Observer Sem (talk | contribs) |
ArtifexMayhem (talk | contribs) →Speaking of NASA: No sources |
||
Line 238: | Line 238: | ||
:::::::<blockquote>"Tests conducted at NASA Glenn Research Center and elsewhere consistently show evidence of anomalous heat during gaseous loading and unloading of deuterium into and out of bulk palladium. At one time called “cold fusion,” now called “low-energy nuclear reactions” (LENR), such effects are now published in peer-reviewed journals and are gaining attention and mainstream respectability. The instrumentation expertise of NASA GRC was applied to improve the diagnostics for investigating the anomalous heat in LENR."</blockquote> [[User:Silent Key|Silent Key]] ([[User talk:Silent Key|talk]]) 13:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC) |
:::::::<blockquote>"Tests conducted at NASA Glenn Research Center and elsewhere consistently show evidence of anomalous heat during gaseous loading and unloading of deuterium into and out of bulk palladium. At one time called “cold fusion,” now called “low-energy nuclear reactions” (LENR), such effects are now published in peer-reviewed journals and are gaining attention and mainstream respectability. The instrumentation expertise of NASA GRC was applied to improve the diagnostics for investigating the anomalous heat in LENR."</blockquote> [[User:Silent Key|Silent Key]] ([[User talk:Silent Key|talk]]) 13:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC) |
||
:::::There is no shortage of WP:RS on excess energy, even if you don't like ''J Fusion Technol'', as well as on transmutations and light water reactions: the Biberian (2007) literature review in ''Int J Nuc Energy Sci Tech'' or Storms (2010) in ''Naturwissenschaften'', for example. What is missing is anything which purports to explain the iron in palladium electrode experiments, or any explanation of transmutation to lower atomic numbers in general. Widom-Larsen theory is utterly unable to explain transmutations to lower atomic numbers. [[User:Observer Sem|Observer Sem]] ([[User talk:Observer Sem|talk]]) 14:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC) |
:::::There is no shortage of WP:RS on excess energy, even if you don't like ''J Fusion Technol'', as well as on transmutations and light water reactions: the Biberian (2007) literature review in ''Int J Nuc Energy Sci Tech'' or Storms (2010) in ''Naturwissenschaften'', for example. What is missing is anything which purports to explain the iron in palladium electrode experiments, or any explanation of transmutation to lower atomic numbers in general. Widom-Larsen theory is utterly unable to explain transmutations to lower atomic numbers. [[User:Observer Sem|Observer Sem]] ([[User talk:Observer Sem|talk]]) 14:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC) |
||
::::::Being "Editor in Chief" of the [[WP:FRINGE|fringe]] ''Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science'' makes Biberian useless as a source. Same goes for ISCMNS executive board member and cold fusion researcher Storms) and the web page maintained by a cold fusion proponent (even if it is hosted on a NASA server).<br /> Silent Key: 1) There is absolutely no scientific evidence that "it works". 2) Calling other editors morons is not productive (I'm pretty sure you wouldn't enjoy being called you a fuck-wit). {{mdash}} [[User:ArtifexMayhem|ArtifexMayhem]] ([[User talk:ArtifexMayhem|talk]]) 16:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:07, 6 March 2013
Cold fusion is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 24, 2004. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Mitsubishi replicates Toyota LENR experiment and CERN looking into LENR
http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Renewable-Energy/CERN-Could-be-About-to-Start-Researching-LENR-Following-Recent-Colloquium.html http://ecatnews.com/?p=2179 The pathoskeptics here are ruining Wiki as a reliable source. These guys will be denying LENR even while working in a bulding heated by it ten years from now. The verdict is in but Einsteins on Wiki are still playing hide the mole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.91.70.120 (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- More pseudo-reliable sources. "oilprice.com" is possible, but "... Could be" means it's speculation, and the "original article" at newenergyandfuel.com is not at all reliable unless the authors are experts who have published papers in reviewed reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- To quote the "about" page at newenergyandfuel.com: "The site’s mission is to inform, stimulate, amuse and abuse the news and views across the emerging field of energy and fuels in our future." (emphasis added.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Take it easy 198.91.70.120 ("pathoskeptics here")! By necessity, physicists dominate as editors in physics topics in Wikipedia, and from some physicist culture outside they've gotten a sceptic negativity culture, only to be balanced by physicist-sceptics on Wikipedia. There are bysantinized sciences today too, (no scientific development, everybody only defending their academic territory), but it is currently likely the bysantinization will be broken up. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 08:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- That makes even less sense than 198.91.70.120's comments. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The Francesco Celani Replication project.
