[[User:ScienceApologist|ScienceApologist]] ([[User talk:ScienceApologist|talk]]) 19:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
[[User:ScienceApologist|ScienceApologist]] ([[User talk:ScienceApologist|talk]]) 19:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
-- all very well, but by attempting to re-direct [[hydrino theory]] to [[Randell Mills]] you have managed to delete several years of contributions by many different authors, both pro and against hydrino theory! if however you were to re-direct the [[Randell Mills]] entry to [[hydrino theory]] instead, i at least would have no great objection.
[[User:Waif|Waif]] ([[User talk:Waif|talk]]) 10:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Revision as of 10:34, 7 December 2007
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
If you go to Black Light Power Inc. website (www.blacklightpower.com) you will find detailed presentations of the GUT-CQM theory as well as working prototypes of rt-plasma devices in which excess energy is clearly being liberated from free atomic hydrogen via the BLP process. They give detailed explanations of there experiments and, most importantly, they provide documentation of the confirmation of these results by independant research organizations including NASA and the US Navy.
The Website does NOT give detailed explanations of their experments.
An example:[[1]]
"..average efficiency measured has been 224% with a net power gain of 464 Watts."
And Yes, He is using Hydrinos, using a "tungsten filament (0.25 mm diameter"
The evidence supplied on the BlackLight website is of very feint optical transitions are seen at multiples of the expected hydrogen lines. This is purported to show that a single hydrogen atom is making a transition to a new state below the standard accepted groundstate at -13.6eV.
The energy of the observed photon is too high to be explained as a transition of a single, standard hydrogen atom however there is no discussion as to whether non-linear optical effects inside the BlackLight apparatus and detectecor are combining a small proportion of the regular low energy hydrogen photons to produce the anomolous high energy photon count.
It is possible (and in fact likely) that standard physics can explain the observations reported by the BlackLight process without resorting to a hydrino model. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.111.8.104 (talk • contribs) .
It's not just theory anymore, the phonomena of non-radiative resonant energy releases from the catalysis of free atomic hydrogen forming fractional ground state hydrogen atoms called hydrinos has become common knowlege. Most recently (since mid 2004), there has been a silent rush of rt-plamsa research around the world specifically focusing on the exploitation of this new hydrogen energy source.
I don't think we can believe any disputed new theory, because a company's website say so.
Please try give citations, that interest and research and in this topic has risen. You may look for the following sources, to find something, which will give creditability:
Dr. Fred Salsbury, your assertions are delatory if you do not back them up: who has detracted from Hydrino theory? Please list names and their statements. Otherwise, you're engaging in gratuitous slander of Dr. Randal Mills' work. 209.29.95.5219:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Dr. Anonymous[reply]
Freddie it is then: get this here, the "skeptics" you mention is ONE SKEPTIC Mr. Eric Krieg, NOT EVEN A SCIENTIST, and a self-styled skeptic, founder of the commercial enterprise, the so-called Philadelphia Association for Critical Thinking, who makes a living out of mixing apples with bananas. Boo to you, half-bowl physicist! You cannot even quote a single detractor of Randall Mills published in a scientific journal, mainstream or not??? Boo. 209.29.168.15220:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC) Dr. Anonymous[reply]
Silly Freddie: "since at least some scientists disagree (Noyes and Smolin) this is a disputed fact, so remove unless citation found". The supporters and the detractors disagree. Fact #1. Fact#2: there has not been an experiment that can settle the question; that's why Alvarez wanted to improve the situation. Fact #3: since no test has been carried out, there is no way to chose whether Carezani and Autodynamics or Noyes and Relativity are right. Which part don't you gasp? 209.29.168.15221:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC) Dr. Anonymous[reply]
First, this is the wrong talk page. Second, insulting me -- and screwing up my name on edit summaries -- will get you nowhere. The dispute, which should be on the autodynamics talk page, is that Noyes and others do believe the test has been carried out, and the autodynamics supporters do not, hence it is not an undisputed fact. Salsb00:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be part of the Theresa Knott activity to add and inflate these detractors who are not scientists and have conducted no experiments that demonstrate Mill's wrong, as equally valid to Mills' work. One can live with Robert Parks' opinion, quoting an Astronomer (eh eh eh) who checked the validity of Mill's mathematics...But Eric Krieg? How low can Wikipedia go? No Theresa, why don't you try to find a SINGLE EXPERIMENTAL REFERENCE (yes, published in a mainstream journal) THAT PROVES Dr. Randall Mills WRONG? I challenge you to do so. 209.29.167.2323:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but for NPOV you have to quote the detractors as well as those all for it. I'm looking for more references now. Note that I'm not saying that Mills is wrong, I'm saying he has detractors. His patents were refused due in part to the activities of Parks and co. The NASA experiments have bourne no fruit as yet. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke)00:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I know how you play the game. Here's the thing (live and learn if you can): Zimmerman WAS chief arms etc (during Clinton Administration. Get your facts right.) Zimmerman, or Dr. Zimmerman for you, had a duo going with Robert Park. Lastly, Knott, Zimmerman may be rather amusing, but he is NOT an EXPERIMENTAL REFERENCE TO A REFUTATION OF Mills. I'm sure that he would tell you that himself. 209.29.167.2300:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC) Dr. Anonymous[reply]
I never said he was. I said he was a detractor. Also the keelynet article is a copy of a reuters article and it is signed. There are copies all over the web. I'll find one from a different websitie if you like. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke)00:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Theresa Knott abusing her powers again?: "changing category from one that's going to be deleted soon". What a well oiled, smooth-operator pic-nic you guys run in there...Since you are impervious to dialogue, one shall have to wait for the whip...? 209.29.169.19701:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rigged, it's all rigged, boys and girls. Park and Zimmerman are the mentors of this cabal. One asks in vain for citation of experimental disproof of Mills. But all they come up with are the unsupported statements of detractors, which are more important than the questions of science. I hate to think about those girls you teach, Knott.
And while you are it, Knott, think about what is the reference that Zimmerman cites in the quotation you provide. Winning this way is dirty. You should provide, at least, the reference - otherwise the Zimmerman statement is vacuous.
Now that I have spent some time examining the work, (I read the book entirely), and have read the verification results from NASA, on unrelated work, I think we need to merge this article into Cold Fusion.
But that would be dishonest. Mills theoretical work began before the P and F debacle. Mills never supported the cold fusion hypothesis, nor did cold fusion theorists support Mills. Mills instead proposed his hydrino theory as to why excess heat may have been sporadically observed in CF cells. He proposed using a potassium based electrolysis cell using light water as proof of his theory as opposed to loading up platinum cathodes with deuterium. Also see the following article which also uses potassium based electrolysis and makes similar claims to Mills as to fractional hydrogen with the exception that their theory is allegedly based on Quantum theory. Eccles of Gardner Watts had their claimed tested by Bristol University
"They have been replicated by laboratories commissioned by BLP; these are listed on the BLP web site."
Where? I have searched the site, and only found the NASA paper, and quoted it.
"It is not clear why this has not been more forthright. Hopefully we will see these independent labs reporting their results to the mainstream journals before long.
"
This was 5 years ago.
"BlackLight Power is also in the middle of getting its patents granted."
"The bubble began bursting in August[1999], when a federal court upheld the Patent Office's revocation of one of BlackLight's patents and the suspension of four others. The Patent Office said BlackLight's submission "did not conform to the known laws of physics and chemistry."
"This month[May 2000] a chat room called the Hydrino Study Group was abuzz over a purported wirestory saying the National Institute of Standards &Technology validated BlackLight's claims. It hasn't." —Brendan Coffey
Requires Revision
Mills was formed as a medical doctor.
Does this mean that Mills was formerly a medical doctor, or that he was trained as a medical doctor? A revision clarifying this point would be useful. Chasuk23:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Mills was awarded a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Chemistry, summa cum laude in 1982, and a Doctor of Medicine Degree from Harvard Medical School in 1986. Why are you guys so reticent to accept the degrees of genuine researchers, why do you make so much of it, when so few of you have any degrees at all, let alone degrees that entitle you to speak on the subject matter and wave the grand banner of "in the name of legions of scientists..."?? 216.254.162.16615:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am unhappy with this article. It is describing a theory that is controversial -- on the very fringes of science -- and I think that this needs to be made clear within the first paragraph. I will not go so far as to say that "Hydrino theory" should be identified as a psuedoscience, but I am disturbed that the tone of this article seems to indicate authorship by an ardent devotee.
Chasuk00:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This article needs a lot of work. I've bben doing some reading up on the web and there is a whole load of stuff that isn't in the article, patents that were granted then refused. Lawsuits that failed. Interest from NASA. Big talk from Mills but no applications, no prototypes even (for 10 years) The fact that this is at odds with quantum mechanics. That fact that Mills' results have been published in journals. A mathermatical description of Mills' idea, and so on. It's very difficult because there are evagalists who are making it difficult to NPOV the article, who think any critism of the idea is an attack against them, who insult regular wikipedians, who think article writing is a war that one side has to win. I've come across their type before, I intend to simply ignore them until they learn the meaning of the word collaboration. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke)08:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha ha. i pity the sucker that would make the mistake of engaging in a dialogue with you or your kind. All you can quote is Keelynet, Eric Krieg, Robert Park and other such internet sources. You're a joke, no? Then you and your kind are very good to add things like: "most scientists say..."; "the physics community holds...", etc, ALL WITHOUT FOUNDATION OR PROPER CITES. You never provide references to ytour statements. Who the heck elected you to speak in the name of a majority of physicists or scientists or street-cleaners for that matter? 216.254.162.16615:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Or let's have you prove me wrong: provide the reference that Zimmerman alludes to, when he writes: Since Mills's edifice of theory is now shown to have (yet another) error in its foundation, the incorrect force balance condition, much doubt is cast on Mills's own interpretations of his experiments. What yet another error is that? Proven by who? Published where? in which scientific journal? Ha ha ha. And you try to appear even-handed. Wink-wink, nod-nod. Ha ha ha 216.254.162.16615:37, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fritz Jacobi who claims "irralevent titles" is not a taker? Such 'cowardliness'...
