983:
containing a partially ionized hydrogen gas at a fraction of $ 1 bar$ pressure traversed by an electric arc with $ 5 J$ energy and microwaves with $ 10^{10} s^{-1}$ frequency. The experiment remained unverified for decades due to the lack of theoretical understanding of the results. In this note we report various measurements showing that, under certain conditions, electric arcs within a hydrogen gas produce neutral, hadron-size entities that are absorbed by stable nuclei and subsequently result in the release of detectable neutrons, thus confirming Don Borghi's experiment. The possibility that said entities are neutrons is discussed jointly with other alternatives. Due to their simplicity, a primary scope of this note is to stimulate the independent re-run of the tests as conducted or in suitable alternative forms.
1069:
stoles things from people, but has notority, has articles published about him in
Knowledge (XXG), while an article about a scientist, who made an important experiment published in an important journal of Physics, cannot be kept in Knowledge (XXG), because the experiment is not seen with good eyes by the scientific community, since the experiment defies the dogams in which the theorists believe. So, because the scientifc community neglects Don Borghi's experiment, and by this reason it cannot get notority, it does not merit to be kept in Wiki pages. So, from the statements of Knowledge (XXG), it can support notable claims, even if they are not true, but neglects true facts, if they are not notable because there is a conspiracy of the scientific community against facts that threaten their interests.
1392:. Because if at that time you believed that the article does not suit the Wiki standard, you will not waste your time editing it, because nobody wastes his time with a thing that he belives do not have merit. I understand that you suffered influence of the person that posted several templates in the article, and claimed that it needed citations. After all, it makes no sense to waste time with something that merits to be deleted (if should be your opinion at that time).
1361:
pages you've started are all geared around presenting your theory to the world. But
Knowledge (XXG) is not a place to advertise something to make it notable. It is, instead, an encyclopedia of all things notable. Your theory to date has not gained notability either inside the Cold Fusion community or in the general scientific community at large. Strip away your theory and there isn't much there that justifies keeping the page.
1331:
1989 DoE panel said: "Nuclear fusion at room temperature, of the type discussed in this report, would be contrary to all understanding gained of nuclear reactions in the last half century; it would require the invention of an entirely new nuclear process". Current understanding of conventional "hot" nuclear fusion shows that the following explanations are not adequate: (a long list comes after this text).
71:
1195:
years, but he failed because the evidence was against him. There is no Grand Cabal of
Physicists deliberatly trying to delete your pages on Knowledge (XXG) to hide 'the truth'. Knowledge (XXG) is not a scientific journal, we can't really evaluate the value of new research or theories. Also since this is an encyclopedia it should only carry notable entries. Note that Wiki does have a page on
898:(it's a standard experiment using scientific process, QED, original research), and ultimately boils down to a recourse on this experiment. Knowledge (XXG), unfortunately, is not the place for this - we strive to be an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia is not the repository for publication of scientific experiments. --
1940:
oblige via judicial the two universities to perform the Don Borghi’s experiment in their laboratories. Unfortunatelly the judge did not give to the
Brazilian Constitution the respect that it merits, and he considered that my request had not judicial support to oblige the two universities to perform the experiment.
1890:
a) For if Don Borghi’s experiment is correct, the theory from which Dr. ‘t Hooft awarded the Nobel has been developed on the basis of doubtful principles. But he cannot believe that his theory can be under the shadow of any suspiction. Then it’s obvious that he is sure that Don Borghi’s experiment
993:
No university or any academic physicist in the world wants to repeat the Borghi's experiment, since it defies the foundations of QM. After its publication by the
American Journal of Physics in 1993, as punishment the journal was lowered in its category. That was an admonition to other editors: they
1330:
Cold fusion's most significant problem in the eyes of many scientists is that current theories describing conventional "hot" nuclear fusion cannot explain how a cold fusion reaction could occur at relatively low temperatures, and that there is currently no accepted theory to explain cold fusion. The
982:
Following
Rutherford's 1920 historical hypothesis of the neutron as a compressed hydrogen atom in the core of stars, the laboratory synthesis of the neutron from protons and electrons was claimed in the late 1960 by the Italian priest-physicist Don Carlo Borghi and his associates via a metal chamber
656:
the experiment is not notable, though some searching on databases of academic journals showed that some of its results have been independently verified in reproduced conditions. Besides the experiment's lack of notability, the article concerns itself will all manner of implications outside the scope
1843:
Concerning the question of the science’s development, there is interest to repeat the Don Borghi’s experiment, in order to discover definitivelly if its results are correct. Because if Don Borghi’s experiment is confirmed, the current theories of
Physics must be changed. Therefore for the science
1536:
It was speedily tagged yes, but it's hard to disagree with it. The article does need a great deal of work on it and might be a candidate for deletion itself. It reads very much like an advert for your book and it attacks a rival publication and it's done in a very similar style to all your previous
1360:
One small problem with that. That block of text doesn't fulfill the need for a citation. All you need is a link to an a website independent of you that shows your assertion is supported elsewhere. However, the greater problem of your page remains (just as it did for the other ones you started). The
1288:
What is notable in the realm of
Physics ? Don Borghi is known by many physicists, in spite they neglect it, because they dont want to change the principles of Quantum Mechanics, as required from the results of the experiment. So, within the scientific community the experiment has notability. The
1181:
Alberon, you cannot forget that even among the Wiki members there are persons (probably physicists) interested to hide some facts that they want people do not know. And sure that these persons will try a strong attempt for deleting any article that they consider to threaten the current theories of
1194:
That is nonsense. Just look at the history of physics throughout the 20th
Century. Time and time again, the established order was overturned when new observations showed the then current theory was flawed. Peer Review works very well. Einstein hated Quantum Mechanics and tried to shoot it down for
1068:
Alberon, I think
Knowledge (XXG) would have to promote the truth, independently of the fact either that truth is notable, or not, when such a truth is supported by strong proofs, as it is the case of a scientific experiment published in a scientifc peer review journal. Interestingly, a rober that
431:
Argumentative essays are most often used to address controversial issues - i.e. serious issue over which there is some evident disagreement. An argument is a position combined with its supporting reasons. Argumentative papers thus set out a main claim and then provide reasons for thinking that the
1939:
As a judicial support, I used the Brazilian Constitution, which prescribes that any university must promote the science’s development. So, as the Don Borghi’s experiment is of the science’s interest (as explained in the item 1 above), then I used such an argument, trying to convince the judge to
1904:
b) But many theorists (like R. M. Santilli of the Institure for Basic Research) have interest to verify the experiment, because they think that there are some troubles with the prevailing theories. And if Don Borghi’s experiment is verified and confirmed, their suspiction will be confirmed too:
1424:
I tried to edit it so that it became a viable page. If I had succeeded then I would have come here and changed my vote. If you can make any of the pages you start viable I'd be happy to defend them. Frankly, I don't agree that the article isn't in need of any more editing and I'm quite certain it
727:
b) ...and as Don Borghi's experiment, if verified requires to change the foundations of Quantum Mechanics, then it obvious that the experiment is not notable because the physicists undertake all the efforts to avoid the experiment become notable. THIS IS CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE
1317:
The text bellow is repeated several times in the article, because somebody was asking "citation needed", in spite of actually it was not needed. That's why I was obliged to incorporate the text several times when the "citation needed" appeared along the text.
499:
Finally, if Toddst tried to say that it is essay in the sence of a original scientific theory, again it does not fit to the article. Because no theory is exposed in the article. It only describes a scientific experiment, and its theoretical implications.
1865:
But there is another reason why the academic theorists do not have interest in repeating Don Borghi’s experiment. It is because they believe that are correct the current theories, and therefore the results of Don Borghi’s experiment cannot be correct.
553:
The article describes a scientific experiment. Where is the original research in here ? It seems that, by missing arguments, some guys repeat what they hear from other people proposing deletion in another situations that however do not fit herein.
1040:
It is no difficult to understand why Don Borghi's experiment has not notability. But of course that the time shall make justice to Don Borghi in the future. And people will ask him perdon, like today they ask perdon to the ashes of Galileo.
1224:? All I see here are a restatement of the abstract, and something akin to saying, "Fools! I'll show them all!". That's not going to win anybody to your side - understanding and utilizing what WP is for, however will. --
1831:
The results of Don Borghi’s experiment, if confirmed in universities, requires the total reformulation of current Theoretical Physics. So, his experiment introduces a conflic of interests in in the realm of Physics, as
825:
1857:
As Don Borghi’s experiment threatens the current theories taught in universities, and the academic theorists want to protect their prevailing theories, there is not interest to confirm the experiment in the
994:
would have to take care on what papers they approve for publication. After that time Don Borghi experiment become a tabu. There is not publication of papers in peer review journals confirming its results,
1699:. Knowledge (XXG) isn't here to reveal suppressed theories. However, I must admit that I'm not sure why this would be suppressed. Is there some reason why the mainstream physics community would want to? --
934:, the repository of Don Borghi's experiment is the American Journal of Physics, where his paper has been published in 1993. Here there is only a short description of the experiment, and its implications
1162:
Only the truth changes the world. World is changed only by spreading the truth. That's why so many worry to face the truth, because the truth can change their way of life, based on trying to keep lies.
2119:
1165:
Other way to help to keep lies is by trying to hinder the truth to appear. It's another way of trying do not allow the world to change. Which obviously is contrary to the Knowledge (XXG) slogan
241:
2108:
had previously contacted physics labs in the USA, Europe, Russia and China asking them to test the possibility of a synthesis of neutrons from protons and electrons (Don Borghi's experiment),
187:
458:
are exhibited arguments suported by the mathematics. I can accept Toddst argument if he proves that the mathematics in the article is wrong. Otherwise his argument is unacceptable
78:
2112:. Hence the experiment, which is extremely simple and can be repeated by practically any reasonably well equipped researcher, was performed at the Florida laboratory of Santilli's
841:
48:. I think more text has been written at this AfD than in the source material available on this subject, and in all the shouting, that concern simply has not been addressed.
