461:
550:
410:
154:
is the only indispensable reactant in bioluminescence. I have found that there are no other published explanations of these facts, so there is no “scientific consensus” to replace. Again, please check the textbooks and review articles yourself and show us how the “scientific consensus” explains these
640:
I wouldn't focus on the exact wording of a CSD template and instead focus on the G13 criteria...this draft hasn't been edited by a human editor in at least 6 months and therefore is considered abandoned and suitable for deletion. That is the only issue with the draft, that it has been abandoned. If
66:
Honestly, I'm not sure how to proceed here, because
Knowledge's policies clearly mandate the removal of statements that contradict the "assumptions that have commonly been made about chemical energy", where those constitute scientific consensus (and, in particular, because they're not "assumptions"
653:
I do have a question for you though. Why is this discussion on IpseCustos's talk page? They haven't been active for over six months. This is not an appropriate location for a discussion between the two of us. Next time, please come to my talk page or, if it involves policy, start a discussion on a
632:
This is our standard CSD G13 speedy deletion template that we post on User talk pages. I delete around 200 expiring drafts every day and with each one, Twinkle posts this template on the draft creator's talk page. I didn't write the template, it is
Twinkle's default template for G13 deletions.This
28:
based on rigorous, quantitative thermodynamics. Then we can discuss the science here, and get away from the naĂŻve assumptions that have commonly been made about chemical energy. You cannot just look at paper titles and jump to conclusions while lacking the needed expertise or willingness to learn.
670:
Thanks for the clarification Liz. To answer your question, I believe it's appropriate to respond to a comment, including a templated one, by asking for the poster's clarification. If a comment is unclear to me it may also be unclear - and perhaps demoralizing - to IpseCustos. My question was a
47:
consumed has not been derived or explained in any textbook or review article that I am aware of (and I have checked many). Then maybe you will understand why the hundreds of expert
Knowledge editors who have read these statements about chemical energy have let them stand: My analysis of chemical
27:
I am not a crackpot - I am a Fellow of the
American Physical Society and of the American Associat for the Advancement of Science, and a published expert in chemical thermodynamics and chemical energy. Before you continue your deletions, you need to read my papers about chemical energy, which are
645:
and it will be restored. Since you have asked for a draft to be restored, you seem to be familiar with the process. It seems like you mainly have issues with the template so maybe you should suggest that this template be rewritten. This could happen on the template talk page or proposed at
88:
The oxygen theory of combustion and respiration energetics is quantitative science fully within the framework of the laws of thermodynamics and based on a conventional understanding of bond energies; it is not in the least pseudoscience.
43:, please replace them with well-referenced alternative quantitative explanations. I predict that you will fail: Why combustion or aerobic respiration of organic molecules is always exothermic and produces 100 kcal per mole of O
67:
at all but definitions that you chose to deviate from but have offered no replacement for). On the other hand, I would like the additional confirmation that what is being removed isn't just odd science, it's pseudoscience.
506:
97:
makes it a relatively unstable molecule of high chemical energy. The energy released in combustion (or aerobic respiration) of organic molecules is quite strictly (±3%) proportional to the amount of O
490:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose
70:
So I'll have to think, and hope for further input, before deciding how to proceed. If we can find another
Knowledge editor with a strong "conventional" chemistry background, maybe they could help.
242:
In summary, unless you can produce references and evidence to the contrary, you will have to acknowledge that the oxygen theory of combustion and respiration energetics is actually the
475:
197:? Please quote us a meaningful explanation of this fundamental fact from the “scientific consensus” in a textbook or review. I can easily explain that Photosystem II, which splits 2 H
117:
and explains it quantitatively. If you cannot point out such a reference, your assumption of an existing “scientific consensus” regarding chemical energy is proven incorrect.
172:
producing 30 ATP? (Attributing this difference to incomplete decomposition of glucose in fermentation is invalid, because splitting glucose up all the way into 3 CO
603:. I've had this draft on my watchlist for a while and I recently asked for it to be restored. Could you please clarify your comment above about the material being
311:
310:
647:
422:
31:
In any case, if you delete my explanations, e.g. of why plants need two photosystems, of which one is just dedicated to using photon energy to produce O
225:? It is the price they have to pay to get the hydrogen atoms (or protons and electrons, if you prefer) that they need to make organic molecules with CO
334:
63:
First, thanks for writing. I feel the need to point out that I did not at any point accuse you of being a "crackpot". Someone else used that term.
209:. The plant gets energy for itself only from the second photosystem (Photosystem I), where ATP and glucose are produced. Indeed, bacteria using H
109:
O). You refer to “scientific consensus” here, so it should be easy for you to quote a textbook or review article that presents this important
723:
Good to hear from you! Being accused of socking is really, really tough. I can understand wanting a break after something like that. Cheers,
433:
529:
93:
reacting with any of millions of organic molecule releases hundreds of kJ/mol and one can explain why: the relatively weak double bond of O
709:
Please note that I'm not at all married to the idea that we have articles like this one. Deletion is fine by me for the time being...
