this edit was addressed to me or to Nondistinguished? Cardamon 05:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

She wrote very well, she was treated very poorly, and you didn't provide references to support what you were saying. Does it really matter any more? I am tired of excellent editors being treated like shit on Wikipedia by people who own areas. Then reading web blogs about how crappy Wikipedia is in certain areas, thinking, no, that's not right, we have the new editor who's been working in this area for a few months now who writes so well, something's going on. And what's going on is we no longer have that editor. You don't seem to care, though, so I'm not sure why you asked me this. KP Botany 05:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

To start with, I was supporting LidiaFourdraine and saying that her article on Fluid physics should be kept. I'm puzzled about whether or not you understand that. Cardamon 06:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Then I apologize and thank you for seeing that she was contributing excellent material to Wikipedia. Although it doesn't excuse my mixing up editors, I'm getting too fed up with Wikipedia editors chasing away other damned fine editors. Her initial article on fluid physics was very well written, and I was stunned and disappointed to see it redirected to gibberish inappopriately written for Wikipedia. KP Botany 19:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Phonons

Glad to help! --Slashme 11:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Dawn's ion engines

Your removal of the factoid about NASA's first use of ion drive in an exploratory mission in the Dawn spacecraft was in error. If you read the details of Deep Space 1 carefully, you'll see it was a technology demonstrator, not an exploratory mission. Even though some space environment measurements were taken during the Delta 1 flight, those were secondary goals. Dawn was NASA's first mission where ion engines were used operationally. —Quicksilver^{T @} 02:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that

This'll teach me to cut and paste without looking. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again

You always catch my errors. I want you on team Zissou.

I looked it over and realized that it was probably overboard. Today has been exhausting. Homeopathy supporters seem to be appearing out of the woodwork. If I have to write one more time that homeopathic remedies don't actually contain the substances that they are "based" on...

ScienceApologist (talk) 03:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

So far all I've joined on Wikipedia is Wikiproject Physics; I don't see myself joining anything else soon. Cardamon (talk) 10:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Now you should learn something about it. The first thing that one should learn is that it is better to have more than one hypotheses to ponder on espacially when they exclude one another and one is not sure which one is true.

E.g. the hypothesis of expanding universes can't explain (observed) conservation of energy, (observed) $dH/dt=-H_{0}^{2}/2$, (observed) $H_{0}=70km/s/Mpc$, if density of space is $6\times 10^{-27}kg/m^{3}$, why acceleration of Pioneer 10 and 11 is $8\times 10^{-10}m/s^{2}$, why we see quasars of large redshifts connected to galaxies with small redshifts, how we may calculate the average size of pieces of dark matter (2 m across). In fact, why we can't predict so far (after 80 years of trying) any new phenomenon (and some we tried to predict turned out to be observed opposite to what we predicted) while we can so easily predict so many phenomena, observed within one standard deviation, old and new, assuming that the universe is stationary. Would it be that our theory of expanding universe is wrong?

However if difficulty with prediction of all those things that I mentioned doesn't bother you then the idea of joining Wikiproject Physics might not have been such a good idea, since you are surely not a physicist by nature. A physicist, as Feynman said, should question his theory in every possible way, even if it produces right results every time. Apparently you don't have those qualities since you rather remove from wikipedia things that bother you or you don't understand them. Jim (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I assume you are responding to this edit. For now, I will just make two comments:

1. Your Geocities website still does not qualify as a reliable source.
2. Wikipedia is still not for pushing original research. Please stop doing it. Cardamon (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

		Appreciation Barnstar
		Awarded to Cardamon for an exceptional act of clear-headed rationality in the face of cowardly acts of authority in the Gibbs-Heaviside AfD. For honestly demonstrating to me that it's not whether I or you or he or she or whoever win or lose, but how all of us play the game. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
		this WikiAward was given to Cardamon by --Firefly322 (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Logic receptors

Well spotted. I'm sure you're right - it bears all the marks of a hoax. I was just preparing an AfD, but I see you've PRODded it; if that gets challenged, I will certainly support an AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Physics participation

You received this message because your were on the old list of WikiProject Physics participants.