Fixation on titles
Sigh. Feels like the Austrian Wikipedia.
It's irrelevant for the Hydrino theory that Randell Mills is Chemist, and Medical Doctor. (Him being an inventor has some relevanmce but it's hard to judge). Spare these details for the Randell Mills.
It is relevant to hydrino theory that Mills is a Chemist. The way he claims to decrease the orbit of the electron of a hydrogen atom is through using a catalyst, thereby giving off a large ammount of energy. This claim is the big break from Quantum Mechanics, which clearly states that there is no lower orbit than the ground state. See slide nine in presentation[2]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.230.251 (talk • contribs) (The University of Maryland at College Park anon) 7 November 2005
OTOH it is relevant, that Herman Haus, whose paper is said to have inspired the theory is an Electrical Engineering Professor. But that's no reason to refer to him as "Professor" each time the name is mentioned. That's just bad style for an encyclopedia.
How dimwitted of you - being a chemist is not relevant to a chemical and physical theory that one enunciated? And being an MD is not relevant to Mills' preparation as a scientist? You, on the other hand, you're largely irrelevant with all the wrong picayune spins that you like to sprinkle around. Just bad style. 20:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Please do not devolve to personal attacks. MD is relevant to Mills prepration as a scientist, but he was a farm boy/hayseed salesman before that. All irrevelent to the topic of discussion. He is a doctor and should be afforded the title along with it, but not as a basis for credibility. Havent most diet doctors died of heart attacks? Again, not really relevnt. Call the guy a doctor, only because he is one. --Artoftransformation05:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant or not, the title "Dr." (as used in the intro) is ambiguous. Either take it out entirely or specify the degrees he has attained. There is no reason that even someone with NO formal education could not do good scientific work; however, in the context of an article on physics and/or chemistry it is jarring to discover half-way through the piece, in a snide comment by a detractor, that in fact the "Dr." in question is not a PhD. It leads to an obvious question, "is that comment corect?" I think we have a responsibility to provide the answer. --Cladist
What have you go against putting all quotes under one heading? Labelling people as skeptics, supporters etc is susceptable to POV. Wheras lumping them together and letting the reader decide is much more neutral. Yet you keep reverting my attemps. Why? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke)23:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Theresa, I wish that i could believe on your good will, by now. But i'll play the part for amusement, if nothing else: only one of those quotes is by a scientist competent on plasma physics and atomic chemistry. Do you see that? Quotes by Parks or his side-kick Zimmerman are suspect quotes from political men (yes, professional scientists) who are also professional skeptics and don't hide that fact. they are not quotes from experimentalists who have published findings in official or alternative scientific publications - which is what you should be seeking. So, right there you have two categories. Then there is Obershoff - he is slandering Mills without experimental proof. That's his problem and Mills. Our problem is to make sure the entry remains as impartial as possible, rather than fall in defense of slanderers. So you put the nay side and the yes side, and you don't hide which is which. In my view, Osheroff is out of line, at the very least the comment you or someone else added to his quote. Lastly, Baard is still a separate category. As you see, you can pull someone's leg again. Let's see where your good-will will take you. For my part I'll refrain until you're done. Hopefully others will too. 00:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the the article should be as impartial as possible.You are mistaken if you think I believe otherwise. But look at the language you are using. Slander? Obersheroff is not slandering Mills by saying he thinks it's crackpot science he is expressing an opinion. If Parks is a professional skeptic by all means say so. But there is no need to do it as a heading. Hell I'll do it myself in a minute. Putting headings of "for" and "against" or WTTE sets things up as though there is war. Now that may be true for some people but Baard strikes me as fairly neutral. Thee must be others as well. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke)00:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In some form the "Reactions" section should include the fact, that until the until the Rathke paper, no preprint was on the Hydrino theory was seen on the preprint server. Also, in this specific point I'm agreeing with the anon, I'd fine with including only physicists, as in the version where I added the Rathke paper: [4]. I'm not wanting to cast these two names in stone, but I'm taliking about the inclusion criteria here. --Pjacobi 06:47, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
The only quote so far that is not by a physicist is Baard and he is quoting Michael Jacox who according to the article is a nuclear engineer. I'm not happy with removing the Baard quote. I'm also not happy with puting him under as "supporter" heading because he is clearly a writer who is trying to write neutrally. We could include it in the main body of text somewhere, or we could have a section for quotes from non physicists. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke)08:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Does anybody doubt the presentation in Rathke's paper? Otherwise we should the present Mills' CQM equation, it's solutions accordung to Mills' and the mathematical problems with that in the article. --Pjacobi 06:50, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
I agree. Go for it. My general impression of Mill's work is that his theory is considered nuts but his experimental work is interesting. Well NASA was interested anyway. The article should reflect this state of affairs. Do you agree? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke)08:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
At least Rathke agrees to some point. But all experimental results are from one group, right? --Pjacobi 09:23, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Hi guys. I originally wrote this article a long time ago but gave it up when what I considered a balanced description of what the theory was all about was repeatedly heavily edited with the comment "Pseudoscience Crap". I've been watching Mills for over ten years now, contributing now and again on the Hydrino Study Group. I don't mind and even encourage that the article is prefaced with a description that it is a theory with as yet no widespread acceptance. That's the simple truth. The majority has to make a decision at some point as to what is taught in schools and universities and that has to be considered the mainstream. However the term "pseudoscience" should be rejected. Psuedo is the Greek root for false or deceptive. Mills seeks to persuade by publishing in scientific journals, getting others to replicate his efforts and basing his claims on experimental evidence. This is science, not psuedoscience.
I also reject as a neutral source the comments of Doctors Bob Park Peter Zimmerman. They have a bitterly conflicted history with Dr. Mills originally involving attacks upon Dr. Mills honesty, integrity and business reputation countered by threats of legal action and finally with Dr. Park contacting the Patent office which resulted in Dr. Mills' patents being withdrawn even though they had been originally accepted and even published as issued. The legal action that followed (and Mills lost) did not consider the merits of Mills' patents but tested the power of the USPTO to withdraw a patent at such a late stage. The court ultimately held that the USPTO had the legal power to do so. See Bob Park's version of events here:
Rathke's contribution seems based on his own interpretation of Mills' theory and may have been guided by an agenda. He conducted no experiments to justify his position and his declarations seem aimed solely to discredit Mills. When asked by a member to join HSG to put his case he replied:
"Thanks for notifying me of the discussion. My only interest in this topic was to save the European tax payers some money by keeping ESA from repeating NIAC's fault and studying this hoax. The paper was just a spin-off from an internal report. Hence, I consider my job done on this and I am not planning to enter your forum. Anyway I am very busy at the moment because we have just set up a nice litte antigravity device in the test center at ESTEC." - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hydrino/message/9217
No-one was sure if his last comment was snide or genuine :)
Mills deals with Rathke on pages 24, 39, 94 and 95. Some extracts:
"Having presented the theory of CQM, the misunderstandings and errors of a critique by Rathke [1] were then addressed. Rathke missed the use of the stability to radiation as the constraint to solve the nature of the bound electron. The requirement that the electron equation of motion obeys a two-dimensional wave equation arises from the onstraint that the bound electron does not radiate according to Maxwell’s equations. It does not arise from a Bohr-type condition or some wave-particle duality notion. Nothing is waving including probability.
"The angular charge-density wave functions given by Eq. (31) are solutions of the two dimensional wave equation plus time. Rathke has copied the two-dimensional wave equation incorrectly and reversed the sign of the time differential. His other comments about incurable failures are made moot by this careless error."
"...
"In contradiction to Rathke’s claim that excited states can not be solved by CQM, the excited states of hydrogen and now helium are given in closed-form equations with fundamental constants only. These results are derived from Maxwell’s equations based on the physical process of excitation of the electron state by the photon. These results can not be reproduced by SQM. Even for the hydrogen excited states, the SQM methodology involves no physics and is arguably simply another form of the Rydberg formula to which it reduces. It is not predictive and is has many consequences that are not in agreement with observations [2-11].
"Hydrino states are predicted from Maxwell’s equations in an analogous manner as the excited states. The equations of the excited states and hydrino states and the mechanism for their formation are given in contradiction to Rathke’s claim. The data including an independent replication under NIAC [94] overwhelmingly demonstrates their existence and the exothermic reaction of their formation."
I do appreciate that the editors of this topic have a very difficult task. Does Wiki merely report or judge? Is it meant to discourage interest, prove it right or wrong? How do you assess who should be allowed to officially comment? In any case I hope the article has as its ultimate objective to raise interest in the topic and result in greater attempts at replication by scientists which will prove or disprove CQM and make Wiki's job easier by providing cold, hard experimental results.
FYI Mills Theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics was published in an international peer reviewed journal entitled Physics Essays Vol 16. The webpage is here http://www.physicsessays.com/default.asp#03
You might also want to add to the list of evidence Mills claim that his theory can calculate the ionisation energies for the first 20 atoms and he provides workable spreadsheets that can be downloaded. This is apparently a big achievement that no other theory can match. See:
Rathke of course didn't do any experiments. He only used mathematics to solve an equatation and discusses the solution. The equatation was as published by Mills. Of course, after the unsatisfying nature of the solutions were clearly exposed, it was to be expected that the published equatation undergo some change, revision, interpretation or adding of new boundary conditions.
It is the nature of sciende, that other scientists can make sense out of your published equatations. So that test failed.