For those interested , this is a day by day account of a group of enthusiasts replicating the Celani experiment. Day by Day progress since October This contains a very detailed day by day account of what is taking place. All experiments that are in a running state have live data output that can be followed online. It has to be said this replication is done by a 3rd party of albeit enthusiasts. Nobody is claiming this is something more than that. It is however, in the very least worthy of some discussion. Please refrain from commenting before actually reading up on it. 83.101.79.97 (talk) 03:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hello, actually, Wikipedia is not a forum, so except if there is a specific change to the article that you are proposing, there is absolutely nothing to discuss here.--McSly (talk) 04:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes , let's make sure any talks about this subject get removed . We should start a club. Let's call it "The Everything I don't understand doesn't exist Club" Or the "Stuff I don't understand scares me Club" . This is not a forum , no. This also isn't Bible Camp. 49.50.248.2 (talk) 05:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- It is relevant to the progress of finding independent 3rd party sources to make adding Celani's work to the main article possible. It also creates a context for people that are unaware of today's changes in cold fusion research. We are past the "heavy water" era of the nineties. Discussing the possibility of adding a new aspect of cold fusion to the main article before doing so is the right thing to do. 83.101.79.97 (talk) 05:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- It might be relevant to editing the article. If the group is successful, and their success is commented on by reliable sources, it might provide information for the article. However, their blog/log is not relevant to editing the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Let's just say it's relevant enough for a talk page. Their effort warrants some light. An argument some parties keep having is that all cold fusion experimentation takes place is closed environments , and nobody has access to details or results , just vague fantastical claims. This replication project is proof that it isn't always so and can be used as a reference to that. 83.101.79.97 (talk) 06:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- It might be relevant to editing the article. If the group is successful, and their success is commented on by reliable sources, it might provide information for the article. However, their blog/log is not relevant to editing the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Fleischmann and Pons did not assert
no edit here, just talk |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Statements in the article saying that Fleischmann and Pons "asserted (the anomalous heat) would defy explanation except in terms of nuclear processes" and "never retracted their claims, but moved their research program to France after the controversy erupted" imply that they were asserting the reality of cold fusion, but as this KSLTV Interview makes plain, they were much more measured and merely raised it as a possibility. The anomalous heat itself was probably an objective fact, and is perhaps explainable by Widom-Larsen theory. Silent Key (talk) 08:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
@ LeadSongDog: I'd get enough agreement. @ Enric Naval: You seem to have misunderstood. Nobody denies that they "asserted (the anomalous heat) would defy explanation except in terms of nuclear processes". I'm objecting to the fact that this statement is packaged with the later statement "never retracted their claims...", with both these statements being placed in an article titled "cold fusion", the implication being that they should have retracted an assertion about cold fusion. "Nuclear processes" is not a synonym of "cold fusion". Their formal statements in the academic literature were properly cautious, and mention of fusion was suggestive not assertive, so there was nothing to retract there. And in the press conference they were informally stating their personal opinion in response to questions, so no retraction was necessary there either, just as Michio Kaku isn't expected to issue retractions for his constant speculations. Silent Key (talk) 14:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
The support in that article is the words. That's because the words tell you that a new theory of physics - Widom-Larsen Theory - predicts that an experimental set-up of the kind that Fleischmann and Pons used could indeed produce heat by a nuclear process, and that there is experimental support for this theory in observations of neutrons from thunderstorms. The words also tell you that the theory has motivated a NASA-CERN tie-in to research it. So Fleischmann's and Pons's claim that the heat was an objective fact, though still far from proven, is no longer improbable. Ergo, it's probable. Silent Key (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
@ LeadSongDog: With respect, I'll try to get this into your cranium again. From the outset I've used important qualifier words - "probably", "probable", "perhaps", "could", "claim", "far from proven" - to show that it was NOT the same as a straightforward, uncontroversial case of “objective fact”. But you insist on ignoring those qualifiers each and every time I use them. That's how you're arriving at a "novel definition". @ Enric Naval: But that's just it - there ARE scientists who've been saying for a quarter of a century that they HAVE observed it, even without the thunderstorm neutrons evidence that you strangely passed over. That's why W&L felt it necessary to theorise about it, and why NASA (yes, that really is NASA, as this NASA presentation proves) and CERN scientists are testing it. The article you cite contains the statement: "Any new theory is verified or falsified by predicting new results. If the new results are actually observed then we in fact have a valid theory. If not, it is back to the drawing board." The thunderstorm neutrons ARE the new results, so you're just making my point for me. Silent Key (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
|
Speaking of NASA
I believe these are both new over the past two weeks:
- "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, the Realism and the Outlook" by Dennis Bushnell, Chief Scientist, NASA Langley Research Center. NASA Future Innovation (date??)