On 2008-06-25, the WikiProject Physics participant list was rewritten from scratch as a way to remove all inactive participants, and to facilitate the coordination of WikiProject Physics efforts. The list now contains more information, is easier to browse, is visually more appealing, and will be maintained up to date.

If you still are an active participant of WikiProject Physics, please add yourself to the current list of WikiProject Physics participants. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 14:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick questions:

1. What exactly you mean by it's "sometimes" OK to contact you?
2. You haven't filled all the boxes. It is ok if I write "participant" for involvement within Wikipedia?

Thank you for signing up. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 18:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Eugene mallove trial

I see you tweaked the Eugene Mallove article. You wouldn't have any information about what happened with that trial, do you? I haven't seen anything about it for years. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Only the reference I added. I'm not sure how long that newspaper article will remain viewable from the web. There have been some other local newspaper articles, which I found but didn't use, that stopped being viewable within a few weeks. Cardamon (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Orangemarlin RFAR

Per ruling of the arbcom here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Orangemarlin#Arbitrator_views_and_discussion an RFAR on Orangemarlin has been opend here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Orangemarlin. You are invited to submit your evidence and statements.. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Physics Poll

There is currently a poll about WikiProject Physics in general. Please take some time to answer it (or part of it), as it will help coordinate and guide the future efforts of the Project. Thank you. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 18:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

QCM article

You are one of the major editors of QCM article. This is well sourced article. I have change the citation style of the article using wikipedia template for citation. You may please check any errors might have occured in doing so. Thank you for your time pruthvi (talk) 09:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

ThankSpam

My RfA Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC) ~~~~~

Well, back to the office it is...

Speedy deletion nomination of Juggler of Worlds

A tag has been placed on Juggler of Worlds requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Patchy1Talk To Me! 05:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Juggler of Worlds

A tag has been placed on Juggler of Worlds requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Patchy1Talk To Me! 16:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Notification of arbcom discussion

Your actions have been discussed here as relevant to an ongoing arbitration case. You may wish to comment. I have linked a prior version of the page because the person who added this material reverted it and then incorporated the material by reference to the reversion, so as to make it impossible for you simply to search for your name. (Hope that's not too confusing.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Centrifugal Force

Cardamon, I can see from your recent edit on the talk page at centrifugal force that you certainly know your stuff. I wasn't aware of this when I encountered you at the noticeboard. As such, it's now important that I put a certain matter straight. You drew attention to some original research of mine on the internet. The idea that the inverse cube law points to a dipole field is a recent idea which has got nothing to do with my original entry unto the centrifugal force talk page in 2007. I have been working on this topic ever since I first appeared at the talk page in 2007.

My original edits in February 2007 were motivated entirely by the fact that the article, as it stood then, split the topic into two sub-divisions, neither of which catered for the centrifugal force term in the planetary orbital equation. My interest in centrifugal force had been activated at that time by my studies of Maxwell's 1861 paper in which he used the concept to explain magnetic repulsion. I got interested in the extrapolation of the radial planetary orbital equation to the four-body problem of two adjacent two-body problems where there are six mutual pairs of angular speeds involved that would push the two orbits apart for high speeds. I decided to check out wikipedia on centrifugal force and I found the article seriously lacking as regards this outward push aspect of centrifugal force, which is fully sourced in anything to do with the Kepler problem. But most of the editors at that time didn't seem to be able to see past simple circular motion examples. David Tombe (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

This >>the four-body problem of two adjacent two-body problems where there are six mutual pairs of angular speeds involved that would push the two orbits apart for high speeds<< is worrisome. It sounds as if you think there is some repulsive force between pairs of objects that move relatively to each other.Cardamon (talk) 06:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Cardamon, that's by and by. I wasn't trying to raise those issues in the article. I was only explaining to you what had made me interested enough in the subject to look at the wikipedia article in the first place. What I discovered was that the article didn't even mention the centrifugal force that arises in the two-body problem.