Pjacobi 17:53, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
You say "the equation was as published by Mills". Mills says Rathke made errors, misapplied the theory and used the wrong sign in an equation. {Source?,Quotation?} Where Rathke is used as a source to discredit CQM, neutrality surely dictates that Dr. Mills' response should be included to allow readers to evaluate that source. I'm also not aware that CQM was adjusted in response to Rathke's paper. The boundary condition you refer to was perhaps the very first thing Mills came up with more than a decade ago.
All I can say about your definition of the nature of science is that such scientists would make better sense out of correctly transcribed published equations by reading a fair and unbiased wikipedia article that at least has them talking about the same theory- not what they think it is about or want it to be about. The electron models of QM and CQM are, to put it mildly, different. It's a point particle singularity vs a classical extended particle and a two dimensional extended particle with a dynamic shape at that. Both QM and CQM want to describe exactly the same properties of the electron using very different models. Mills' equations and treatment are going to be different from what has been applied for decades to considerations of a point particle electron. That doesn't make his theory wrong and I think we are probably all in agreement that CQM stands or falls based on reproducible experimental results.
Mills himself would be better served by checking his OWN transcriptions and explanations. See my comment on his Presentational Inconsistancies. If your going to throw out QM, then your going to have to one, by one, re-intrepret its expermental results instead of just dragging a few Nobel Laruets names though the dumpster. Ref: [[5]]
I agree. Done and done. See the following for Mills interpretation of two experiments.
So it's only okay to drag Mills through a dumpster? I thought the whole point of science was to promote knowledge and breakthroughs. Feynman was a smart guy but if he was wrong, he's wrong. If you don't like reasoned debate and expressed differences of opinion, join a cult. The one fact you should get from this site, is that all Mills' critics posted here, have not attempted to do a single experiment to prove him wrong. Not a one. And some of them don't bring clean hands to this debate. Mills had his patents. He'd gone through the process, they had been allowed, he'd paid his fee. Bob Park makes one phone call to the PTO. He provides no evidence or proof of his claims and the PTO snatches back the patent. Park then crows about it in "What's New". It's like Jimmy Olsen blowing away a homeless person then writing a sob story about crime on the streets. It crosses the line to make and report the news.
{unsigned|144.136.26.219}} (bigpond.net.au anon; geolocated Melbourne) 19 November 2005
Mills also states[[6]] ppg 1071: "However, animate matter can decrease its rate of decay at the expense of the surrounding matter." This is essentially the idea behind Mary Shelly's Frankenstien, and the idea behind Life after death. I now remember where I head of this before. The reanimation of dead tissue, by Baron Von Frankenstien.
Sheesh! Talk about out of context. You're raising Frankenstein and you want hydrinos put into psuedoscience?! Firstly, I didn't see the word dead in the above quote. Those are your words, not Mills. Now try putting food into your mouth. Let your gut digest it, break it down and ultimately extract energy from it. Congratulations. As animate matter, you just decreased your rate of decay at the expense of surrounding (your BLT sandwich) matter.
[[7]] "Dead-tissue reanimation, projected in the 1980s to be standard medical practice by 2001, won't be possible for at least another decade, scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Science Research Center announced Monday."
That is the link! MIT. The reanimation of dead tissue.
Checking Refrences on Mills Work
R Mills: ppg 348: "Recent evidence suggests that energy packets like photon torpedoes are creeping toward reality [7]." Cites: on page 368 "[7] R. W. Ziolkowski, K. D. Lewis, Phys. Rev. Letts., Vol. 62, No. 2, (1989), pp. 147-150."
"Mills has attempted to get physics papers published in mainstream journals but they have been rejected because they fundamentally challenge established quantum theory, a successful challenge to which at this stage is considered, using the term of one journal referee, "unlikely". Mills has published papers in Fusion Technology, but some may not consider this to be a mainstream journal."
[[10]] Lists only two refrences to Mills work on Hydrino's
Rathke's rebuttle [A. Rathke, A critical analysis of the hydrino model, New Journal of Physics 7, 127 (2005).]
A pure therotical paper on ( a good one! ) written by Jan Naudts, Departement Natuurkunde, Universiteit Antwerpen UIA, Belgium.
"As long as these more sophisticated calculations are not accomplished, there are no serious arguments from quantum mechanical theory to reject the existence of the hydrino state."
Just to be clear about it, the Dombey paper is talking about "classical" hydrinos (i.e. solutions to various QM wave equations that were considered non-physical, for reasons discussed above). Dombey provides additional reasons to consider the solutions non-physical. Since Mills' theory rejects the entire QM apparatus, the Dombey paper is not relevant to this discussion. JohnAspinall17:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request for reference
"Mills' hydrino theory was inspired by a physics paper by MIT electrical engineering professor, Herman Haus. This paper used classical physics to model radiation arising from the free electron laser." What is the ref? I spent a finite time looking, didn't find. GangofOne07:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Try this one. I don't have a link to the text so you may need to check the journal.
H.A Haus, "On the radiation from point charges," Am. J. Phys. 54 (12), 1126 (December 1986)
Ok, I read that one, doesn't mention FEL, but does say that it is rehash of this paper: Haus and MN Ishlan J. Appl Phys 54 4784 sept 1983, "Synchrotron rad. of wiggled e- beam in rectangular waveguide", which does mention FEL. I was expecting something about a semiclassical quantum model, but both papers are just classical electromagnetism. Applying that to quantum systems, (atoms) is all Mills's extension; I can see where Mills got some of his phrases. GangofOne07:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Peer review?
Can anyone clarify (here and perhaps in the article itself) whether the papers on this subject have been peer reviewed? --zandperl02:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The only paper from Mills that is listed in the article is "Classical Quantum Mechanics", Physics Essays, 16:4 Dec. 2003. The article can be found online at http://www.physicsessays.com/catalog.asp?code=1604 (for a fee, unfortunately). I am no physicist, but the journal itself (http://www.physicsessays.com/default.asp) seems legitimate to me: it has academics in its editorial board and it is peer-reviewed. The journal description indicates that they are open to new or controversial ideas: "
Different points of view will be accepted as long as they are logically sound and well balanced in their exposition, until the process of truth searching naturally reaches a stage of a convincing argument in favour of one point of view or the other. " (from the journal page linked earlier) -- 1:43, 7 Nov. 2005 (UTC)
The Article "Classical Quantum Mechanics" Has been peer-reviewed, by a Canadian Based Journal called 'Physics Essays'. and the corrsisponding critique:
[[11]], in a Peer Reviewed Journal "New Journal of Physics 7"
Andreas Rathke, European Space Agency's Advanced Concepts Team
"“Dr. Mills has apparently completed Einstein’s quest for a unified field theory… without largesse from the US Government, and without the benediction of the US scientific priesthood.” - Shelby T. Brewer, former Assistant Secretary of Energy Read Review..." Shelby T Brewer is listed on the BlackLight website as a member of the board of directors.
At [[12]]
Step 3, It states "The catalyst (in this case, Potassium) recombines with electrons in the plasma. This releases photons that contribute to the plasma's brightness. The catalyst can then be used again." However, the movie does not even show the catalyst, in this case Potassium. Fundamental to ALL catalitic reactions is the returning of the catalyst to its origional state.
It also states that K^3^+ + 3 e^- -> K + 81.7526 eV. Um... Where is the photon in the equation? The equation only reflects the energy released.
Also: the value of 81.7526 eV, does not show up as an example of his results summaries. He does not list his primary catalitic example as an expermantal result.
Not sure if the above is correct. I had a look at the movie in Step 3. It represents a potassium atom resonantly reacting with an H atom and 3 electrons being ionised. The 81.7526 eV then mentioned refers to the total energy that is released as photons when the K^3 recaptures three electrons.
A quote from the Book: "The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics"
SECTION V
Prospect
Quarks to Cosmos to Consciousness, ppg 1065
"NATURE OF CONSCIOUSNESS
Consciousness arises from a "negative" entropy state of a being at the expense of its surroundings wherein the being increases the spontaneous decay rate of the surroundings. The relationship between the energy decay rate according to Maxwell's Equations, spacetime expansion due to energy decay with the rate given by General Relativity, entropy due to spacetime expansion, and the imaginary nature of coordinate time due to spacetime expansion permits the phenomenon of consciousness."
In summary, He is saying that the arrival of Conciousmess, causes spontaneous decay around it. However, Maxwell's Equations are about the relationship between Magnetic and Electic forces, and not about the effect of consciousness on the decaying entropy state of being. Artoftransformation07:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can't seem to find that section in his online book any longer, but I don't think your first sentence is accurate. He's not saying the arrival of consciousness causes spontaneous decay. He's saying that a negative entropy state of a being (which is necissarily at the expense of the surroundings) allows for consciousness. A being can be in a negative entropy state and not have consciousness, the negative state is merely one of the necissary factors for consciousness to arise (and exist). Which makes sense if you think about it. A being (like a fish, a human, or a plant) cannot exist unless it can be ordered (so-called "negative" entropy), which is at the "expense" of the system (pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system [14]).
As for Maxwell's Equations, I'm as confused as you are on how they exactly relate. But I can't find online the source for that section to look in on it. Maybe he was meaning Maxwell's demon. I don't know. Mathias09:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-mainstream science vs Pseudoscience
I noticed that earlier versions of the article belonged to the Category:Non-mainstream science category and since then was changed to Category:Pseudoscience category. I disagree with this modification because this theory does not fall under pseudoscience (yet). A pseudoscientific theory is a theory that has been correctly disproven by the scientific method. Hydrino theory, though unproven as of November 6, 2005, has also not yet been disproven since the theory is relatively new and has not been peer reviewed yet. Therefore, I'm going to change the article category back to Non-mainstream science. Solarusdude02:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Relatively new? This guy has been spouting the same nonsense "breakthroughs" garnering "millions in funding" since at least 1999. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-7 02:32
My research said '1991', so I posted the link. He is a cold-fusion Scientist.
Its no wonder that He has been garnering 25 million in funding. 5 of his Directors are former Wall Street Bankers.
