User talk:Areil314

 Hello Areil314, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may


 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.
 * Explore Wikiversity with the links to your left.


 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.
 * Follow Wikiversity on twitter (http://twitter.com/Wikiversity) and identi.ca (http://identi.ca/group/wikiversity).

You don't need to be an educator to edit. You only need to be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage. See you around Wikiversity! --Abd 02:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Template
Is Critique of article template intended to be something that is to be repeated on many pages? --HappyCamper 12:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes --Areil314 12:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this might be helpful...for repetitive items on Wikiversity they typically go into the template namespace. Take a look at Template:Critique of article and see if putting on your pages has the effect you are looking for. --HappyCamper 12:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * thanks, I'll try that out today Areil314 12:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Critique of article
I think you should make your changes here Template:Critique of article and not here, because this is the template page you want to edit. --Reder 22:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * thanks, I get it nowAreil314 23:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Controversies in science
I see from your user page and from some old contributions that you have an interest in this. It's a topic that has long interested me, and particularly what is called the "demarcation problem," but also specific controversies. Let me know if you are still interested. There are many possibilities here. There is a substantial resource on Cold fusion, which is a case where popular opinion -- among scientists! -- may differ from what is found in peer-reviewed mainstream journals, say over the last decade, something I find particularly fascinating. Scientists in some cases get their news from the newspaper like anyone else, if they don't read in a field that they consider to have been rejected years earlier. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 20:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd love to have a cold fusion talk with you. I know a little but would like to understand why you feel it's viable. When would you be available? Areil314 (discuss • contribs) 21:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, if by talk you mean on the phone, that can be arranged. Send me an email.


 * As to cold fusion being "viable," that must mean "practical." We do not know, for sure, that cold fusion is practical. Nor, in fact, do we know that for hot fusion. Both are "real." We know what hot fusion is, very well. Reality and viability are not the same thing.


 * Cold fusion is real, we know from confirmed experimental work, but we don't know what it is, that is, what mechanism(s) is or are involved. There are now commercial enterprises claiming to have some kind of apparently low-energy nuclear reaction, in devices under development, but this is highly controversial. The patent situation with cold fusion is such that these companies cannot disclose their IP, because it's not protected. (That's all a part of the "Scientific fiasco of the century," as the skeptic Huizenga called it. The Patent Office, since very early on -- before investigation had been adequate -- considered cold fusion "impossible," i.e., any device claiming to be based on the discoveries of Pons and Fleischmann could not possibly work, like perpetual motion. That can be overcome with a working device, but, then, patent officials have refused to examine devices claimed to be working. After all, "nuclear" blah blah. Even though these devices clearly do not generate significant radiation.)


 * The pseudoskeptics think that everyone involved is blinded by dreams of limitless energy, which is a radical mischaracterization of what actually happend. This was basic research, attempting to confirm the expectations of the researchers that any deviation from the standard predictions of quantum mechanics, based on approximation necessary for the complex environment of the solid state ("condensed matter", which is very cold by comparison with hot fusion plasma), would be below experimental ability to measure. They were wrong. They were not nuclear physicists, and they made certain errors, but nobody's perfect! Their basic findings showing anomalous heat were confirmed hundreds of times. And something very specific and predictable, discovered in 1991 -- and also not expected -- has also been confirmed. The heat results are chaotic, but not the correlation of heat with helium. It's reliable and predictable, and the value is consistent with the value for deuterium fusion to helium. That does not mean that the reaction is d+d -> He-4, but that it likely starts with deuterium and ends with helium.


 * That, in a nutshell, is why I accept (not "believe") that cold fusion is real. The specific effect discovered was chaotic and extremely difficult to control, thus difficult to replicate. But it was done.


 * Our cold fusion resource is also a bit chaotic, it needs work! But the work will be done. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 22:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I'll email you through the Wikiversity interface. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 00:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * How do I get email through the Wikiversity interface? Areil314 (discuss • contribs) 01:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You check your email, that is, the email you used when you registered and agreed to accept email. I have now sent you an email.


 * You apparently did enable email, because I see "Email this user" on the left, and if I click on it, an edit screen pops up. If the address is obsolete, fix that and send me an email! (You can still send me a mail with an obsolete address, but then, I won't have a usable email address to respond to! --Abd (discuss • contribs) 02:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Files Missing Information
Thanks for uploading files to Wikiversity. All files must have source and license information to stay at Wikiversity. The following files are missing and/or License tags, and will be deleted if the missing information is not added. See Uploading files for more information.


 * File:Irish Fluoridation.jpg

MaintenanceBot (discuss • contribs) 15:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)