Anyway, I replied to you on the centrifugal force talk page but somebody removed my reply so I will talk here. The main point is that you have acknowledged that the relevant term in the two body problem is indeed sometimes called the centrifugal force. I'm impressed with your honesty, bearing in mind that you have been opposed to me at noticeboards in the past. There are many others who wouldn't have admitted this key fact in the dispute. David Tombe (talk) 10:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

On the issue of the four body problem, I'm amused that you described my extrapolation as being worrisome. Yes indeed, it does rather give centrifugal force an active face. But sure we even see the tip of the iceberg when the two body problem pulls a mutually attached string taut, or when a 'wall of death' rider pushes against the wall. David Tombe (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Cardamon (talk) 08:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Cardamon, we mostly encounter centrifugal force passively. It is built into any free moving path of motion, including straight line motion, and we seldom notice it. It can be seen mathematically by simply considering the outward radial acceleration that arises due to transverse motion relative to any arbitrarily chosen point in space. That's why you don't associate it with any actual force. You can't see any pressure in connection with the inertial path.

But we start to see that pressure once we start to interfere with the inertial path. We see it when two objects in mutual transverse motion pull a mutually attached string taut. We see it as outward pressure if we constrain an object to co-rotate on a rotating turntable at a fixed radial distance. We see it in a rotating bucket of water, and we even have an associated centrifugal potential energy. And in all cases, it is the centrifugal force that is described by the convective term in Goldsetin's equation 3-12, which you have agreed is sometimes called centrifugal force. What else could we possibly call it?

When we then extrapolate the mathematics to the four-body problem of two adjacent two-body orbits, then the physical reality of this inertial pressure starts to stare us in the face. You said above that you considered this notion to be worrisome. But it is only worrisome to you because it is an idea that hasn't been considered since the days of Maxwell and the young John Bernoulli. Maxwell was clearly focused on that aspect of centrifugal force in order to account for magnetic repulsion. David Tombe (talk) 11:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

>> we mostly encounter centrifugal force passively. It is built into any free moving path of motion, including straight line motion, << This is an example of something that should not be put into a Wikipedia article. But, let me ask a question. Suppose we have an inertial frame of reference with Cartesian coordinates x, y, and z. Suppose that, in that frame, an object moves so that its coordinates (x, y, z) are ( vt, 0, 0). In your version of physics, what is the centrifugal force on it? Cardamon (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Cardamon, That is a good question. The answer is that when cartesian coordinates are used, centrifugal force becomes masked behind Newton's law of inertia. A straight line motion at constant speed in an inertial frame of reference would indeed have zero acceleration if measured in cartesian coordinates. For some people, that fact is sufficient grounds upon which to dismiss the idea that centrifugal force possesses any physical reality. I was once one of those people.

The argument on wikipedia did occasionally delve into that territory, but the main argument was only ever about getting Goldstein's equation 3-11 (or 3-12) recognized.

My reason for wanting to get equation 3-11 into the article was primarily to generalize the article, since neither of the two kinds of centrifugal force that were already described in the article were adequate to deal with the outward push effect in general. I had already been taught planetary orbital theory many years earlier, but my renewed interest was exclusively motivated by Maxwell's (implied) extrapolation of the centrifugal force concept to two adjacent orbits, such as to cause a real force of repulsion. As such, I now believe that it is a very real force, but I can see why alot of people don't believe in it. It is of a nature so subtle that it is not noticed in everyday scenarios unless it is resisted.

You cannot eliminate the force of repulsion between two adjacent two-body orbits by using Newton's law of inertia, because Newton's law of inertia is based on the special case of the infinitely eccentric hyperbolic solution to the two-body problem. A real physical effect cannot ultimately be denied simply by using cartesian coordinates. David Tombe (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

>>"...when cartesian coordinates are used, centrifugal force becomes masked behind Newton's law of inertia.<< I'm sorry, but I don't think that is meaningful.