"BlackLight had already raised the $25 million before the Voice reported on it."
MICHAEL H. JORDAN - Mr. Jordan was a partner with Clayton, Dubilier and Rice, one of the oldest and most respected private investment firms in the world. Before that, he spent 18 years with PepsiCo, Inc.
MICHAEL P. KALLERES. VADM USN (Ret) - Vice Admiral Kalleres is President of Dare to Excel Inc. (DTE), a business/financial planning and consulting firm for government-associated corporations.
SCOTT C. PENWELL - Mr. Penwell is a member of the Board of Trustees of The Emerald Mutual Funds
GEORGE A. SAWYER - Mr. Sawyer has been a General Partner with J.F. Lehman & Co., and its affiliated companies. J.F. Lehman & Co. is a partnership focusing on aerospace, marine and defense corporate mergers, acquisitions, and restructuring.
NEIL MOSKOWITZ - Mr. Moskowitz is Chief Financial Officer of Credit Suisse First Boston.
Neil Moskowitz, chief operating officer of the CSFB equity division. Neil Moskowitz was on Credit Suisse First Boston's BOD when Frank Quattrone was convicted of obstructing federal investigations into stock offerings at Credit Suisse First Boston. Artoftransformation04:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Choice of Qualifiers in describing results
"In 1996 a NASA labor did a partially successfull test run to reproduce the observed excess heat in a Water-Potassium Carbonate-Nickel Electrolytic Cell. But as no followup research occured and the result, is only quoted by BlackLight Power, the significance of this result is in doubt."
It is not only quoted here, but it is assumed to be a rigorus validation of the claims, whereas the NASA results clearly deny the claims: BlackLigh Power Inc, Clained to NASA that the Electrolytic Cell, that they built, generated excess heat in the order of 60W for weeks. NASA was able only to detect 11W of excess power, or less than 19%. ( and has nothing to do with the claims of the Potassim fusion reacation. )
Rank order these adjectives:
Overwhelmingly sucessfull.
Resoundingly sucessfull.
Vindicatingly sucessfull.
Definativly succsessfull.
Decisievly successfull.
Completely successfull.
Hugely sucessfull.
Mostly sucessfull.
Partially sucessfull.
Marginally sucessfull.
Slightly sucessfull.
Somewhat sucessfull.
Almost sucessfull. (Almost famous, almost pregnant)
Which one of these accuratly characturizes 19%?
"a string of failed experiments were reported." Cold_Fusion Which is how these types of experements was charactized on another page of wikipedia.
Or we can just redirect their inuqirues to this article Pokémon evolution.
"Evolution in the fictional world of the Pokémon video game franchise refers to a sudden change of form in a Pokémon, usually accompanied by a dramatic increase in statistics. It should be noted that this is not an evolution in a biological sense, but rather the metamorphosis of an individual creature."
Now with a bit of editing...
"Hydrino Theory in the fictional world of cold fusion energy franchise, refers to a sudden change of form in a Hydrogen atom, usually accomapnied by a dramatic increase in funding. It would be noted that this is not an evolution in the physical sence, but rather the metamorphosis of carefull scientificstudy into something resembling claims for Supercentenarianism."
If the abstract is nowherer available, except on the company's site, the entire entry can be deleted as non-verifiable. --Pjacobi08:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is NO refrence to any work done by the U.S. Navy on blacklightpower.
"BlackLight Power and researchers at the weapons division of the Naval Air Warfare Center at China Lake, California, confirm that they are heading toward a research and development pact that would allow the navy to produce energy and materials from hydrinos and to develop applications of the new compounds. A spokeswoman for the Indian Head Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Maryland says in an e-mail letter that after a meeting with Mills "there was considerable interest in the reported properties of the new hydrogen-containing compounds, and in obtaining samples for independent analysis and evaluation."
. NO verification.
Point of View, and Persistance of Vision
"I don't think we can believe any disputed new theory, because a company's website say so."
I think that we are charged with presenting a balenced case. We cannot afford to believe anyone. We can reproduce the companies claims, and the claims of the detractors, and the counter claims of the companies about the detractors, and the detractors rebuttles. This in pecticular is difficult and challenging.
The challenge is to reproduce the claims and counter claims with equal vigor. Artoftransformation02:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The very first paragraph was worded "The hypothesis is not accepted by the mainstream physics community". This is an overly negative POV and ignores the on-going debate in the scientific press and in independent research labs. A small, but growing, number of well-respected researchers have begun to take an interest. Some for, and some against, Mills' ideas. Clearly, work to verify Mills' claims have expanded beyond the BLP premises. A better, more neutral approach would be to acknowledge the controversy and note that resources are being devoted to verify or debunk the claim. This is on-going work, by no means has this been settled, as is implied by the above statement. I have modified to be more NPOV. Ronnotel17:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To support my claim that there is a debate on-going, consider Rathke v. Mills/Phllips, or Phelps v. Phillips, etc. Not all of the debate has been published. Indeed, the circumstances of Rathke v. Mills/Philips indicates that one side of the argument is facing undue bias. (case in point, Mills has been denied a chance to respond to Rathke, even to point out simple mathematical errors). A blanket statement that the hypothesis is not accepted does little to inform the reader, essentially saying, 'move along, nothing to see here'. This is not NPOV at all. Ronnotel17:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's not "hotly" for any defintion of "hotly" I can think of.
Removal of This hypothesis is not accepted by the physics community. isn't a much better idea than "hotly debated". Do you want to imply, that it is sort of accepted or are we going for "largely ignored". The latter one would be fine with me.
Does a distinction need to made at all? With a controversial topic like this, I suggest that it's better to avoid any sort of value judgment or interpretation in the initial paragraph. If it's absolutely vital to the article that a value judgment be made, then yes, I agree that the topic has been, to date, largely ignored. Although I must question why a 'hypothesis' that can predict atomic ionization energies better than the accepted 'theory' is being ignored so studiously. But then I'm not a physicist, so I guess I don't have a dog in this fight. Ronnotel18:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It strikes me that this is somewhat like Intelligent Design and its supporters' calls to "teach the controversy", when there exists no controversy among mainstream scientists. People like to root for a perceived underdog, but it's inaccurate to characterize the (scientific) situation as "hotly debated".
Regarding the ionization potentials, that sounds more like quantum chemistry to me. They have accurate methods AFAIK, but there's a tradeoff between computational time and accuracy. - mako04:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I haven't made up my mind either way. In particular, I find the CQM 'explanation' for the classic dual-slit experiment unsatisfying at best. However, the SQM explanation for many of the CQM results are equally unsatisfying. To wit:
replicatable excess heat and persistent plasma generation at low input energy levels (but only in the presence of predicted catalysts).
NMR of hydride materials with predicted ionization spikes
more accurate prediction of ionization levels (if you have a reference to SQM results I'd appreciate it)
evidence of line broadening, many centimeters away from the electrodes
prediction of an accelerated universe expansion before it was confirmed experimentally
I haven't yet seen convincing arguments from the SQM side that explains any of these phenomena. Nor am I willing, yet, to believe that all of the evidence presented has been either fabricated or produced by experimental error. Am I cheering for the underdog? Not likely. My business is speculation - I'm just trying figure out whether it's time to start shorting natural gas companies. Something doesn't jive here and I'd like to figure out what it is, hopefully before the rest of the market. Ronnotel16:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't consider these things to be in the domain of quantum mechanics. Most of plasma physics is classical. Ionization stuff is chemistry. Line broadening has been attributed to the doppler effect. Universe stuff is cosmology. We shouldn't look to quantum mechanics for answers to problems in the macroscopic realm. It's a valid criticism of QM that it doesn't work for everything (hence the search for a Grand Unified Theory), but you have to use the right tool for the job.
The distributed Folding@home project has a Quantum Molecular Dynamics core available. It's not for everyone; the computing requirements are very high. However the FAQ does say that it's more accurate than the standard core. As this is protein folding we're talking about, with lots and lots of atoms, I assume they consider QM to be reliable enough for the job. There's apparently a whole field of computational chemistry devoted to this stuff.
But back to my general point, there are interesting, unresolved issues surrounding CQM. Mills' has a closed-form solution for ioniziation energy that uses only physical constants and can be solved on a spreadsheet. Occam's Razor suggests this is preferable to an approach requiring supercomputers. If nothing else, shouldn't physics texts be updated to include this formulation? It would save a lot of computer time, I think. Ronnotel02:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can't say I know what "closed-form" means. I do know that the usual rule of thumb for ionization energy is 13.6*Z^2, which is accurate enough for hand calculation, and it can be made more accurate by taking the mass defect into consideration. In any case, it takes years for things to make it into textbooks. We have yet to see if CQM can be applied to large molecules like proteins.
And again, ionization is largely in the domain of chemistry. Introductory physics is mechanics, thermo, E&M, and maybe optics and QM. A typical QM class would focus on the postulates and mathematics. - ::mako05:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Back to the NPOV business. I don't read the statement as pushing a POV; it's merely reporting how things are. There are lots and lots of scientists in this world, and Mills' theory has been available for many years now. You'd think that someone would have done an investigation, but it appears that nobody else has, except Mills and his collaborators. That tells me that people's personal investigations have gone nowhere, or they just didn't deem it worth their time. (An aside: I'm taking a class in nuclear fusion, and my professor mentioned that after the news of the cold fusion experiment came out, everybody came around to ask him for heavy water. Of course we all know how that panned out.)
