User talk:Nseidm1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!) 2 WP:CIVIL 3 Sigh 4 Image copyright problem with Image:Seriescellelectrolyzerdesign.png 5 Fair use rationale for Image:Oxyhydrogen flame.JPG 6 Image copyright problem with Image:Efficiency.png 7 Image copyright problem with Image:Mileageincrease.png 8 Oxyhydrogen 9 Hydrogen Reformer 10 Orphaned non-free media (Image:Pic-v10-st30-1.jpg) 11 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Efficiency.png 12 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Efficiency.png 13 Origin of long oh- operation 14 Replaceable fair use Image:Lean limit extension.jpg 15 Aquygen info 16 Replaceable fair use Image:Efficiency.png 17 Orphaned non-free media (Image:Efficiency.png) 18 Orphaned non-free media (Image:Mileageincrease.png) 19 Minor edits 20 Chat 21 You've been mentioned at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

[edit] Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

• Be Bold!
• Don't let grumpy users scare you off
• Meet other new users
• Learn from others
• Play nicely with others
• Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
• Tell us about you

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! Yanksox 15:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The article Brown's gas was deleted as a repost of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brown's gas (2nd nomination). Please do not repost it again. If you want a review of the deletion decision, go to Wikipedia:Deletion review. NawlinWiki 18:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CIVIL

You probably did not mean to but you have mistakenly posted a comment referring to a website saying it is mine.[1] Please stop doing this, making absolute inapprapriate and irrelevant comments on my person is not allowed. This is my first and final warning. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

your talk page clearly says "Medicine on the Web my medical site"

<moved here from my talk page> Your profile clearly says "Medicine on the Web my medical site", the connotation is that this is "your medical website". If you do not want to give the impression that this is "my medical website" you should remove the "my" and change it to "a". "My medical website" leads a viewer to believe that this is your medical website which would constitute a conflict of interest on your part that should be brought up in the proper administrator channels for third party involvement. Noah Seidman 14:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand. Whatever I edit, or whatever website I have, or wherever I work is not relevant in the discussion page for medical literature. Neither is it relevant in the DRV on articles with which you have a COI. Please stop introducing my personal life in the debate. That is considered an ad hominem. Thank you. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

<moved here from my page> Your accusation that I have misunderstood the statement on your Profile page is alarming; your rational to determine my COI based on my Profile page is valid, how cannot the exact same rational be used to make a determination about your Profile page?

Give the degree of emerging COI accusations, an attempt to resolve the situations is as follows: I move that if I recuse my edits on the HHO deletion review, and change my opinion to "endorse", you will support the re-creation of a valid, cited, sourced, Brown's Gas article consistent with the parameters of a Encyclopedic work. Noah Seidman 15:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Again you misunderstand the current situation.

1. I do not have a commercial interest in any article I edit. By definition I can't have since I am a physician and simply never financially benefit from whatever wikipedia does. Even from aricles about medicine.
2. Never did I object to the creation of an adequately sourced article on the subject of any gas you might want to. You must have missed my repeated inquiries into what scientific articles from reputable scientific journals that adhere to peer review there are discussing the topic. Either as hoax or as a real entity. In short, provide such a source and I will gladly support such an article. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sigh

You do realize that, by contributing to the deletion discussion, you've made it much more likely that the articles stay deleted? Everyone knows that you have a conflict of interest. Of course this is not binding at all; choose as you wish, but I would personally like it if you stayed out of such discussions. — Omegatron 13:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Seriescellelectrolyzerdesign.png

Thank you for uploading Image:Seriescellelectrolyzerdesign.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 04:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Patent images are usually public domain. Use {{PD-US-patent}} and the bots won't annoy you. — Omegatron 01:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Oxyhydrogen flame.JPG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Oxyhydrogen flame.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 06:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Efficiency.png

Thank you for uploading Image:Efficiency.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Mileageincrease.png

Thank you for uploading Image:Mileageincrease.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oxyhydrogen

[[Image:Mileageincrease.png|thumb|I have questions regarding this table --Pjacobi (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)]]

• When will you be finally finished with editing pager Oxyhydrogen? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have added all the references I currently have access to. Whats on your mind? Noah Seidman (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you please give me some details notably missing and comment on issues I see (not necessaey tro give references for your opinions and observations, we are on a user talk page only).