The equation 3-11 or 3-12 of Goldstein is just a differential equation for the radius of the two-body central force problem in center-of-mass coordinates. Whether you call the mr(theta')^2 term a centrifugal force or not is a question of nomenclature; I think most people wouldn't call it that, although I could be wrong.

>>Maxwell's (implied) extrapolation of the centrifugal force concept to two adjacent orbits, such as to cause a real force of repulsion<< That is not how it works with point masses. Are you talking about some sort of ether theory? Cardamon (talk) 06:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Cardamon, Neither the cosmic scale of activity nor the microscopic scale of activity are adequately analyzed using cartesian coordinates. Cartesian coordinates are suitable for everyday scenarios in which we look at a small segment of the overall picture inside a cuboid room. I wouldn't discount the reality of centrifugal force just because it is not exposed by a particular definition of acceleration that uses cartesian coordinates.

Even polar coordinates alone do not fully expose the centrifugal force, but they do point us in the right direction. The reality of centrifugal force as a radial force is exposed by a combination of polar coordinates, equation 3-11, and real physical scenarios such as when two objects moving in mutual transverse motion pull an attached string taut.

Maxwell's extrapolation of the concept to the four-body problem of two adjacent two-body orbits to explain magnetic repulsion is a further indication of the reality of the concept. It opens up the question as to whether or not we have to consider the mutual angular speed between every pair of particles in a system.

Centrifugal force has to be understand in terms of exactly what it is. It is an outward radial repulsion that arises in connection with transverse motion (rotation). You cannot deny the reality of this fact simply by using a coordinate system which is totally unsuitable for the purposes of describing it. That reality is described in its most general terms by the convective term in Goldstein's equation 3-11. I would agree with you that not everybody calls this term 'centrifugal force'. But what else could you possibly call it? Unfortunately there does rather seem to be a tendency in the modern literature to play down explicit mention of the word 'centrifugal force' to describe this term, but we know that it is indeed centrifugal force, and the fact that some sources call it just that is sufficient. David Tombe (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Warner PIddle

You're right, I didn't notice that. I've restored the article. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The Britz bibliography and lenr-canr.org

Britz is fine to list as an external link at Cold fusion. Lenr-canr.org is deeper, though.

There is a document at lenr-canr.org which describes Britz and lenr-canr.org. Lenr-canr.org is a library, so it works well in conjunction with the Britz biblio, and Britz and Rothwell cooperate. LC is not just a compilation of positive material; Rothwell hosts whatever he is given permission for. But the permissions are biased. You referred to "books." There are a few books hosted there, previously published. Mostly, though, it's papers. Rothwell is currently restoring the archives of EPRI, their massive report from 1998, they were recently made available but the PDFs were not searchable, etc.

I use both bibliographies, Britz for brief summaries and "ratings," Lenr-canr.org for more complete listings including conference papers; some conference papers are usable for us, such as Fleischmann's papers recollecting what he was doing when he discovered the effect, one of them is currently whitelisted and used at Martin Fleischmann. He actually believed that the popular wisdom was true, that the predictions of quantum mechanics were different from the predictions of quantum field theory, the former being a two-body approximation and the latter more accurate but impossibly complex, bu that the difference would be down in the noise, so he was trying to falsify it. I.e., he was doing basic research, trying to find an upper bound for the approximation error. He found that he was wrong. The difference was detectable.

The bibliographic comparison document is one of those that were whitelisted a few months back. I'd say it's worth being familiar with what is in it. Rothwell takes the Britz data and analyzes it, fairly thoroughly. I've found this very useful in understanding what happened in 1989-1990. In particular, the impression exists that most peer-reviewed papers on cold fusion are negative. That's false. It was true for 1989, the ratio was about 2:1 negative. 1990, it was about even, and every year after that, positive papers have greatly outnumbered negative, such that the weight is positive.

The overall publication rate fell drastically, but that really reflects the fact that it was a practical firestorm of publication in 1989-1990. Other factors are at work as well. Many of the major cold fusion researchers were old, some have died, some no longer are able to work.