That said, I do think the introduction needs a value judgement. I'm okay with wording like "largely ignored" or "seen little attention from". - mako23:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree if it really were true that *all* of the confirmation has come from collaborators. However Marchese and Naudt seem to have nothing to do with BLP at all - Phillips, as well, seems to work independently. In addition, a considerable amount of Mills' work has survived peer-review to appear in established journals. Perhaps the phrases such as 'has drawn considerable skepticism', or 'has been harshly criticized' would be apt? Ronnotel05:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In Marchese's writeup, he says his group consulted with and borrowed equipment from BlackLight Power. Naudt is an oddity; his paper just rehashes some QM, finding one below-ground state that has long been rejected as unphysical, and calls that support for Mills' theory of many below-ground states. Phillips' experiment was done in association with Mills. - mako05:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a stretch to impeach all of this work because they might have picked up the phone. From their bios, these are all serious researchers with serious reputations on the line. With respect, I think this proves my point, i.e. that there *is* on-going scientific debate. I, for one, found Phelps and Rathke's critiques of Phillips and Mills' less persuasive than the original work they were endeavoring to disprove. I think the ball is in the critics court right now. To the point, can we agree on the phrase 'has drawn considerable skepticism'?
If we strike 'considerable', then yes. We can't overstate the magnitude of the debate; it exists, but it's vanishingly small compared to, for example, the hot topic Pjacobi mentioned above.
You don't usually put somebody's name on a paper if s/he hasn't made a significant contribution to it. You would cite phone calls as "personal correspondence".
You may want to check out the HSG forums. People are poking pretty big holes in the theory, and the supporters are falling back on the experiments. - mako23:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Accuracy dispute?
I noticed this article has an accuracy note at the top of it. Looking through the comments here, I can see lots of discussion on NPOV issues (understandably), but I'm not seeing anything that really amounts to an accuracy dispute. Are there particular statements in this article which somebody believes to be fundamentally untrue (as opposed to just being stated poorly)? -- Foogod02:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think categorization dispute is probably not serious enough so as to tag the entire article. The topic is controversial, but not necessarily the content of the article. I vote to replace with the
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Frankly, I agree that the categorization of this article as it stands is problematic, however it sounds like nobody here believes this constitues a factual dispute per se, so the current banner presumably should be removed (which I will do now). As for what to replace it with, to be honest I think it's tangential enough to the actual content of the article that it probably doesn't warrant an advisory banner of any sort (in my opinion banners should only be necessary if there are issues with actual content of the article text which readers need to be aware of while reading it).
On the subject of what categories this page belongs in, I'm currently trying to work out some of the criteria for some of these things on Category-talk:Pseudophysics and elsewhere. As a result, this page may appear to be miscategorized for a little bit while the definitions and criteria are in flux, but I hope that once we nail some of this down it'll be easier to more conclusively say how things should be done (bear with me on this :) ). -- Foogod22:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mills has now published exact, closed-form solutions to 19 molecules that rely only on physical constants. This is a huge advance in the state of the art and beggars the claims that CQM is 'irreproducible' or has no practical benefits. I propose that the article be redesigned to acknowledge this breakthrough. Rather than just describe the 'controversy', a new section should be added that describes, fairly and accurately, the results. The spreadsheets are available for anyone to review and critique, and it's quite easy to verify that they are indeed what they claim. Ronnotel21:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this represents a huge advance. Existing methods have gotten us pretty far already, and besides Mills, scientists seem to be quite comfortable with quantum methods. Note also that reproducibility refers particularly to experiments, not theories; that Mills solves molecules according to his own theory is not particularly surprising.
Did you check the solutions? Did anyone else check these solutions and confirm that it's not just fraud? Mills *claims* that he got solutions, and as claim it may be added.
An independent solution for 1-3 electron ions is available at HSG. Source code is included. Download the file named Molecules.zip. Membership to the group is required, but free. Ronnotel16:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it just shows that
few dedicated individuals can spam wikipedia and keep their spam page afloat as long as they want whenever there is monetary gain from doing so (such as investments into this "theory") The science has always been attacked by frauds as much as mailboxes now by 419 scam.
The Lietuvos Telekomas anon raises a troubling point: Mills is apparently living on venture capital, which gives him a huge incentive to promote his "theory" anywhere he can, including the WP. I tend to think that Wikipedia culture traditionally underestimates the potential for this kind of abuse by manipulating Wikipedia to raise venture capital for a scientifically dubious technology sector startup company. ---CH10:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to add sigs to all the unsigned or mis-signed comments above, to help keep track of who said what. Some users broke up comments of other users, so while I tried hard to avoid misattributions, I might have made a goof or two.
Some useful information for Wikipedians evaluating the reliability of the current version of this article:
Randell Mills' "grand unified theory" is listed as cranky by Erik Max Francis at crank dot net.
As of 1999, Randell Mills ran a company called Blacklight Power, Inc. in Cranbury, NJ (near Princeton, NJ).
Mills has allegedly attracted large sums of venture capital, but is evidently actively seeking more money by promoting his work, possibly here at WP, and apparently despite a notable lack of replicable achievements.
The article links to the Hydrino Study Group, which promotes hydrino theory. This website may be registered to an individual in Los Alamitos, CA.
A recent contributors to this talk page seems to have also promoted hydrino theory elsewhere on the web (I have inquired about this on his talk page).
I added a link to an article from the Princeton Packet. Someone should incorporate these cute quotes into a new neutralized version of the article:
It's the most important discovery of all time
— Randell Mills (BlackLight Power, Inc.)
It is the overwhelming view of the scientific community that Dr. Mills' claims are without scientific merit. [The fact that he has attracted funding reflects] a problem in a democracy that is undereducated in science.
— Paul Grant (Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA)
[Mills] said he could lower hydrogen atoms below ground state...To any physicist, the idea of putting hydrogen below ground (the lowest energy a molecule can have) is preposterous. In all of the physical world there are only a handful of solvable problems. But of the handful, hydrogen is one. There is no system in the universe physicists understand better than hydrogen.
— Robert Park (Physics, University of Maryland)
I see that recent anon edits of the article include:
128.32.48.131 (talk·contribs) (the University of California at Berkeley EECS anon) wrote According to Mills, the universe expands and contracts sinusoidally over billions of years and attributed this claim to the Hydrino Study Group website the claim. This alleged claim by Mills is obviously wrong, as the UCB EECS anon may or may not have realized.
24.22.58.9 (talk·contribs) (the denver.comcast.net anon; apparently geolocated somewhere near Portland, OR) has recently added various vaguely pro-Mills edits.
The current tone of the article is so credulous that I am concerned that Mills himself, or an admiring associate (the Dr. Mills phrase does tend to suggest this possibility), may be editing the article to remove any information tending not to suggest that "hydrino theory" represents a major scientific advance. ---CH09:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The choice of sources is telling:
After Rathke got critical paper published in a peer reviewed journal, everything should have been settled. Instead the "timeline" buries this information under refutations seen on groups.yahoo.com (never an acceptable source, according to our policies) or inerviews in the Guardian (not a terrible good source for science articles).
The UCB EECS anon was me. My intention was to show how Mills' acceleration "prediction" is based on a amusingly flawed model, but I suppose that most readers aren't so savvy.
There are some fairly damning criticisms of Mills' theory on the Yahoo group. The problem with the Yahoo commentary is verifiability, though I would argue that the "theory"'s flaws are quite factual and therefore cannot be POV. - mako20:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying Mako; your new intro is a good start on the needed revision! And of course I agree with Pjacobi about dubious sources. It seems that Randell Mills has a huge financial incentive to use shills and viral marketing to remove any information from websites like the Wikipedia which might tend to discourage investors in Blacklight Power, Inc., so it behooves us all to closely monitor suspicious edits to this article.---CH22:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Ronnotel (talk·contribs) has not answered my query on his talk page, but this handle has been used by Ron Baakkonen, who has made similar pro-Mills edits to a Yahoo newsgroup. Given the concerns expressed above about possible shilling, I want to know whether he is associated in any way with the Hydrino Study Group, or has any financial stake in any Randell Mills ventures. ---CH09:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think some investor is going to hand over millions to Randy Mills based on what appears on a site like Wikipedia?!? I don't, and if they are that gulliable, then perhaps they deserve to lose their money, so why feel sorry for them. I don't know if Randy Mills has a real new energy technology?!? Certainly there has been a lot of smoke coming from him over the years and little if anything in the way of solid evidence or protypes. It smells fishy to me. A typical new energy scheme that promsises the moon, but never delivers. However, he does attract a lot of money and it's hard not to consider that these investors like what they see, so I remain neutral. 24.225.177.164 (talk·contribs) 01:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC) (the Patriot Media anon near Bronx, New York)[reply]
For the record, I, Ron Baakkonen, have zero financial interest in Blacklight Power, and have never communicated with Dr. Mills or his associates in any way other than what is publicly documented in said Yahoo groups. By profession I develop trading systems for a small boutique hedge fund based in Chicago. However, I have studied his model in some depth, including replicating many the analytical results demonstrated in his spreadsheets (have you tried?, I'll send you my code if interested). ---Ron Baakkonen 7:33pm, 23 June 2006 (CDT)
Of course I agree that no reputable granting agency would hand out a grant based upon a Wikipedia article, but we are really talking about private investors here, and I am not sure about them. Are you familiar with Joe Firmage? Recently, Bernard Haischcomplained on my user talk page about his wikbio, saying:
Wikipedia articles are taken at face value by many readers. If I go and seek funding from a philanthropic organization for the Digital Universe Foundation, as I am doing, and they look me up on Wikipedia, your negativity may cost me a grant... and I will never know that. Make no mistake about it. Wikipedia has tremendous influence, and that is precisely why must be both accurate and fair. The Wikipedia is perceived as no mere gossip sheet. Your words could deprive my organization of a million dollar grant because of your implicit judgment of my scientific career.