• General
  • To your knowledge, are the commeercially available oxyhydrogen car modifications using the standard alternator of the car or do they include replacing it with a non-standard (higher rated, higher effincency?) one?
  • Can you give typical values of power used for electrolysis in relation to motor power? Something like "on a 100kW motor, the electrolysis typically draws 80 A at 12 V, roughly 1kW)?
• Specifically regarding the paper SAE Technical paper Series (2002-01-2196) from which the table at the right was drawn:
  • What's φ_h?
  • If φ_h is not the base efficency of the motor, what was the base efficency of the motor?
  • If φ_h is not the Hydrogen percentage in the fuel (0.24 looks much too high), what was the Hydrogen percentage in the fuel? Specify whether the number is by volume, by mass or by energy content
  • Can <ou specifically state, that the paper was about using hydrolised H₂ or are these just the general figures for admixtured H₂, coming e.g. from a second fuel tank?
  • Are you aware whether the paper got any citations, i.e. was mentioned as reference in other science or engineering publications?

--Pjacobi (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The alternator need not be replaced. A standard alternator produces up to 30 amps, which is more than enough current. 10 Amps is more than enough current.

In automotive application a well designed electrolyzer uses 12 Volts, and about 5-10 Amps. About 52-124 watts.

Regarding the journal article φ_h is the hydrogen equivalence ratio. The ratio of hydrogen to gasoline I believe. This is in energy content/mass.

The research was using a hydrogen reformer, which is a device designed to retrieve hydrogen components from gasoline rather than water.

I cannot specifically state much, it appears that I'm the only person purchasing and investigating these SAE articles. Noah Seidman (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You have to read Houseman's article. It specifically says that the energy requirements for electrolysis are accounted for by the increase in overall engine efficiency. I'll add an appropriate citation as soon as a duplicate copy of the article comes in the mail.Noah Seidman (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hydrogen Reformer

Also note that the hydrogen reformer most likely requires electrical energy. Therefore because they reported a decrease in gas consumption, the energy requirements for the hydrogen reformer were well accounted for by the increase in engine efficiency associated with hydrogen fuel enhancement. Noah Seidman (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Pic-v10-st30-1.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Pic-v10-st30-1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 09:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Efficiency.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Efficiency.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Efficiency.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Efficiency.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it may be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 13:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of long oh- operation

Have you seen this Can you explain this without superrelativity ?--83.134.79.71 (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have seen it. It has nothing to do with Brown's Gas. Noah Seidman (talk) 02:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Lean limit extension.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lean limit extension.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 20:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aquygen info

Please discuss with User:Jmurphee in Talk:Oxyhydrogen#Aquygen_info whether or not to include a link to http://aquygen.blogspot.com , rather than an edit war. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Efficiency.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Efficiency.png. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Efficiency.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Efficiency.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Mileageincrease.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Mileageincrease.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Minor edits

You seem to mark all your edits minor. This might be considered somewhat annoying, although you don't seem to abuse it to sneak in controversial edits (like I've seen some people do). The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 04:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I will try and differentiate between minor and major a little better. Noah Seidman (talk) 04:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chat

Question: Isn't Brown's gas produced by electrolysis? (Answer: yes) Every source I can find suggests that electrolysis produces H2 and O2? (Answer: the sources are correct) I thought that monoatomic oxygen is very reactive and bonds immediately (Answer: I never mention monatomic anything; there is no credible evidence for such a claim)

I agree, I guess I dont understand the difference between Brown's Gas and a blend of h2 and o2 in an atomic ratio of 2-1. Also, sorry I forgot to sign questions... Will try to remember to do so... Guyonthesubway (talk) 20:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

(Answer) Brown's Gas is a name. It represents oxyhydrogen (2:1 hydrogen versus oxygen) made in a common ducted electrolyzer. Its the ducting of the electrolyzer that makes it different not the chemistry.