- "The nuclear reactor in your basement" By Bob Silberg, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. NASA Global Climate Change (February 13, 2013)
Observer Sem (talk) 09:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, some scientists at NASA think that cold fusion is worth researching. Some scientists managed to hide some research inside research programs that were focused in something else (someone posted in this page NASA's research budget, and one of the programs had a bullet with a description that fitted cold fusion, maybe a program for space propulsion)
The problem is, NASA is not allocating any funding for any dedicated program.--Enric Naval (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Scratch that. The Langley Research Center (not "NASA" in general, just this center) has had a "LENR" program going on for 3.5 years[3], and it needs to be added under Cold_fusion#Subsequent_research. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- What the hell are you talking about? They have not "managed to hide some research inside research programs that were focused in something else", it's not "just this center", and it's not "3.5 years".
- Here's another document: LENR at GRC - NASA Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, Ohio.
- The document makes reference to Fleischmann and Pons, and states that way back in 1989 NASA successfully replicated their deuterium-palladium experiment:
- "Previous NASA D-Pd experiment (Fralick, et al.; 1989) looked for neutrons (saw none) – but saw anomalous heating"
- ,,,and mentions some other places where the research has taken place:
- "After 1989, Cold Fusion research evolved into research in “Low Energy Nuclear Reactions” (LENR), primarily at U.S. Navy, DARPA & various Universities"
- ...mentions current NASA research:
- "2009: NASA IPP-sponsored effort to: –Repeat the initial tests to investigate this anomalous heat"
- ...and shows a graph of the anomalous heat:
- "the calculated thermal power in/out is given with the net anomalous heating ".
- ...It states that one hypothesis to explain the anomalous heat is:
- "Ultra Low Momentum Neutrons (Widom & Larsen)"
- ...And shows a photo, schematics and technical data of experimental engines based on the effect:
- "Stirling Laboratory Research Engine at Cleveland State University - LENR Energy to Rotational Power Research Facility "
- NASA has been researching Fleischmann and Pons' anomalous heat since 1989. Silent Key (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- It sounds more like:
- NASA participated in the 1989 cold fusion initial craze, involving many NASA scientists and centers. The theory was based only on F&P vague explanations. Around 1989-1990 all research was stopped.
- NASA's Lewis Research Center tested two cells provided by BlackLight Power (then know as Hydrocatalysis Power Corporation). The theory is based on "hydrinos". They found that the energy output was much smaller than claimed by the company, and it could be caused by recombination. The test had many limitations of time and resources and it doesn't appear to have any follow-up studies.
- NASA started a "LENR" program in 2009 that is still active. It seems to be carried by Zawodny and based on Widom-Larsen's theory. He says that "While I personally find sufficient demonstration that LENR effects warrant further investigation, I remain skeptical." (from the Forbes article, which is quoting from his blog) He's researching to see if cold fusion really works or not, and his budget is approved by NASA headquarters (as opposed to other research efforts, where scientists were paying material out of their own pockets because they couldn't get funding).
- So, please find a reliable source for "NASA has been researching Fleischmann and Pons' anomalous heat since 1989" (and a listing of how and when this research happened), because at first sight it appears to be inaccurate. It looks more like 3 separate efforts separated by years of no research. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- It sounds more like:
- "It sounds more like..." + "It looks more like..."