1220:? Certainly this is verifiable, but where does this now fall into the scope of what Knowledge (XXG) is for - and vaguely important, where does it fall into the realms of
1537:
Wiki pages. Though the user who created it is Edig2000 rather than you. Please tell me that's not you wearing a sockpuppet to try and slip this new page under the radar.
2120:
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:_EaIm6dj_FMJ:hamdendtdos.jiancss.com/archives/62566/+%22Don+Borghi%27s+experiment%22&hl=pt-BR&ct=clnk&cd=13&gl=br
1918:. My suspiction is supported in theoretical reasons, as happens in the case of Dr. ‘t Hooft. So, we disagree in the way we see the foundations of Modern Physics.
214:
209:
1880:. After all, Dr. ‘t Hooft awarded his Noble Prize with a theory developed on the foundations of the current prevailing theories. And therefore there is a
218:
1289:
experiment has not notability among the laymen, because the midia does not write articles about the experiment, because the physicists do not permit it.
890:). Maybe there's a transwiki to another wiki somewhere, I'm not sure what would qualify as the receptacle for this. I want to make it clear I admire
546:, which results requires an deep reformulation of the principles of Quantum Mechanics, since from QM the Don Borghi's results are IMPOSSIBLE TO OCCUR.
201:
638:
Isn't an experiment original research by definition? Unless there are secondary sources discussing the experiment, I don't see how this is notable.
1926:
That’s why in 2001 I suited in law two Brazilian universites, in order to oblige them to perform the Don Borghi’s experiment in their laboratories
773:, this smacks of original research. If it is not, which is unlikely, it needs references and citations all over to support the many claims made.
693:
says: some searching on databases of academic journals showed that some of its results have been independently verified in reproduced conditions
844:. I'm not sure how this connects to the Borghi article but there seems to be some connection, e.g. reference 7 here is Guglinski's QRT book. —
1101:
645:
1297:, have the wiki users the right to hinder those honest physicists to get knowledge on Don Borghi's experiment in the Knowledge (XXG) pages?
1001:
That sentence, published in my book, said by the Nobel Laureate Dr. t'Hooft, he said it to me, when we had a discussion by the internet: “
657:
of the experiment that appear to be pure original research. Also my source puts the date of the experiment in the 1960's, not the 1980's.
87:
1321:
However, for the elegancy of the article, we would rather to eliminate sucth text, and to replace it by a note, or something like that.
2130:
1350:
1045:
507:
256:
117:
1009:
Of course Dr. t'Hooft could claim that he did not say it. So, he could suit me in law. But in such a case the people would ask him:
432:
claim is true. Acknowledging opposing views and either refuting them or conceding to them is a common practice in this form of essay.
17:
1346:
1324:
I dont want to do it, because it's possible somebody will claim again "citation needed". So, I ask somebody to solve the question.
1054:
So at least you accept the experiment is not notable at the moment. If that changes in the future then the page can be recreated.
1237:
911:
1482:
103:
2148:
2026:
1703:
1621:
1606:
1590:
1541:
1522:
1508:
No, it isnt. Actually Jj237 did not read the article, and did not appraised it. He read only its title, and when he saw
1460:
1429:
1412:
1396:
1365:
1301:
1273:
1253:
1241:
1203:
1186:
1169:
1104:
1073:
1058:
938:
915:
866:
848:
832:
801:
796:
ANSWER: The "citation needed" was provided to the article, and it is now according to the Knowledge (XXG) quality standard
777:
755:
664:
648:
615:
610:
ANSWER: The "citation needed" was provided to the article, and it is now according to the Knowledge (XXG) quality standard
591:
558:
520:
54:
2113:
724:
a) As there are some searching of academic journals showing that some of its results have been independently verified...
2163:
1676:
and external coverage of the subject, and it doesn't appear that this essay has either from the look of the article. —
1456:", this means that you recognize that there is some merit in the article. Then let us try to become it a viable page.
579:
and external coverage of the subject, and it doesn't appear that this essay has either from the look of the article. —
36:
503:
I would rather say that essay is the Toddst attemp in proposing the deletion of the article with a so poor argument
1090:, which states that "The threshold for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) is verifiability, not truth." Our policy page
1087:
205:
76:
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
1652:
1098:
683:
642:
149:
2162:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
543:
489:
455:
299:
248:
This is an essay and an attempt to further the author's research, and is not suitable for Knowledge (XXG) as
197:
60:
1505:
So, Jj237 read the article in less than one minute, and concluded that it requires cleanup. Is it possible?
1034:
and in such case he confesses that I wrote the truth. Therefore there would be no reason to suit me in law.
1334:
1091:
133:
107:
2144:
1615:
1386:"Edited in an attempt to remove bias in favour of Cold Fusion. Original point 3 had to be totally deleted"
1893:
So there are hard reasons why Dr. ‘t Hooft doesn’t want to see such experiment verified in any university
92:
2126:
2022:
1683:
1342:
586:
1871:
There is much more wrong with n=p+e, but most of all the fact that the ‘experimental evidence’ is phony
1003:
There is much more wrong with n=p+e, but most of all the fact that the ‘experimental evidence’ is phony
2122:
2018:
1618:
1587:
1519:
1457:
1409:
1393:
1338:
1298:
1183:
1166:
1070:
1042:
935:
891:
798:
752:
612:
555:
504:
302:, because the article describes a scientific experiment, and not a personal view point of the author.