"So Brown's Gas is different than oxyydrogen; on a molecular level" because of the ducting? By ducting do you mean the ducts as in the 'pipes' that collect the gas? Guyonthesubway (talk) 12:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Its an assumption that Brown's Gas is different than oxyhydrogen on a molecular level. Aside from assumptions Brown's Gas is a name representing oxyhydrogen produced in the particular electrolyzer designed by Yull Brown. In a common ducted electrolyzer there is only 1 collection "pipe".

Why would the product differ depending on the capture mechanism? 02 is 02 and H2 is H2 right? As far as I understand it, both are stable gases. Guyonthesubway (talk) 22:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The product doesn't differ. Oxyhydrogen is oxyhydrogen, and a common ducted electrolyzer just ensures an exact 2:1 proportioning. Brown's Gas is a name that represents oxyhydrogen gas production by common ducted electrolyzer design. Noah Seidman (talk) 03:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

So 'Brown's Gas' is simply very accurately mixed O2 and H2? 12.29.38.14 (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Without laboratory equipment, and 3rd party analysis, no other conclusions can be rationalized. Noah Seidman (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

A distinction should be made between the name (Brown's Gas) and the potentially different behavior of oxyhydrogen depending on the conditions of combustion. Oxyhydrogen appears to either implode into liquid water, or explode into vapor depending on conditions; now if that oxyhydrogen were made in a common ducted electrolyzer it would be Brown's Gas. The way you phrase it in the article is spot on. Noah Seidman (talk) 04:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Question: Doesn't this simply prove that water has a higher density than Brown's gas? (Answer: I don't know what it proves; I merely find it interesting) Wouldn't the same thing happen given diatomic hydrogen and oxygen? (Answer: most likely) Didn't you make the claim on your user page that this is one "two tests I have conducted that prove Brown's Gas is slightly different than oxyhydrogen; on a molecular level."? What does this experiment show then? Guyonthesubway (talk) 22:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The experiment was research, which requires subsequent investigation prior to making any firm conclusions. Overall what was observed was potentially different behavior of oxyhydrogen gas depending on combustion conditions; which is consistent with the original statement made in the 1911 Encyclopedia. If different combustion conditions cause oxyhydrogen to burn differently there may be viable applications for varying effects. Noah Seidman (talk) 03:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You do make a strong conclusion there that "Brown's gas is different from oxyhydrogen", without showing the results of oxyhydrogen under the same conditions. Without that test, isn't it be hard to make any conclusion that the results would be different? 12.29.38.14 (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The only rational difference is the design of the electrolyzer. Heres the breakdown; Yull Brown invented the common ducted electrolyzer, which produces oxyhydrogen. In recent years people have attached his name to the design calling the oxyhydrogen Brown's Gas instead. I try and not make firm conclusions to maintain rationality. The only rational statement to make, without access to lab equipment, is the design of the electrolyzer is different; minimizing the term Brown'gas Gas to a label or a kind of brand name. Noah Seidman (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

So then Brown's gas is -not- different on a molecular basis from oxyhydrogen? You've got me a bit confused now...12.29.38.14 (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There is always room for research, but without more concrete evidence strong conclusions cannot be made. My research, and the research of others I still consider preliminary. I post some research to do on my website. Also many statements on my user page were outdated, and have been updated according. Noah Seidman (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

My current understanding is consistent with the 1911 encyclopedia; oxyhydrogen burns differently depending on conditions. If the gas is burning differently there should be associated distinction in chemistry respective to combustion conditions. Noah Seidman (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Question: How is discussion of automotive uses of oxyhydrogen redundant? Its another application, and separate from Brown's gas and Aguygen which are specific examples of companies or production methods? Guyonthesubway (talk) 00:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussing automotive uses itself it not redundant, but electrolysis efficiency, and water fuel car scams attempts is already included in the article. I recommend wikilinking to hydrogen fuel enhancement to separate the topics. Noah Seidman (talk) 00:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You've been mentioned at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Hello Noah. You are welcome to join the discussion there and give your own opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)