- - Your claims, your burden of proof. Silent Key (talk) 03:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hey, you were the one claiming that "NASA has been researching Fleischmann and Pons' anomalous heat since 1989". If you want that claim inserted in the article, you will have to find a reliable source for it. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/sensors/PhySen/docs/TM-107167.pdf is from 1996 at NASA Lewis Research Center. 67.41.203.4 (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19900008108_1990008108.pdf is the TM-102430 from 1989. --134.191.221.72 (talk) 12:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've put these good URLs in a new NASA section and NASA External links. They also help correct the misrepresentation of F&P I tried to point out in the previous (sabotaged) thread. Silent Key (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- The URLs are good (except for the last sentence in the text before I edited it this morning), but I question the conclusions drawn from them in the text. I agree with Enric as to to the status of research, and I question whether "heat of adsorption" has been eliminated by any of the test protocols. (That's my original research, but "heat of adsorption" had been given, by reliable sources, as an explanation of the anomalous heat in the F&P research.) We can say that (some) NASA projects have been researching cold fusion, but we need to be careful about the conclusions... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've put these good URLs in a new NASA section and NASA External links. They also help correct the misrepresentation of F&P I tried to point out in the previous (sabotaged) thread. Silent Key (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- And sources say by 1990 research had stopped in all major US labs except a few places which are named by name. This information should be at least in Huizenga 1993. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- And the 1989 paper is irrelevant, since it's part of the craze of research back in 1989. I don't recall any source saying that this particular technical memorandum was any more relevant than any of all the hundreds of papers published in peer-reviewed journals during that time. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- The added sentence that it was replicated with "light water" indicates that, whatever the anomalous heat is, it isn't cold fusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- There are several dozen light water reports, many of which are summarized in [4] which suggests that metal transmutation reactions are involved. 71.215.95.197 (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- No answer to 71.215.95.197's evidence of transmutations? Then why delete my work because I referenced light water? Silent Key (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- "Evidence"? And isn't Pt past the break-even point; Pt + H → Au requires energy. If someone is going to propose metal transmutation, at least propose one that is exothermic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Err, I still think that Zawodny's research should be under Cold_fusion#Subsequent_research. Or maybe under Cold_fusion#Further_reviews_and_funding_issues because it's a funding thing and it still has to publish research. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- @ Arthur Rubin:
- Widom-Larsen Theory
- (ultra-low momentum neutron catalysis & beta decay):
- 1. E + e- → ẽ-
- 2a. ẽ- + p+ → nULM + νe
- 2b. ẽ- + D+ → 2nULM + νe
- 3. nULM + (Z, A) → (Z, A + 1)
- 4. (Z, A + 1) → (Z + 1, A + 1) + e- + νe
- Silent Key (talk) 01:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Silent Key, that is not a light water reaction. Enric Naval, Zawodny has published a patent application which is presently being examined. Arthur Rubin, the most frequent unexpected element reported from palladium in light water is iron, but the results with the most unexpected isotopes involve nickel, e.g. [5]. My opinion is that LENR is not usually "fusion" per se, but sometimes might as well be in terms of reaction products, and that Widom-Larsen theory doesn't begin to explain the variety of transmutation results reported in what I think would be considered reliable sources if they weren't on a controversial topic. What kind of sources do you guys need to make LENR a separate article? There are several literature review sections in peer reviewed mainstream physics articles which go over the light water transmutations. Is that enough to break LENR out into a separate article? Observer Sem (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Err, I still think that Zawodny's research should be under Cold_fusion#Subsequent_research. Or maybe under Cold_fusion#Further_reviews_and_funding_issues because it's a funding thing and it still has to publish research. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- "Evidence"? And isn't Pt past the break-even point; Pt + H → Au requires energy. If someone is going to propose metal transmutation, at least propose one that is exothermic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- No answer to 71.215.95.197's evidence of transmutations? Then why delete my work because I referenced light water? Silent Key (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- There are several dozen light water reports, many of which are summarized in [4] which suggests that metal transmutation reactions are involved. 71.215.95.197 (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- The added sentence that it was replicated with "light water" indicates that, whatever the anomalous heat is, it isn't cold fusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
(A patent application doesn't qualify as "published research"...)