1649:
1233:
1199:
even though the vast majority of researchers think the evidence is against cold fusion taking place.
1095:
931:
907:
680:
639:
686:
says: Unless there are secondary sources discussing the experiment, I don't see how this is notable.
845:
1696:
1573:) because they present two different views concerning the future revolution in physics (this is a
1518:. And shows that there is a conspiracy of some users, although everybody claim that there is not
1487:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Quantum_Ring_Theory_at_Temple_University&action=history
1377:
It's funny that you was the first one to improve the article, as we see in the article's history
361:
3- These theoretical implications are based on arguments supported by mathematical calculations.
139:
70:
49:
1598:
This should be continued on the discussion page for this new page, but the Conflict of Interest
951:
Confirmation of Don Borghi's experiment on the synthesis of neutrons from protons and electrons
2140:
1269:
and what is left is an unsalvageable, badly written, POV article on a non-notable experiment.
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
2105:
1700:
1677:
1249:
before this guy turns the AfD into yet another iteration of "War and Peace - The Textbook".
580:
1599:
1221:
405:
So, it no fits to the article, because it is expository, but it does not include narrative
1553:
Please show where is the attack. Did I claim that the rival book is wrong? No, I didn't.
1225:
1014:
Well, then are you agree that is correct the result obtained by Don Borghi's experiment ?“
899:
1673:
1217:
996:
but there is not either any publication of experiment claiming that the results are wrong
895:
894:'s passion, and certainly acknowledge Mr. Borghi's work. Problem is that this hedges on
859:
576:
572:
249:
2139:
per nom. And given the above, perhaps watch for re-creation, requiring a new deletion.
1658:
1270:
748:
711:
690:
659:
496:, and to attain themselves to the subject of discussion, which is the present article.
1213:
925:...and an encyclopedia is not the repository for publication of scientific experiments
516:: Poorly sourced original research. In this case the COI has caused some problems. -
1266:
986:
492:, and not any other further author's research. The opponents to the article must be
1667:
1603:
1538:
1446:
1426:
1362:
1295:(but they dont know it because the experiment is not mentioned in the universities)
1200:
1055:
863:
517:
253:
167:
155:
123:
1602:
is obvious. You say the book you wrote is right and the book they wrote is wrong.
1379:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Don_Borghi%27s_experiment&action=history
862:. The experiment clearly fails the notability test anyway. So the page has to go.
283:
a) An essay is a piece of writing, usually from an author's personal point of view
235:
102:
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
1666:
The experiment clearly fails the notability test anyway. So the page has to go.
1262:
1250:
1196:
883:
829:
774:
742:
3) Also my source puts the date of the experiment in the 1960's, not the 1980's.
1408:
I already edited the article, and it is according to Wiki quality standard now
1891:
is wrong, and Dr. ‘t Hooft supports his conviction in his theoretical views.
1293:
If there are honest physicists who could be interested to know the experiment
1086:
Your analysis is more or less accurate. You may want to read our policy page
1116:"The threshold for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) is verifiability, not truth."
571:
Half of the information in the article is unsourced and should be removed as
1390:
So, at that time you had an opinion different of this one that you have now
1439:
Frankly, I don't agree that the article isn't in need of any more editing
789:
it needs references and citations all over to support the many claims made
1485:
was posted at 00:19 , 15 November, as we see in the article's history:
824:, 4 hits on Google Scholar for Don Borghi's experiment, one penned by
488:
This is a speculation. What is under analysis in here is the article
1616:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Quantum_Ring_Theory_at_Temple_University
858:
At best, the second half of the article has to go as it is totally
1905:
that is, there are indeed serious troubles in Theoretical Physics.
1869:
That’s why the Nobel Laureate in Physics Gerardus ‘t Hooft said: “
1844:
the experiment’s confirmation, or not, has a fundamental interest.
2156:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1987:
But the academic physicists undertake very hard efforts in order
2087:
ISN'T DON BORGHI'S EXPERIMENT NOTABLE IN THE REALM OF PHYSICS ?
575:. If this was a truly notable subject, the article would have
358:
2- it describes the theoretical implications of the experiment
65:
1276:(not a member of the Grand Cabal of Physicists ... or am I ?)
1159:
Sure that not by spreading lies. Lies dont change the world.
1994:
do not allow that such notability of Don Borghi’s experiment
1672:
If this was a truly notable subject, the article would have
96:(agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments,
1878:
So, Dr. ‘t Hooft bets that Don Borghi’s experiment is wrong
1025:
however he would be agree to the results of the experiments
842:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Quantum Ring Theory
86:
among Knowledge (XXG) contributors. Knowledge (XXG) has
1449:, then please tell us what you think needs more editing.
