Talk:Fuel cell (disambiguation)

Comments

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

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]