A few researchers have claimed observations of excess heat in light water cells. However, the claim is considered unlikely even by cold fusion proponents.... A 2001 book described it as "A new mania took hold among some of the wilder-eyed enthusiasts: the light-water cells had been reported in some hands to generate more heat, therefore more fusion, than the heavy-water cells, for which they were designed to provide a zero-fusion baseline."[6] Other sources don't mention these experiments. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Which proponents? [7] shows dozens of light water results, with maybe a third in mainstream academic physics journals. I've never seen any criticism of these specific results which didn't claim the entire field was bunk. Again, for these results which clearly aren't even "fusion" even in appearance, LENR should be a distinct article. Observer Sem (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Zawodny's work has been discussed here before (he's not certain even himself that the phenomen exists). What is being discussed here that is actually new? IRWolfie- (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Are you referring to this quote? "it is my professional opinion that the production of excess energy has been demonstrated.... I did not say, reliable, useful, commercially viable, or controllable."[8] I did not know that Zawodny has ever stated that he doubts the phenomenon exists, so if I am mistaken then please let me know what specific source you're referring to.
- What is new (although I can't believe this hasn't come up before) is that I am suggesting that the LENR/low energy nuclear reaction article be de-coupled from Cold fusion so that effects which are obviously not fusion even in appearance can be accommodated. Observer Sem (talk) 04:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Are there any reliable sources for the "excess energy" claims? Are there any that support "LENR" as being anything other than a renaming of cold fusion by proponents? Zawodny and the ICCF are not WP:RS on these topics. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 11:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- @ ArtifexMayhem: There were plenty of reliable sources until you moronically deleted them, calling them "WP:OR and general BS" (11.55, 1 March 2013).
- @ Observer Sem, one possible source of the proton in my step 2a. above is light water (for heavy water, the deuteron in 2b. applies), but I tend to agree with you about the need to fork the article. However, that leaves the problem of the existence of the falsehoods in this rotten article, and the fact that activist editors will simply move to the new article and suppress it. Silent Key (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Get a high quality source, otherwise there is nothing to discuss. Multiple sources mention LENR as being a renaming of Cold Fusion. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- A renaming of cold fusion BECAUSE IT WORKS. And what source on Earth is higher than the NASA sources I put in? (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/sensors/PhySen/research.htm NASA GRC Physical Sensors Instrumentation Research):
Silent Key (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)"Tests conducted at NASA Glenn Research Center and elsewhere consistently show evidence of anomalous heat during gaseous loading and unloading of deuterium into and out of bulk palladium. At one time called “cold fusion,” now called “low-energy nuclear reactions” (LENR), such effects are now published in peer-reviewed journals and are gaining attention and mainstream respectability. The instrumentation expertise of NASA GRC was applied to improve the diagnostics for investigating the anomalous heat in LENR."
- Get a high quality source, otherwise there is nothing to discuss. Multiple sources mention LENR as being a renaming of Cold Fusion. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- There is no shortage of WP:RS on excess energy, even if you don't like J Fusion Technol, as well as on transmutations and light water reactions: the Biberian (2007) literature review in Int J Nuc Energy Sci Tech or Storms (2010) in Naturwissenschaften, for example. What is missing is anything which purports to explain the iron in palladium electrode experiments, or any explanation of transmutation to lower atomic numbers in general. Widom-Larsen theory is utterly unable to explain transmutations to lower atomic numbers. Observer Sem (talk) 14:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Being "Editor in Chief" of the fringe Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science makes Biberian useless as a source. Same goes for ISCMNS executive board member and cold fusion researcher Storms) and the web page maintained by a cold fusion proponent (even if it is hosted on a NASA server).
Silent Key: 1) There is absolutely no scientific evidence that "it works". 2) Calling other editors morons is not productive (I'm pretty sure you wouldn't enjoy being called you a fuck-wit). — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Being "Editor in Chief" of the fringe Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science makes Biberian useless as a source. Same goes for ISCMNS executive board member and cold fusion researcher Storms) and the web page maintained by a cold fusion proponent (even if it is hosted on a NASA server).
- Are there any reliable sources for the "excess energy" claims? Are there any that support "LENR" as being anything other than a renaming of cold fusion by proponents? Zawodny and the ICCF are not WP:RS on these topics. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 11:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Zawodny's work has been discussed here before (he's not certain even himself that the phenomen exists). What is being discussed here that is actually new? IRWolfie- (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)