268:
Let's see what Knowledge (XXG) tells us about "essays":
1486:
1378:
231:
227:
223:
1928:. They are: the Federal University of Minas Gerais-
1282:
not a physicist defines what is a notable experiment:
603:
Half of the information in the article is unsourced
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1967:As conclusion, Don Borghi’s experiment is notable
1454:I tried to edit it so that it became a viable page
1291:But is Knowledge (XXG) devoted to the layman only?
987:http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006physics...8229S
473:2) ...an attempt to further the author's research
2166:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1736:ON THE NOTABILITY OF THE DON BORGHI’S EXPERIMENT
1156:How can someone, or something, change the world?
542:My God, is it a joke? the article describes the
1023:He answers YES, and so I would be saying lies,
454:So, it does not fit to the article, because in
1148:YOU can help Knowledge (XXG) change the world
1932:, and the Federal University of Juiz de Fora-
1916:I bet that Don Borghi’s experiment is correct
188:Articles for deletion/Don Borghi's experiment
116:Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
8:
958:Publication: eprint arXiv:physics/0608229
335:So, it no fits to the article , since it is
387:c) while expository, they can also include
90:regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
1799:Don Borghi’s experiment becoming notable
1261:- strip out the parts already covered in
973:Bibliographic Code: 2006physics...8229S
1483:Quantum Ring Theory at Temple University
882:, with a possible merge and redirect to
110:on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
1794:Why the academic theorists do not allow
1425:will be deleted if left in that state.
1019:Dr. Hooft would have two alternatives:
355:1- it describes a scientific experiment
317:b) Essays are non-fictional but often
185:
1569:2- The two books are rival (this is a
1547:...and it attacks a rival publication:
967:Keywords: Physics - General Physics
674:1) CONFLICT BETWEEN SECONDARY SOURCES:
699:THEREFORE THE SECONDARY SOURCES EXIST
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1855:The interest of academic theorists :
1563:1- There are two books - this is a
1495:And at 00:20, 15 November the user
955:Authors: Santilli, Ruggero Maria
751:, please put your sources in here.
184:
2110:but had been consistently rejected
1137:Look at what a beautyful sentence:
1027:. And he dont want to confess it.
24:
1648:I don't see how this is notable.
69:
2001:leak to the knowledge of people
1695:: This isn't notable per AS of
1512:he quickly posted the template.
1212:So where are the arguments for
970:Comment: 12 pages, 3 figures
1657:the experiment is not notable
298:So, it no fits to the article
1:
2149:03:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
2131:02:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
2027:00:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
1704:03:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
1622:17:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
1607:14:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
1591:14:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
1542:13:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
1523:13:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
1461:00:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
1430:13:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
1413:12:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
1397:12:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
1366:10:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
1351:01:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
1302:03:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
1274:15:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
1254:08:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
1242:16:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
1204:09:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
1187:01:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
1170:07:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
1105:02:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
1088:Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability
1074:01:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
1059:00:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
1046:23:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
939:00:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
916:19:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
867:10:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
849:16:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
833:09:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
802:00:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
778:08:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
756:00:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
665:07:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
649:06:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
616:00:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
592:05:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
559:05:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
521:04:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
508:05:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
257:02:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
106:on the part of others and to
55:07:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
2114:Institute for Basic Research
961:Publication Date: 08/2006
1556:Actually the article shows
1327:The text is the following:
1222:what Knowledge (XXG) is not
840:for more by Guglinski, see
2183:
1182:Physics that they defend.
1094:may assist you as well. --
1092:Knowledge (XXG):Notability
59:
1841:The interest of Science :
1216:? Where did you put the
2159:Please do not modify it.
532:Poorly sourced??????????
32:Please do not modify it.
1977:in the realm of Physics
1882:conflict of interests:
896:being original research
551:original research ?????
544:Don Borghi's experiment
490:Don Borghi's experiment
456:Don Borghi's experiment
426:- Argumentative essays
300:Don Borghi's experiment
198:Don Borghi's experiment
148:; accounts blocked for
118:single-purpose accounts
88:policies and guidelines
61:Don Borghi's experiment
1406:Dont need help anymore
710:2) WHAT WE INFER FROM
263:1) This is an essay...
183:AfDs for this article:
1581:Where is the attack
1510:Quantum Ring Theory
100:by counting votes.
79:not a majority vote
1585:Please show me !!!