Please note that the issue is not whether WP has a responsibility to protect fools (if I may so put it) from deciding to part with their money. The issue is this: might someone like Mills or Haisch feel they have a financial incentive to slant WP in their favor? The answer is apparently "yes". That poses a serious problem for WP's goal of presenting accurate and unbiased information, because the rest of us must waste time trying (unsuccessfully, in this article, in my view) to restrain POV-pushing edits. ---CH20:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I notice from Hillman's talk page that he is temporarily relinquishing his self-appointed role as Wikipedia's chief minder of truth, justice and scientific purity. He's taking his ball and going home as it were. The Wikipedia science pages can be a pretty nasty place to hang around in what with all the shills muddying up their purity. Poor dear. Full disclosure - I've implemented many of the algorithms described in Mills' book and get results that match his tables. Knowing what I do about how SQM goes about the same process, i.e. horribly complicated, iterative routines full of approximations requiring arrays of super-computers to solve - it's clear to me which method is closer to the truth. ---Ron Baakkonen 8:37pm, 23 June 2006 (CDT)
So are you saying your entire criticism of Mills' model boils down whether the bond angle of H20 is within experimental error? There's nothing of any use whatsoever to the thousands of accurate values he's produced? As per his latest claims, he's nearly replicated the entire body of work at the NIST, built over decades by countless researchers. I find it unlikely that this fact can continue to be ignored. ronnotel 11:09, 24 June 2006 (CDT)
Rather glaring? Unlikely. The bond angle of H20 is notorious for being difficult to measure accurately. Numerous sources are at odds with what the reference value should be. In contrast, Mills has been able to calculate values for 350 molecules in under six months. SQM has had over 60 years to do the same. In the case of Mercury, the deeper one delved the more problems were found with the standard model. In Mills' case, the deeper one delves, the better things look.
I'm afraid you're missing my point here. As the page I linked makes clear, the bond angle of H2O depends on the situation. For an isolated molecule, the bond angle is 104.5. For liquid water, the bond angle is 106, due to hydrogen bonding effects. Mills's calculation appears to be for an isolated molecule, yet (if I recall correctly) he "backs up" his calculation with a NMR study of liquid water. - mako00:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're missing my point. If this is such a glaring problem, then why does the model apparently perform well enough to scale up to provide solutions for 350 molecules in the space of six months? In my mind, that's pretty good evidence that the process works. ronnotel 7:19am, 25 June 2006 (CDT)
I mentioned the anomalous perihelion advance of Mercury earlier; it was enough to show that Newtonian gravitation was an incomplete picture. Yet Newtonian gravity works well enough for explaining orbital motion, etc. You are saying, in analogy, that Newtonian gravitation is good enough despite its shortcomings (plus, nobody has done anything useful with Mills's models yet). That's hardly in the spirit of scientific inquiry; it is the discrepancies that disprove old models and lead the way to new ones. An error like the bond angle of water is simply too large to ignore. - mako20:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that there will be an opportunity for the scientific community to evaluate whether or not the H20 bond angle is 'simply too large to ignore' or not. Question, if a life-saving drug is discovered using Molegos, Inc. software, would you refuse to use it? ronnotel 2:12pm, 30 June 2006 (CDT).
FWIW, Mills' provides justification for why he feels 106 is the correct experimental value to use for the H20 bond here. He also discusses the success he has had in modelling many hundreds of organic molecules in a very small amount of time. Ronnotel15:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mills is certainly entitled to his views, but even the cited paper notes that other diffraction experiments have determined the bond lengths/angle of water to be unique in the solid, liquid, and vapor phases (p83, bottom). Following cites leads to Whalley, Mol Phys28:1105, which cites 1972's Water: A Comprehensive Treatise, and the values for vapor are 0.9584 Å (O-H) and 104.45 degrees. Though Mills seems to discount them, I think it's significant that (even older) spectra studies come up with the same values: 0.9576 Å, 104.29 (Benedict, et al, 1956, J Chem Phys24:1139). Also of interest is Table I in Császár et al. (2005), J Chem Phys122:214305, which shows the increasing precision of measurements (and simulations more recently, it seems) from 1932 to 2003. So considering the amount of information in the literature, it's hard for me to buy Mills's argument. - mako08:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like some, possibly an anon using IP 24.9.125.99 (talk·contribs) deleted a link to a paper critical of "hydrino theory".---CH
Sorry, never mind, my goof. The link was not deleted, just moved to the references and reformated, which is indeed better.
But everyone, please try to help me make sure that links are given some context and are kept organized. This adds a great deal of value for our readers. ---CH01:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Double-slit experiment? Classical vs quantum
Since the observed behavior of quantum-mechanical systems is so bizarre, I was eager to see how this theory attempts to explain it using only classical mechanics. But, either it doesn't, or this article just doesn't go into much detail on the subject.
We are told that the results of the double-slit experiment with electrons has something to do with photon interactions (but what?) but we are not told why the experiment also works with photons (and other particles). Classically, light is a wave, and a diffraction pattern is an expected result. But classically, light is not quantized and photons should not exist. In fact, the double-slit experiment can be performed with single photons and the tiny dots caused by individual photon hits gradually build up to form a diffraction pattern. [15] Classically, we shouldn't even expect to see individual dots, let alone a gradually-formed pattern. Does the theory explain this somehow, or does it just assume that photons still behave according to non-classical rules?
Furthermore, how can you explain away quantum entanglement? Experiments with lasers, beam splitters, and downconverters show that it is possible to split light into two entangled beams, such that, despite the beams having entirely different destinations, "measuring" one of them dramatically changes the quantum behavior of the other, instantly. You can make a diffraction pattern disappear by interrupting a seemingly unrelated beam in another room which never reconnects with the original experiment. This is the "spooky" experiment that scares most prospective theorists away from proposing classical explanations for quantum behavior, but it isn't mentioned in this article as far as I can see. Can someone who knows about this stuff please post such an explanation, if it exists? If this theory explains entanglement, I would be excited to learn how it does so. (edit: logged in to make my name show up here :P) Xezlec01:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I just thought of this, so let me add it: what about electron tunneling? It is well known to semiconductor manufacturers that electrons can tunnel through thin insulators even though, classically, the insulator in question should be sufficiently resistive to prevent electrons from getting through at all. In modern semiconductors, the insulators are so thin that, despite their very high classical resistance, they stop very little current from travelling "magically" through them. This effect was predicted by quantum mechanics to a high degree of precision, but I can't guess how the Hydrino Theory might be getting around it. Again, let me know. Xezlec01:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This guy is a complete crank
This guy either does not understand quantum mechanics, or pretends that he does not. He basically uses semi-classical aproach, I have browsed his book, and he uses trickery all way.
For instance, he uses the same calculation for "electron as a wave" that is essentialy Schroedinger equation, yet, he seems not even to be aware of that. He uses vague explanation for double-slit experiment which makes no sense, he uses calculation where essential point is not explained for the Aspect experiment (and is indeed the same as for quantum mechanics - as in most cases yet obscures that somehow), there is nonsense all over his book. For instance, he computes energy of beta decay essentially from the conservation laws (which is of course nothing special and does not depend on QM), then for this term - a single difference in energies of states, i.e. particles - he goes to state "we get the weak field by taking a gradient" - a complete nonsense, since he does not have a potential field defined at all. And this is all over the book.
However, his classical theory with no-radiation condition is not nonsense (yet it was not him who analysed this condition first) - indeed, it is interesting question can one get such a model of atom. I have not checked his computations, but this part is at least plausible - but so what? It seems he never carries computations in detail, yet, buries essential missing points in some well established facts, waves hands as one would say.
Very interesting are his cooked-up formulas for masses of particles in terms of fine structure constant. It is quite obvious he has cooked them up (by refering to some "transition" state which is never computed, yet, has just the right parameters to fit into a formula), but still, it is interesting and should be mentioned.
It seems that cooking-up is quite a speciality of his, and he is quite skilled in that. No wonder he managed to raise funds. Whether he persuaded himself in this "theory" or not is not clear. But it is at least clear that if he has, he has no idea what some basic facets of QM are about (for instance, his critique of Schroedinger equation as "not satisfying non-radiation condition" reveals that) - he basically writes his own naive understanding of explanations of some phenomena semi-clasically (like photo-electric effect) - nothing new there really, he is just not aware what he is really using there. Either that, or he is a deliberately misleading in his claims that this is a "theory". Quite possibly both - that he is both dishonest and does not understand what he is talking about.
Did you get your M.D. from Harvard? Have you studied at MIT? What makes you so specially qualified to comment on the matter? -- anonymous
Actually, no special qualifications, beyond having stayed awake in undergraduate level physics classes at any university, are necessary to make these comments. If you take the point of view that modern QM is arcane magic, only accessible with rare deep knowledge, then you are more likely believe an alternate explanation on the strength of emotional factors. But the basics of QM are taught to tens of thousands of students these days. You can find many accessible articles here on WP. Learn to do your own truth filtering. JohnAspinall19:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The 3 stages of truth:
During the first stage, the issue goes unnoticed and is ignored. The second stage is characterised by a period of vehement denial. The third stage witnesses the the truth about the issue being recognised as self evident.
Square brackets as punctuation
Re: Mako098765, edit of 16:36 30 Oct 2006:"brackets are for clarification".
Without taking sides, I suspect that more heat than light is being generated here because of a tendency to absolute statements. A few principles might be borne in mind in understanding the import of the above and the design of the article itself.
1 Novelty does not condemn
Clearly, we would not make any progress if new ideas were automatically criticized because they were not consonant with 'accepted' theory.
2 Immaculate conception is unlikely
It is a rare event for a theory in any context to have been developed to perfection on first being announced. It is easy to find many cases where development, tweaking, correction, refinement, and extension are continuous processes. We have yet to see the book closed on any topic - such claims have been made from time to time and promptly shown to be premature by events.
3 A detected flaw is not necessarily fatal
Looking for flaws in a theory is part of the process. Finding one is not necessarily the end of the story. Commonly, efforts are made to fix it. See 2. Condemning a whole theory because a flaw in the presentation is detected is inappropriate. It is expected that efforts be made to show that either it can be fixed or that the ramifications are demonstrably such as to undermine the premises. In the absence of the latter - verified by peer review - any remark is devoid of merit. Fairness also allows a proponent a chance at rebuttal, and so on - the normal process of science.