I had thought that I'd put on Talk:Cold fusion a list of the whitelisted papers, which were mostly papers usable as convenience copies for the article bibliography, but I couldn't find it. They could be found in the archives for MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. The paper on the bibliographies is at http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf.

One of the whitelisted papers by Fleischmann is the best source on Fleischmann's goals in the original research. The 2008 American Chemical Society Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook, a compilation of peer-reviewed original papers and reviews, none of which was previously published, made an exception for this one, so it's now a peer-reviewed paper, based on its inclusion in the Sourcebook. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanbackground.pdf. This appears to be an exact copy of what was later published in the Sourcebook. It is better than the previously whitelisted paper now used at Martin Fleischmann, and a bit more resistant to removal on the claim of not being peer-reviewed.

The ACS Sourcebook is, I believe, still listed in the Bibliography for our article. Fleischmann has two papers in the book, the first one, above, is pp. 19-36. The other is co-authored with Melvin H. Miles. I did put a listing of the contents of the Sourcebook on Talk:Cold fusion. It contains a number of reviews of the field, probably more than doubling the independently published secondary source available under peer review. Mainstream publisher, very mainstream. These papers are not listed, generally, in either bibliography.

Finishing up on the whitelistings for convenience copies and then a delisting request at meta is an unfinished project that I may not have the time for, since it looks now like I may be site banned for a time because of this work. However, the ground has been prepared, ArbComm ruled that the kind of blacklisting that was done for lenr-canr.org, based on allegations of content bias, "fringe," was improper, but ArbComm has no authority over meta; so my plan was to complete whitelistings here to demonstrate that there is useful content on the site, then go back to meta and request delisting.

I should still be able to handle the meta request, if my personal availability permits. It may not, I'm turning to cold fusion itself and becoming COI, I'm starting up a commercial venture, not to save the world by providing free energy -- that's, shall we say, difficult and hundreds of millions of dollars have been invested in such an effort, proving that it's far from easy -- but simply by engineering, manufacturing, and marketing kits for replication, by anyone willing to cover the cost, which will be kept low, of the simplest and most reliable of cold fusion experiments. It will either work or it won't, and what is learned will be of scientific value in any case, don't you think? The failure of such an effort, if documented and published, would pretty much kill cold fusion. On the other hand, the success .... will also have consequences. It's possible I could make some money either way, or at least break even if the effort fails.

This is the kind of thing I do and have done for most of my life, bypass obstacles. Sometimes it's very unpopular with those attached to what is being bypassed.

If you'd like to know more, such as the history of the blacklisting of lenr-canr.org (which was improper, but difficult to fix), ask on my Talk page or, better, e-mail me.

I'm not completely certain about the condensed matter physics, extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence, but I am sure about wikipedia: here, mere chemistry has made me radioactive, handle with care. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with your kits. Presumably you will take precautions to minimize the risk of deuterium-oxygen explosions? Cardamon (talk) 03:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

There are two basic types of cells: open and closed. Open cells generally allow the evolved deuterium and oxygen to escape. Closed cells don't, and these are the ones that can be particularly dangerous. However, if a cell is very small, and if it is a codeposition cell, it may be possible to operate it closed, with a recombiner or maybe without. I don't know much at all about recombiners, and the only fatality in cold fusion research was from recombiner failure, but those cells were much larger than what I have in mind. A small cell could be kept in a protected environment, such that if it exploded, it would do no harm. Imagine something the size of a flashlight bulb. A small cell could be operated under high pressure, it might actually be more efficient.... The ideas will be brainstormed with experts; I'm just a rank amateur with a business idea that seems to have attracted some interest from those who know much more about the field than I. --Abd (talk) 05:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Timewave_zero#Redirect proposal

Notice: You commented in an Article for deletion for Timewave zero / Novelty theory, an RFC has been opened on whether this article should be replaced with a Redirect. Please comment on the above link. Lumos3 (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

My bad

Sorry for reversing your edit, the one were you were shifting around references.

There are some guys on there talking about deleting references, but I don't think you are one of them, sorry for the mistake.TeamQuaternion (talk) 00:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)