1560:only, as follows:
1501:marked for cleanup
1499:edited a template
420:d) Academic essays
1614:it's answered in
1516:This is vandalism
1383:where you wrote:
1353:
1337:comment added by
573:original research
181:
180:
177:
104:assume good faith
53:
2174:
2161:
2106:Ruggero Santilli
1686:
1680:
1332:
1229:
1228:Dennis The Tiger
1218:reliable sources
964:Origin: ARXIV
903:
902:Dennis The Tiger
892:user:W.GUGLINSKI
589:
583:
239:
221:
175:
163:
147:
131:
112:
82:, but instead a
73:
66:
52:
34:
2182:
2181:
2177:
2176:
2175:
2173:
2172:
2171:
2170:
2164:deletion review
2157:
1684:
1678:
1674:reliable source
1227:
1179:One more thing:
1032:He answers NO,
901:
587:
581:
577:reliable source
212:
196:
193:
165:
153:
137:
121:
108:sign your posts
64:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2180:
2178:
2169:
2168:
2152:
2151:
2103:
2102:
2101:
2100:
2099:
2098:
2097:
2096:
2095:
2094:
2093:
2092:
2091:
2090:
2069:
2066:
2064:
2063:
2062:
2061:
2060:
2059:
2058:
2057:
2056:
2055:
2054:
2053:
2052:
2051:
2050:
2049:
2048:
2047:
2046:
2045:
2044:
2043:
2042:
2041:
2040:
2039:
2038:
2037:
2036:
2035:
2034:
2033:
2032:
2031:
2030:
2029:
1991:
1990:
1989:
1984:
1983:
1982:
1981:
1980:
1946:
1944:
1943:
1942:
1941:
1937:
1920:
1919:
1911:
1909:
1908:
1907:
1906:
1899:
1898:
1897:
1896:
1885:
1884:
1864:
1862:
1861:
1860:
1859:
1848:
1847:
1846:
1845:
1834:
1833:
1828:
1827:
1826:
1825:
1824:
1823:
1822:
1821:
1820:
1819:
1818:
1817:
1816:
1815:
1814:
1813:
1812:
1811:
1810:
1809:
1808:
1807:
1806:
1805:
1804:
1803:
1802:
1801:
1796:
1764:
1763:
1762:
1761:
1760:
1759:
1758:
1757:
1756:
1755:
1754:
1753:
1752:
1751:
1750:
1749:
1748:
1747:
1746:
1745:
1744:
1743:
1742:
1741:
1740:
1739:
1707:
1706:
1689:
1688:
1670:
1664:
1655:
1644:
1641:
1638:
1635:
1633:
1632:
1631:
1630:
1629:
1628:
1627:
1626:
1625:
1624:
1567:
1554:
1550:
1549:
1544:
1530:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1513:
1506:
1490:
1489:
1474:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1464:
1463:
1450:
1442:
1441:
1433:
1432:
1416:
1415:
1400:
1399:
1369:
1368:
1315:
1314:
1307:
1305:
1304:
1285:
1284:
1278:
1277:
1256:
1244:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1173:
1172:
1163:
1160:
1157:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1140:
1139:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1077:
1076:
1062:
1061:
1039:
1037:
1036:
1029:
1028:
1018:
1008:
992:
990:
989:
984:
980:
946:
944:
943:
942:
941:
928:
927:
919:
918:
875:
872:
870:
869:
853:
852:
851:
846:David Eppstein
817:
814:
811:
809:
808:
807:
806:
805:
804:
792:
791:
781:
780:
766:
763:
761:
760:
759:
758:
745:
744:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
729:
725:
717:
716:
706:
705:
704:
703:
702:
701:
687:
677:
676:
668:
667:
651:
631:
628:
625:
623:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
606:
605:
595:
594:
564:
562:
561:
540:
539:
538:
537:
536:
535:
524:
523:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
481:
480:
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
452:
451:
450:
449:
448:
447:
446:
445:
444:
443:
442:
441:
440:
439:
438:
437:
436:
435:
434:
433:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
397:
396:
395:
394:
393:
392:
373:
372:
371:
370:
369:
368:
367:
366:
365:
364:
363:
362:
359:
356:
333:
332:
331:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
325:
324:
323:
322:
296:
295:
294:
293:
292:
291:
290:
289:
288:
287:
286:
285:
266:
265:
246:
245:
192:
191:
190:
182:
179:
178:
74:
63:
58:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2179:
2167:
2165:
2160:
2154:
2153:
2150:
2146:
2142:
2138:
2135:
2134:
2133:
2132:
2128:
2124:
2121:
2117:
2115:
2111:
2107:
2089:
2088:
2084:
2083:
2082:
2081:
2080:
2079:
2078:
2077:
2076:
2075:
2074:
2073:
2072:
2071:
2070:
2067:
2028:
2024:
2020:
2017:
2016:
2015:
2014:
2013:
2012:
2011:
2010:
2009:
2008:
2007:
2006:
2005:
2004:
2002:
1999:
1998:
1997:
1996:
1995:
1992:
1988:
1985:
1979:
1978:
1974:
1973:
1972:
1971:
1970:
1969:
1968:
1965:
1964:
1963:
1962:
1961:
1960:
1959:
1958:
1957:
1956:
1955:
1954:
1953:
1952:
1951:
1950:
1949:
1948:
1947:
1938:
1935:
1931:
1927:
1924:
1923:
1922:
1921:
1917:
1914:
1913:
1912:
1903:
1902:
1901:
1900:
1894:
1889:
1888:
1887:
1886:
1883:
1879:
1876:
1875:
1874:
1872:
1867:
1856:
1852:
1851:
1850:
1849:
1842:
1838:
1837:
1836:
1835:
1830:
1829:
1800:
1797:
1795:
1792:
1791:
1790:
1789:
1788:
1787:
1786:
1785:
1784:
1783:
1782:
1781:
1780:
1779:
1778:
1777:
1776:
1775:
1774:
1773:
1772:
1771:
1770:
1769:
1768:
1767:
1766:
1765:
1738:
1737:
1733:
1732:
1731:
1730:
1729:
1728:
1727:
1726:
1725:
1724:
1723:
1722:
1721:
1720:
1719:
1718:
1717:
1716:
1715:
1714:
1713:
1712:
1711:
1710:
1709:
1708:
1705:
1702:
1698:
1694:
1691:
1690:
1687:
1681:
1675:
1671:
1669:
1665:
1663:
1660:
1656:
1654:
1651:
1647:
1646:
1645:
1642:
1639:
1636:
1623:
1620:
1617:
1613:
1610:
1609:
1608:
1605:
1601:
1597:
1594:
1593:
1592:
1589:
1586:
1582:
1579:
1578:
1576:
1572:
1568:
1566:
1562:
1561:
1559:
1555:
1552:
1551:
1548:
1545:
1543:
1540:
1535:
1532:
1531:
1524:
1521:
1517:
1514:
1511:
1507:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1498:
1494:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1488:
1484:
1480:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1462:
1459:
1455:
1451:
1448:
1444:
1443:
1440:
1437:
1436:
1435:
1434:
1431:
1428:
1423:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1414:
1411:
1407:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1398:
1395:
1391:
1387:
1384:
1380:
1376:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1367:
1364:
1359:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1352:
1348:
1344:
1340:
1336:
1328:
1325:
1322:
1319:
1313:
1310:
1309:
1308:
1303:
1300:
1296:
1292:
1287:
1286:
1283:
1280:
1279:
1275:
1272:
1268:
1267:bubble fusion
1264:
1260:
1257:
1255:
1252:
1248:
1245:
1243:
1239:
1235:
1231:
1230:
1223:
1219:
1215:
1211:
1205:
1202:
1198:
1193:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1185:
1180:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1171:
1168:
1164:
1161:
1158:
1155:
1149:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1138:
1135:
1134:
1117:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1103:
1100:
1097:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1075:
1072:
1067:
1064:
1063:
1060:
1057:
1053:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1044:
1035:
1031:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1016:
1015:
1010:
1006:
1004:
999:
997:
988:
985:
981:
979:
976:
975:
974:
971:
968:
965:
962:
959:
956:
953:
952:
947:
940:
937:
933:
930:
929:
926:
923:
922:
921:
920:
917:
913:
909:
905:
904:
897:
893:
889:
885:
881:
878:
877:
876:
873:
868:
865:
861:
857:
854:
850:
847:
843:
839:
836:
835:
834:
831:
827:
823:
820:
819:
818:
815:
812:
803:
800:
797:
794:
793:
790:
787:
786:
785:
784:
783:
782:
779:
776:
772:
769:
768:
767:
764:
757:
754:
750:
747:
746:
743:
740:
739:
738:
737:
726:
723:
722:
721:
720:
719:
718:
715:
713:
708:
707:
700:
697:
696:
695:
694:
692:
688:
685:
682:
679:
678:
675:
672:
671:
670:
669:
666:
662:
661:
655:
652:
650:
647:
644:
641:
637:
634:
633:
632:
629:
626:
617:
614:
611:
608:
607:
604:
601:
600:
599:
598:
597:
596:
593:
590:
584:
578:
574:
570:
567:
566:
565:
560:
557:
552:
549:
548:
547:
545:
533:
530:
529:
528:
527:
526:
525:
522:
519:
515:
512:
511:
510:
509:
506:
501:
497:
495:
491:
474:
471:
470:
469:
468:
467:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
461:
460:
459:
457:
430:
429:
428:
427:
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
413:
412:
411:
410:
409:
408:
407:
406:
391:
390:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
380:
379:
378:
377:
376:
375:
374:
360:
357:
354:
353:
352:
351:
350:
349:
348:
347:
346:
345:
344:
343:
342:
340:
339:
321:
320:
315:
314:
313:
312:
311:
310:
309:
308:
307:
306:
305:
304:
303:
301:
284:
281:
280:
279:
278:
277:
276:
275:
274:
273:
272:
271:
270:
269:
264:
261:
260:
259:
258:
255:
251:
243:
237:
233:
229:
225:
220:
216:
211:
207:
203:
199:
195:
194:
189:
186:
173:
169:
161:
157:
151:
145:
141:
135:
129:
125:
119:
115:
111:
109:
105:
99:
95:
94:
89:
85:
81:
80:
75:
72:
68:
67:
62:
57:
56:
51:
50:Seraphimblade
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
2158:
2155:
2141:Michaelbusch
2136:
2118:
2109:
2104:
2086:
2085:
2068:
2065:
2000:
1993:
1986:
1976:
1975:
1966:
1945:
1933:
1929:
1925:
1915:
1910:
1892:
1881:
1877:
1870:
1868:
1863:
1858:universites.