4 Preparedness to see the unexpected is an open mind
There seems to be inordinate glee at the failure of an attempted experimental replication to reproduce the magnitude of a claimed effect. This was true at several points in the cold fusion story, and we see it here again. The data rule, OK? If a result is anomalous (= not fitting current understanding) it does not make it go away simply because. Events not otherwise explicable are still events, and deserve rational consideration irrespective of whether they are "only" 19 or 90 or 99% of that previously reported.
5 Enthusiasm may overreach
It is not unusual for an enthusiast to see possibilities rather faster than the ideas can be thought through. There are commonly limits to the applicability of ideas - Newtonian mechanics is an apposite example. Whether or not an author is silly for being too much a promoter of a panacea, it is a human failing and does not, of itself, discredit the original idea - ad hominem arguments are properly criticized, but not often enough recognized.
6 Authority is not an excuse
Any utterance that has as its only claim to merit the authority, reputation or status of the speaker is valueless. The chain of reasoning must be present, and presented. Typically, this is through citations of works that have been themselves subject to review in the same way. It has to be a demonstrable argument, not a mere assertion. Of course, even then, it could turn out to be wrong, but that itself has to be open to demonstration (see 4). Browbeating is not a scientific approach, it is bullying; it bespeaks bias, dogma, vested interest, irrationality, ignorance ... The motto is "take nobody's word for it - not even mine".
I see more than a few violations of these principles in the present context. Editing them out would leave a much tidier page. If the theory is wrong, or faked, it should be relatively easy to show it, but not by shouting. If the guy is a fraud, it will emerge naturally, not by throwing scurrilous remarks - in either direction.
This condition has a history of study throughout the 20th century, and was first formulated by G. H. Godeke in 1964, who noted its possible implications for quantum theory. He noted:
Naturally, it is very tempting to hypothesize from this that the existence of Planck's constant is implied by classical electromagnetic theory augmented by the conditions of no radiation. Such a hypothesis would be essentially equivalent to suggesting a 'theory of nature' in which all stable particles (or aggregates) are merely nonradiating charge-current distributions whose mechanical properties are electromagnetic in origin.
Godeke goes on to conclude:
We certainly do not believe that this paper gives a sufficient foundation for hypothesizing a theory with such profound implications. Rather, we hope this paper will serve as a foundation and as a stimulus for much further investigation of nonradiating distributions.
Another paper, published in 1984, was the result of a Reed College undergraduate thesis by Tyler Abbott and his advisor David J. Griffiths. This paper explored various charge/current configurations, such as infinite cylinders with longitudinal flow, infinite cylinders with solenoidal flow, and infinite planes. The thesis concludes that the physical consequences of the nonradiation condition are far from obvious. Other work on nonradiation has been done by Philip Pearle.
I'm not sure what to do with this material. It's clearly an appeal to authority. Perhaps this stuff could serve as the basis for an article on non-radiation. -mako06:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First off, we need a reference for the Godeke quote. The quote here is much too brief to see what he is talking about. In particular, there is a huge unanswered question right up front: how does this 'theory of nature' account for the fact that electrons (for example) come in one size only. The whole point about classical electromagnetic theory is you can apply it at any distance scale, from nanometers to light years. There is no preferred (or distinguished) distance, and therefore no preferred mass, or charge, or whatever. Yet electrons come with only one charge, and only one mass.
It's quite possible that Godeke does say something about this obvious issue and whoever extracted the quote above threw away the contents and just showed us the shiny wrapping paper (to be metaphorical for a moment). It's also possible that Godeke's quote is being oversold — that the 'theory of nature' part is someone else putting their own interpretation on top. Let's have the reference.
JohnAspinall15:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about nuclear forces and the rest of modern physics?
As I understand it, hydrino theory is based on an alternative to quantum mechanics in describing the electromagnetic interactions between electrons and nucleus. However, mainstream (quantum based) physics makes successful predictions of phenomena mediated by other forces, specifically the strong and weak nuclear forces, using the same kind of calculations. It would be interesting to see an explanation of the Mills' theory of what holds the nucleus together, for example. I don't mean for this to sound like a demand for a complete explanation of everything; but it would be helpful to see how Mills' theories cross from
things that had fifty years of classical approximations before QM came along, i.e. electromagnetic force;
to
things that had no classical description before QM came along, i.e. the strong and weak nuclear forces.
QM prescribes exactly the same method of calculation (i.e. find the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian) for both. What does Mills' theory say?
Differences between Mills' theory and mainstream classical electromagnetics
I have started adding material describing the differences between Mills' theory and mainstream classical electromagnetics, i.e.Maxwell's_equations, beginning with the free electron model.
I would be happy to provide a plot of the electric potential (as calculated from Maxwell's equations) around the charge distribution in the Mills electron, showing that in mainstream physics the electric field is not normal to its surface. (Mills claims it is normal.) However without a corresponding plot calculated from the equivalent Mills' equations, this would probably be a violation of NPOV. If someone knowledgeable in Mills' theory would provide the formula for the field from a point charge, I will do the calculation both ways. (Similar comments apply to the force from a current.)
Mills has published a new chapter that purportedly describes experimental confirmation of his theory regarding the anti-gravitational effect of so-called hyperbolic electrons. The experimental setup seems fairly straight forward - create hyperbolic electrons by shooting a beam of free electrons of the correct energy through a perpendicular beam of neutral atoms (e.g. He, Ne, Ar, etc.). He then measures the upward (anti-gravitational) deflection of the electrons by the ratio of current densities at two grounded electrode plates, one above and one below the electron beam, both positioned about 100mm behind the atomic beam. He varies the electron energy and sees deflectional peaks that correspond, roughly, to quantum modes predicted by his theory. This seems like a pretty interesting phenomena - particularly because it should be easy to replicate. Anyone else think this is worth mentioning on the page? GenMan200015:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
is excess heat in cold fusion an artefact ?
The intro has the following sentence: "Mills first put forth his proposition of the hydrino in 1991, claiming to explain the purported excess heat reported by cold fusion experimentalists (which has since been demonstrated to be an experimental artifact)." This sentence implies that "excess heat reported by cold fusion experimentalists is an experimental artifact". As far as I can see, the cold fusion article does not support this view. Also, the 2006 DOE panel does not support this statement. Could you clarify how you justify it ? Thanks. Pcarbonn (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The link to Bob Park's blog does not say that excess heat is an artifact either. The 1989 DOE panel had not demonstrated that it was an artifact either. Pcarbonn (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a distinction here: there have been many generations of cold fusion claims. The one that Mills was dealing with was from 1989 qne the experimental setup suffered from a large number of problems, which rendered the purported excess heat at the level of the systematic errors - and hence an experimental artifact. In the mid-1990's, the cold fusion crowd built more carefully and the precise systematics that were implicated in 1989 are much less of a concern (cold fusion does discuss this somewhat). Their results are still likely bollocks, but that doesn't affect Mills' claims - because he was working with data that even the cold fusion experimenters admit was not accurate. I forget the precise systematic that dominated - I think it was the heat produced by the presence of a uranium salt in the experiment. I will restore the sentence, worded more carefully, and linking cold fusion rather than the blog. Michaelbusch (talk) 05:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your answer and correction. This remove so much substance to the argument that I wonder why you would like to keep it in the intro. Also, you seem to infer that hydrino has been created, and has been developed over many years, to explain only one CF experiment. That seems odd to me, knowing that they are many more experiments. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The substance of the argument has not been changed. It is a very important point that Mills purports to explain something that has since been discredited. Irrespective of later cold fusion experiments, the data he claimed to explain by hydrinos was not valid. As noted in the review of his work by Rathke, Mills continually claims to explain puzzling results with hydrinos and said results are usually inconsistent with Mills' claims - in the case of the 1989 cold fusion work, the data he claimed to explain was flawed. In the case of his claims about electron orbitals, he ignored that orbitals have been imaged directly and agree with quantum mechanics. For his claims about dark matter, he can explain the mass of dark matter but not its spatial distribution. It is important to give the first example of Mills making claims at odds with the data, and that is the cold fusion business. Michaelbusch (talk) 08:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, Rathke's review does not talk about cold fusion experiment. So, what are the sources for your argument linking 1989 cold fusion expermiment and Mills ? If unsourced, the sentence will have to be removed. Pcarbonn (talk) 09:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rathke's review deals with all of Mills' errors, but the cold fusion stuff is not emphasized, true enough. However, if you dig up an old version of Mills' book, it deals with the 1989 cold fusion claims - note that since he keeps changing the book the current version is not the same as the claims he made in 1991. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a quote from J. Wales that I found on WP:PROVEIT:
I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons
I gave the citation, so I venture that the above is not applicable. Since you seem to feel strongly about this, I will leave the sentence out for the moment - the bollocks of cold fusion is already explained elsewhere. However, many of your last set of changes are not acceptable under WP:NPOV and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, and I have reverted those. Example: at one point, you replaced 'Mills claims to explain' with 'Mills explains'. Mills explains nothing - he claims to explain. This is a subtly of NPOV that would not be a problem if Mills' work were not so obviously pseudoscience. As it is, it is very much necessary. Michaelbusch (talk) 03:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Concerning the use of 'claim', I don't see any justification to use it in WP:NPOV and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. However, this generally accepted standard says that claim should be avoided in many cases: words to avoid. Pcarbonn (talk) 10:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't loaded. NPOV and PSEUDOSCIENCE dictate that we make the distinction I describe above - if we don't, we give false appearance of legitimacy. If you really must avoid the word 'claim', then we could use the word 'say' - as noted in the words-to-avoid. But the qualifier that Mills says he can do something, as opposed to Mills actually doing something, is most necessary under NPOV - we can't simply take Mills at his word. Michaelbusch (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You had not done so in your last edits, which also removed various legitimate statements, so I have reverted them. Looking over the page, I really don't see any word other than 'claim' that conveys the right meaning for Mills' statements. Regarding a few of your other deletions: you removed the statement 'Mills' work is not accepted by the scientific community and has been largely ignored by it'. That is true, as explained in the rest of the paragraph, and is very pertinent. You also removed the citation of imaging of atomic orbitals. I can explain that some more, although I suggest you read over the relevant articles. New section:
How to image atomic orbitals
One of the main dis-proofs of Mills' work is that atomic orbitals can be imaged. Pcarbonn asked how that is done. This is discussed elsewhere in Wikipedia, at least in part, but here is an attempt to explain it.
