Talk:Metal hydride fuel cell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 This environment-related article is part of a WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment.
The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. 


--Alex 15:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
This Hydrogen-related article is part of the Hydrogen WikiProject .

We would be very grateful to have your input to our discussions and polls there. Please consider adding Wikipedia:WikiProject Hydrogen to your Watchlist [1] and signing in as a participant there.

--Mion 20:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I know the past editor is an anti-advertisement zealot, but the mentioning of the Ovonics company didn't really count as an advertisement, since they are one of the leaders of research on this technology. I am NOT a part of that company. I added a link for them back in, because their site explains a LOT about the topic in question, as well as showing how current the research is. I wanted to directly mention Ovonic within the article, but I aquiesced pending further editors' thoughts. I worry that simply saying "privately-developed" is too much of a passive voice. I also think that omitting all company references of any sort is a flawed idea, because by a reductio_ad_absurdum argument, you'd have to delete all articles about companies.--Ryddragyn 14:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

In fact the whole page you made was an advertisement for Ovonic.Mion 15:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Then by all means include other examples of this kind of technology, but I still think you need to revisit your philosophy of deleting references to companies. By your logic, articles for Teflon, nylon, Matrigel, and even the lightbulb would have to be revised to not include the original inventor, which just so happened to be corporations. Let's go talk to Jimmy Wales about this if you want to.--Ryddragyn 16:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not about that you can't reference to a company, its about that the rest of the world is not referencing to Ovonic, if they really have a breakthrough it would be all over the news and the internit which is not the case. Mion 16:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

What on earth are you saying here? There are plenty of news articles referencing Ovonic.
This is a press bulletin from the same marketing manager from Ovonic.

Any more references ? reg. Mion 18:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, actually.
http://ovonic.com/res/2_3_regen_fuel/ovonic_fuel_cell_in_the_news.htm
That site, though admittedly provided by the the company, has a long list of news articles. Please read through them.

Again Ovonic ?

More importantly though, I found a non-ovonics project:http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/els/03603199/2002/00000027/00000009/art00186;jsessionid=3b4fsqmh56fgj.alice

You mean this abstract from 2001 ? http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V3F-44PKMJ2-1&_coverDate=09%2F30%2F2002&_alid=426776402&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=5729&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=970b74a00a609e7e2a5cdd1d5b3aa6a7

Reg. Mion 19:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC) --Ryddragyn 19:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] prototypes

recent privately-developed prototypes , could you present more about these prototypes ? . reg Mion 15:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ovonic is the first hit on google if you search for metal hydride fuel cell. In fact, every hit for the first page or so is either an Ovonic page, or a news release about their prototype MHFC's. I can't find another notable example, but that's sort of to be expected since everything Ovonic does revolves around hydride chemistry. So if you want to get semantic, we should just say prototype in the singular. But like I said, that's passive language. I see no problem with directly mentioning Ovonic, since no one editing the page works for them.
At any rate, if you search their page, there's also a news article they cite which gives more numbers about the current limitations on the prototype's power rating per surface area. We can include that possibly, but given the dynamic nature of research the figures might soon become outdated. The claimed inexpensiveness of the materials also might deserve a mention since they're impressive when compared to PEMFC's.--Ryddragyn 16:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ovonic is the first hit on google and the only one, That is exactly the problem here, a commercial company claims to have a breakthrough, there are no references from other sources, it could be a hoax like water fuel cell, the same problem occurs with An Innovative H2/O2 Fuel Cell Using Molten Hydride Electrolyte (MHFC), they both claim MHFC. i did a rewrite to make it an article about Metal Hydride fuel cells in general, and i don't think so far Ovonic deserves any credits. reg Mion 16:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ovonic is a rather large and reputable company - they were the ones to first invent NiMH rechargeable batteries about 25 years ago. That much is a fact. As someone who works in the sciences, I will agree that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but I think you're being a bit paranoid. The water fuel cell claimed to rewrite the laws of physics and chemistry - this does not.

[edit] new link

You may be required to register, activate a subscription or purchase the article before you can obtain the full text. not really a reference. reg. Mion 19:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a scientific publication from a peer-reviewed journal, and as with any such publication, all the crucial information is in the abstract. As with any publication, of course it requires some process to obtain the full text, but that has never stopped Wikipedia editors from citing BOOKS as references. This link only strengthens this Wiki entry's legitimacy. I think you are trolling rather than being a good devil's advocate.--Ryddragyn 20:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this reference is correct, but your link in the article is going to Elsevier instead of directly to the article, secondly the article is 5 years old, so far all the information is only coming from Ovonic, reg. Mion 20:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand how the age of the article makes it "not a reference". The point of including the publication is to reinforce the legitimacy of the MHFC concept as a whole, as well as to show different approaches to getting the idea to work. The age of the publication is irrelevant as long as A) it provided solid evidence for its hypothesis and B) no other publication has shown evidence to the contrary. That's fundamental to how the scientific community operates.
Secondly, the link on sciencedirect you found goes to Elsevier, which is the publisher of the journal. I've got the full text because I have a science direct subscription through my job. And as I stated before, even someone without a subscription can read the abstract.
Lastly, I've included specific language warranting that advances in MHFC have only been claims, patents, and publications thus far, no actual products. That should clear any ambiguity in the article, and end this silly debate.--Ryddragyn 20:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/e/t/Talk%7EMetal_hydride_fuel_cell_398d.html"