571:
In accordance with our policy that
Knowledge is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia
732:
690:
641:
an editor wants to work on the draft, even if they aren't the draft creator, they can come to the deleting administrator or to
616:
525:
126:
The statement that oxygen is high in chemical energy is a good summary of the energy release in millions of reactions of O
499:
285:
253:
53:
511:
140:
nearly half of all the energy of aerobic respiration is released without any bonds of an organic molecule being broken
675:
634:
565:
543:
414:
402:
417:, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months
246:
known quantitative theory of combustion and respiration energetics that has explanatory and predictive power.
281:
249:
49:
18:
575:, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can
487:
201:
O into four hydrogen atoms (in the end carried by moderate-energy molecules called plastoquinols) and O
134:
in biochemistry, you can predict that a lot of energy will be released. Examples are the reaction of O
444:
728:
686:
612:
572:
381:
579:. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
323:
184:, and complete decomposition of glucose into 6 formaldehyde molecules releases no energy at all.)
576:
469:
349:
48:
energy is rigorous and scientifically correct; there is no convincing alternative available.
678:
unsuitable for mainspace, I'll give it another check and will probably move it to mainspace.
642:
561:
518:
483:
426:
706:
I had indeed taken an extended break since I was accused of being a sock for a banned user.
498:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
710:
440:
267:
71:
703:
Thank you for your messages and good wishes! (And Liz, thank you for the notifications!)
724:
700:
682:
626:
608:
495:
377:
221:
and therefore need only one photosystem. (Why do plants make and give off high-energy O
557:
491:
418:
371:
365:
263:
233:
O. Since the sun provides the needed energy abundantly, it’s not too high a price.)
460:
354:
681:
IpseCustos, I hope you are well and will return to editing
Knowledge. Take care,
130:
with organic molecules, and it has predictive power: If you see a reaction of O
607:? Was it you who deemed it unsuitable? If yes, what was the problem? Cheers,
656:
600:
584:
556:
Hello, IpseCustos. It has been over six months since you last edited the
413:
Hello, IpseCustos. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that
736:
718:
694:
665:
620:
593:
533:
502:
describes the
Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
448:
409:
385:
289:
275:
257:
79:
57:
479:
are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
330:, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.
24:(this message was originally left on my user page, I moved it here)
205:, uses most of the photon energy to make the high-energy product O
168:
of glucose producing only 2 ATP, but respiration of glucose + 6 O
515:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add
360:
262:
Is it okay for me to quote or link to this response of yours on
146:, where a photon of ~ 200 kJ/mol energy is emitted, which only O
505:
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
473:
is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All
180:
releases only 15% of the energy of glucose combustion with 6 O
582:
Thanks for your submission to
Knowledge, and happy editing.
328:
Any way to contact an editor who might be wasting their time?
548:
39:
is meager compared to that of its aerobic respiration with O
138:
at complex IV of the inner mitochondrial membrane, where
35:, or why the energy yield of glucose fermenting without O
633:
isn't "my"comment, it's how the template is worded (see
486:
is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the
339:
164:
And what is the “scientific consensus” explanation for
368:. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
376:on top of the current page (your user talk page).
605:deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace
111:proportionality of the heat of combustion with O
338:
674:With the understanding that nobody has deemed
432:If the page has already been deleted, you can
8:
637:). Perhaps the template should be rewritten.
439:Thank you for your submission to Knowledge.
421:, so if you wish to retain the page, please
648:Knowledge talk:Criteria for speedy deletion
337:. If you have follow-up questions, please
671:question for you, not a criticism of you.
358:, and this notification was delivered by
105:, after correction for condensation of H
604:
327:
350:help page about the archival process.
7:
470:2022 Arbitration Committee elections
429:that it be moved to your userspace.
454:ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
436:so you can continue working on it.
14:
459:
408:
322:! The thread you created at the
309:
509:and submit your choices on the
280:Yes, that makes sense. Thanks.
101:consumed (418 kJ per mole of O
1:
594:20:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
534:01:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
488:Knowledge arbitration process
449:15:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
302:Your thread has been archived
229:in any environment that has H
335:read the archived discussion
737:16:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
719:20:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
695:13:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
666:05:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
621:19:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
761:
526:MediaWiki message delivery
307:
150:can provide – and indeed O
676:Draft:Energy-rich species
635:Template:Db-draft-deleted
544:Draft:Energy-rich species
415:Draft:Energy-rich species
403:Draft:Energy-rich species
386:19:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
352:The archival was done by
714:
523:to your user talk page.
290:15:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
276:13:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
271:
258:13:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
80:09:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
75:
58:03:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
434:request it be undeleted
19:User:Klaus Schmidt-Rohr
577:request its undeletion
553:
355:Lowercase sigmabot III
193:Or why do plants need
558:Articles for Creation
552:
484:Arbitration Committee
467:Hello! Voting in the
542:Your draft article,
566:Energy-rich species
564:page you started, "
340:create a new thread
654:policy talk page.