1854:
1840:
1798:
1793:
1735:
1734:
1692:
1661:
1643:
1640:
1637:
1634:
1611:
1595:
1584:
1580:
1574:
1570:
1564:
1557:
1546:
1533:
1515:
1509:
1500:
1496:
1481:The article
1478:
1473:
1453:
1452:As you say "
1438:
1421:
1405:
1389:
1385:
1382:
1374:
1357:
1329:
1326:
1323:
1320:
1316:
1311:
1306:
1294:
1290:
1281:
1258:
1247:Speedy close
1246:
1226:
1191:
1178:
1147:
1136:
1115:
1065:
1051:
1038:
1033:
1024:
1017:
1013:
1011:
1007:
1002:
1000:
995:
991:
977:
972:
969:
966:
963:
960:
957:
954:
950:
948:
945:
924:
900:
887:
879:
874:
871:
855:
837:
826:W. Guglinski
821:
816:
813:
810:
795:
788:
770:
765:
762:
741:
714:'S ARGUMENT:
709:
698:
673:
658:
653:
635:
630:
627:
624:
609:
602:
568:
563:
550:
541:
531:
513:
502:
498:
493:
487:
472:
453:
419:
404:
388:
386:
337:
336:
334:
318:
316:
297:
282:
267:
262:
247:
171:
159:
150:sockpuppetry
143:
132:; suspected
127:
113:
101:
97:
91:
83:
77:
45:
43:
31:
28:
2123:W.GUGLINSKI
2019:W.GUGLINSKI
1701:Philosophus
1619:W.GUGLINSKI
1588:W.GUGLINSKI
1520:W.GUGLINSKI
1458:W.GUGLINSKI
1410:W.GUGLINSKI
1394:W.GUGLINSKI
1339:W.GUGLINSKI
1333:—Preceding
1299:W.GUGLINSKI
1263:cold fusion
1197:Cold Fusion
1184:W.GUGLINSKI
1167:W.GUGLINSKI
1071:W.GUGLINSKI
1043:W.GUGLINSKI
936:W.GUGLINSKI
884:Cold Fusion
880:Weak Delete
799:W.GUGLINSKI
753:W.GUGLINSKI
728:EXPERIMENT.
613:W.GUGLINSKI
556:W.GUGLINSKI
505:W.GUGLINSKI
341:, because:
1479:VANDALISM:
1312:Need help:
1214:notability
494:objectives
319:subjective
84:discussion
1697:WP:ARB/PS
1659:Handschuh
1271:Gandalf61
749:Handschuh
712:Handschuh
691:Handschuh
660:Handschuh
389:narrative
338:objective
140:canvassed
134:canvassed
93:consensus
1832:follows:
1375:Alberon,
1347:contribs
1335:unsigned
978:Abstract
949:Title:
242:View log
172:username
166:{{subst:
160:username
154:{{subst:
144:username
138:{{subst:
128:username
122:{{subst:
1679:Save_Us
1668:Alberon
1653:megalon
1612:I agree
1604:Alberon
1596:Comment
1539:Alberon
1534:Comment
1447:Alberon
1427:Alberon
1422:Comment
1363:Alberon
1358:Comment
1201:Alberon
1192:Comment
1099:megalon
1056:Alberon
1052:Comment
864:Alberon
838:Comment
822:Comment
684:megalon
643:megalon
582:Save_Us
518:Rjd0060
254:Toddst1
215:protect
210:history
136:users:
2137:Delete
1693:Delete
1600:WP:COI
1259:Delete
1251:JuJube
1066:Reply:
886:(ergo
856:Delete
830:dr.alf
775:dr.alf
771:Delete
689:While
654:Delete
636:Delete
569:Delete
514:Delete
219:delete
46:delete
1558:facts
1497:Jj137
1238:stuff
912:stuff
860:WP:OR
250:WP:OR
236:views
228:watch
224:links
114:Note:
16:<
2145:talk
2127:talk
2023:talk
1934:UFJF
1930:UFMG
1650:Maxa
1575:fact
1571:fact
1565:fact
1445:Ok,
1388:.
1343:talk
1265:and
1236:and
1234:Rawr
1102:2000
1096:Maxa
932:Rawr
910:and
908:Rawr
888:weak
681:Maxa
646:2000
640:Maxa
252:.
232:logs
206:talk
202:edit
2116:.
1873:”.
1853:2-
1839:1-
1685:229
1583:?
588:229
240:– (
168:csp
164:or
156:csm
124:spa
98:not
2147:)
2129:)
2025:)
2003:.
1577:)
1381:,
1349:)
1345:•
1240:)
1005:”
998:.
914:)
828:.
663:-
234:|
230:|
226:|
222:|
217:|
213:|
208:|
204:|
174:}}
162:}}
152::
146:}}
130:}}
120::
2143:(
2125:(
2021:(
1936:.
1895:.
1682:_
1662:-
1341:(
1232:(
1012:“
906:(
585:_
534:.
244:)
238:)
200:(
176:.
170:|
158:|
142:|
126:|
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
