Talk:Oxhydroelectric effect

sigh... this is mostly Woo -- do a little study on your onw -

- and, No, anything by Pollack et al. is NOT "study, it is a trip into the fantasy land of half-truths and misunderstanding

What is my Source? My background in Navy Nuclear Power, which, as you should have already guessed, involves a deep study of... WATER 147.253.241.225 (talk) 13:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concern, and your deep studies on water. However, there is a better criterion to tell if something is Science or not, which is Scientific Literature.

I have added references to three independent publications which cite the seminal research. Those three articles are published on peer reviewed journals which have impact factors in the Q1 and Q2 quartiles of their respective fields, as per the SCIMAGO (Elsevier) indexing service.

Therefore, I have removed the template mentioning pseudoscience.

About the self-promotion, I am not sure of the reason for that concern, maybe the proponent may articulate this concern. Oakwood (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

this is not science

I simply ask the removal of this page since it has no scientific background. 109.53.187.226 (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please substantiate your request and your statement. In particular, the statement that "this page has no scientific background" is conflicting with the fact that there are several scientific publications supporting it, among which three articles published on peer reviewed journals with impact factors in the Q1 and Q2 quartiles of their respective fields, as per the SCIMAGO (Elsevier) indexing service. So either you provide some other publications, of equivalent scientific relevance, which present evidence disproving the effect, or your claim sounds rather weak. Oakwood (talk) 14:11, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]