554:
500:arbitration policy
401:Concern regarding
366:automated accounts
324:Knowledge:Teahouse
282:Klaus Schmidt-Rohr
250:Klaus Schmidt-Rohr
217:O do not produce O
50:Klaus Schmidt-Rohr
536:
398:
397:
392:
388:
374:|deny=Muninnbot}}
752:
664:
592:
551:
524:
522:
463:
412:
391:
375:
363:
357:
347:
342:
313:
306:
305:
195:two photosystems
760:
759:
755:
754:
753:
751:
750:
749:
655:
583:
549:
547:
539:
538:
516:
464:
456:
406:
394:
393:
369:
359:
353:
304:
232:
228:
224:
220:
216:
212:
208:
204:
200:
183:
179:
175:
171:
153:
149:
144:bioluminescence
137:
133:
129:
114:
108:
104:
100:
96:
92:
46:
42:
38:
34:
22:
12:
11:
5:
758:
756:
748:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
742:
741:
740:
739:
707:
704:
679:
672:
651:
638:
630:
560:submission or
546:
540:
507:the candidates
476:eligible users
465:
458:
457:
455:
452:
419:may be deleted
405:
399:
396:
395:
390:
346:
333:You can still
316:
314:
303:
300:
299:
298:
297:
296:
295:
294:
293:
292:
247:
237:
236:
235:
234:
230:
226:
222:
218:
214:
213:S instead of H
210:
206:
202:
198:
188:
187:
186:
185:
181:
177:
173:
169:
159:
158:
157:
156:
151:
147:
135:
131:
127:
121:
120:
119:
118:
112:
106:
102:
98:
94:
90:
83:
82:
68:
64:
44:
40:
36:
32:
21:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
757:
738:
734:
730:
726:
722:
721:
720:
716:
712:
708:
705:
702:
698:
697:
696:
692:
688:
684:
680:
677:
673:
669:
668:
667:
663:
661:
660:
652:
649:
644:
639:
636:
631:
628:
624:
623:
622:
618:
614:
610:
606:
602:
598:
597:
596:
595:
591:
589:
588:
580:
578:
574:
569:
567:
563:
559:
545:
541:
537:
535:
531:
527:
520:
514:
513:
508:
503:
501:
497:
493:
489:
485:
480:
478:
477:
472:
471:
462:
453:
451:
450:
446:
442:
437:
435:
430:
428:
424:
420:
416:
411:
404:
400:
389:
387:
383:
379:
373:
367:
362:
356:
351:
348:See also the
344:
341:
336:
331:
329:
325:
321:
315:
312:
308:
301:
291:
287:
283:
279:
278:
277:
273:
269:
265:
261:
260:
259:
255:
251:
248:
245:
241:
240:
239:
238:
196:
192:
191:
190:
189:
167:
163:
162:
161:
160:
155:observations.
145:
141:
125:
124:
123:
122:
116:
87:
86:
85:
84:
81:
77:
73:
69:
65:
62:
61:
60:
59:
55:
51:
29:
25:
20:
17:Message from
16:
658:
657:
586:
585:
581:
570:
555:
510:
504:
481:
474:
468:
466:
438:
431:
407:
345:
332:
319:
317:
243:
194:
166:fermentation
165:
143:
139:
110:
30:
26:
23:
512:voting page
115:consumption
711:IpseCustos
496:topic bans
441:FireflyBot
320:IpseCustos
268:IpseCustos
72:IpseCustos
725:Clayoquot
701:Clayoquot
683:Clayoquot
643:WP:REFUND
627:Clayoquot
609:Clayoquot
573:mainspace
492:site bans
425:again or
378:Muninnbot
361:Muninnbot
733:contribs
691:contribs
617:contribs
625:Hello,
519:NoACEMM
427:request
423:edit it
364:, both
264:WP:FTN
176:+ 3 CH
562:Draft
142:, or
729:talk
715:talk
687:talk
613:talk
568:".
530:talk
482:The
445:talk
382:talk
372:bots
286:talk
272:talk
254:talk
244:only
76:talk
54:talk
601:Liz
599:Hi
318:Hi
735:)
731:|
717:)
693:)
689:|
662:iz
619:)
615:|
590:iz
532:)
521:}}
517:{{
494:,
447:)
384:)
370:{{
343:.
326:,
288:)
274:)
266:?
256:)
78:)
56:)
727:(
713:(
699:@
685:(
659:L
650:.
629:,
611:(
587:L
528:(
443:(
380:(
284:(
270:(
252:(
231:2
227:2
223:2
219:2
215:2
211:2
207:2
203:2
199:2
182:2
178:4
174:2
170:2
152:2
148:2
136:2
132:2
128:2
113:2
107:2
103:2
99:2
95:2
91:2
89:O
74:(
52:(
45:2
41:2
37:2
33:2
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