There are at least two ways to image atomic orbitals. One is to localize the position of an electron to much better than the size of the atom, using a pulse of light and very careful measurements. That has the dis-advantage of unbinding the atom after you make one measurement - because of the uncertainty principle the electron now has enough momentum to escape the atom. However, if we have a bunch of atoms in the same energy state, they are identical and we can repeat the experiment and map out the electron's probability distribution function - the shape and size of the atomic orbital. This is an old technique, and as I said, is rather crude and indirect. It does have the advantage of working on any atom, and the resulting plots are in agreement with QM. The second way to image an atomic orbital is to use a probe that is sensitive to electric and magnetic fields with atom-scale resolution - an atomic force microscope. Here you can map out the orbitals without destroying them - the distribution of the electrons determines the field the probe measures. This has the disadvantage that your electronic structure has to be pretty much immobile, limiting you to solid materials, but again the distribution is as would be expected from QM predictions. If I may be blunt: if Mills were correct, the Sun should not shine, the Earth should not form, and the computer I am using should not work. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Michael, thanks for your explanation. Certainly, adding a reference that succinctly demonstrates the observation of an electron's probably distribution function would go a long way towards refuting Mills' work. However, for me the sticking point has always been the fact that he can derive atomic parameters (atomic bond length, binding energy, bond angle, etc.) from a small number of physical constants. I know this because I've replicated his work up in my own code for up to three-electron atoms. In his Millsian software, he appears to extend this framework to arbitrarily large molecules. Assuming that Millsian isn't spun from whole cloth, it seems incredible that he could generate solutions for the hundreds of molecules that he has in the past year. I don't believe there is any analogous package based on non-CQM techniques that can do the same thing. Assuming for the time being that CQM is hopelessly flawed, would you agree that at the very least Mills has developed a convenient and successful algebra for deriving molecular parameters and structures? Ronnotel (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reference is the atomic orbital article - it covers the necessary material. I do not have Mills' software to play with, but I do know that CQM is complete bollocks. So his software is presumably also such. If you want a simple test, try putting in benzene - or even better, derive the energy levels of hydrogen. Mills' work is complete nonsense, and there are molecular dynamics codes that do far more than what he claims to do with his code - and do it right. Michaelbusch (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I have derived the energy levels of Hydrogen using Mills' approach and the numbers seem to check out. I'd be happy to send you my code. Ronnotel (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mills' has published a spreadsheet that computes the atomic energy for all atoms between 1 and 20 electrons and between 1 and 20 protons starting from a small number of physical constants only. In my own code and using my own sources for the physical constants, I have validated the formulas up through 3 electrons and have no reason to doubt the numbers beyond that. The Millsian software solves molecular problems orders of magnitude more quickly than other packages. That's why I have a hard time writing this off - there seems to be something of use even if the math makes no sense. Ronnotel (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either that or he just has a lookup table in there. But 'atomic energy' is a mis-nomer. I very much doubt that he can predict fine structure splittings - that actually needs quantum. Rydberg's constant is enough for a good answer to the binding energy of hydrogen, and that is semi-classical. Michaelbusch (talk) 01:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty good at programming and I could see no hidden lookup tables in Mills' spreadsheets. And I'm certain I didn't use any myself in my validation code. Ronnotel (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ronnotel, I think you are missing Michaelbusch's point. Remember that the Rydberg constant (and 1/n^2 scaling) pre-dates quantum mechanics, proving that there are empirical fits for the basic energy levels (the spherically symmetric s-orbitals) without QM. Re-computing those results is no big deal for any number of models, and therefore no big deal for Mills' spreadsheets. Michaelbusch is saying that a far more rigorous test is whether Mills' model can reproduce, without additional arbitrary constants, a.k.a. the "hidden lookup tables", the fine structure splittings. In mainstream QM, the fine structure comes directly from the spherical harmonic functions which are the solution to the angular part of the wave equation. Mills doesn't even believe in non-spherical electron distributions, it seems, and so it's hard to believe that his theory gets this part right. JohnAspinall (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
John is correct. Also, we have pictures of the orbitals. That should be sufficient dis-proof, if everything else wasn't. But this thread has been derailed from discussion of the article - I started it merely to answer a question by Pcarbonn. Michaelbusch (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, John, I'm not sure how the theory gets past that point either. All I can tell you is that I believe Mills' algorithm produces accurate atomic parameters (atomic energy, bond length, bond angle, etc.) for an ever increasing catalog of atoms and molecules. I have independently reproduced the values in his spreadsheet for 1, 2, and 3-electron atoms for an arbitrary number of protons (which would incorporate the fine structure, I believe). I am not aware of any QM techniques that can do what Mills' software can do. I would encourage you to take a look at his spreadsheet and my partial validation of it and tell me where I'm going wrong. Michael, can you provide a reference for these pictures - all I saw at the page you cited images generated from formulas, I believe. Ronnotel (talk) 21:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adding an arbitrary number of protons does nothing for fine structure. That just scales the energy levels linearly. Fine structure predicts that the (e.g.) 2s orbital will fill before the 2p orbital, and thus provides a basis for the periodic table. JohnAspinall (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my code covers 3 electron + 3 proton (lithium), would that qualify? Mills' spreadsheet, on which my code was based, goes all the way up to 20 electrons + 20 protons and the derivations seem to be substantially similar to what is covered in my code. Ronnotel (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. Please read fine_structure. Mills' orbital theory contains a single quantum number, roughly corresponding to QM's n quantum number. But QM contains 3 quantum numbers, usually denoted n, l, and m, for the "hydrogen-like" atom. Fine splitting is about the small (hence "fine") energy difference between different values of l. Without that energy difference, the periodic table does not fill in the observed order. JohnAspinall (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we're at a disconnect. Mills' spreadsheet calculates accurate values for atomic energies for all elements up to (at least) 20 electrons. How can he do this if it doesn't handle the fine structure issue you mention? Ronnotel (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, John states the physics correctly - it is trivial to scale the Rydberg constant to explain all single-electron molecules and even to get multi-electron molecules accurate to within a few tenths of an eV. Fine structure is on the level of 1/1000th an eV - and hyperfine structure is at the level of 1/109 eV. Ab initio quantum mechanics computations are accurate down to that level - Mills is not. In answer to your request: Atomic force microscopy gives a few example images of orbitals, and citations to more.
Here is one of the ones available on Commons. This is an image of the electron density along the surface of a sodium chloride crystal, courtesy of Ernst Meyer at the University of Basil. You can see the lattice structure, and the enlarged shells of the Cl atoms with respect to the Na. There are also two crystal defects. I admit that this is not the most stunning image. There are better ones available - a quick Google search suggests [this Science paper], which has some good images of carbon nanotubes - nested one inside the other. F.J. Giessibl at the University of Regensburg has a page with a number of very cool images here. In particular, the last site has direct images of the electron co-orbitals in graphite and the orbital structure of metallic tungsten. The latter isn't pretty, but is most definitely non-spherical. I might ask Giessibl if we could upload some of his pictures to Commons - the graphite one is particularly fun. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those are some cool shots. Thanks. I'm not sure I can pick out the 'orbitals' from the images but they look pretty cool nonetheless. However, I still think there is something interesting going on with Mills' stuff - mostly because he doesn't need any non-physical constants such as Rydberg's, scaled or otherwise. And he also does it with closed form solutions. I'm not saying he is correct, but I think the accuracy and compactness of his forms at the very least deserves some attention. Ronnotel (talk) 01:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. Rydberg's constant is composed entirely of fundamentals - which were known from other work when Rydberg set up the model - which he admitted was only a crude approximation. And as has been stated, Mills' numerology isn't at all accurate - it matches the data to first order, as do any number of similarly non-physical models. As both Jon and I have said: Mills' work matches the principal quantum number n, which is trivial to do. It does not match the spin quantum numbers l and m, and therefore cannot match fine structure. It does not include the magnetic dipole interaction of the electrons and the nucleus, and therefore cannot match hyperfine structure. Quantum mechanics is constructed the way it is because it is the easiest way to match the observed properties of matter - and that it does exceptionally well. As I said above: if Mills were correct, then none of the subtle structure of matter would exist - the Sun could not shine, the Earth would not have formed, and the lasers and semi-conductors in modern computers could not exist. Michaelbusch (talk) 05:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pcarbonn, with respect, your reasons for a POV tag do not make sense to me. I have explained above that to avoid using the word 'claim' requires linguistic contortions that seem pointless. Please provide a list of what you consider 'dubious statements' - I think I have addressed two of them above. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. You haven't addressed the dubious statements: you have not provided references. And for the use of claim: replacing 'claim' by 'say' is not a linguistic contortions. We need to have high POV standard in this article because it is targeting a living person. Pcarbonn (talk) 07:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please provide a list of what you term 'dubious statements' - here, not on the article with 'cite needed' tags. Cite needed is not the same as dubious. Also provide your rationale for declaring statements dubious. The two statements I thought I had addressed are: imaging of atomic orbitals as a disproof of Mills' work (above thread), and 'Mills' work is not accepted by the scientific community, and has been largely ignored by it'. The first part is explained and cited to death in the article - please don't deem it dubious. The second is evident from there being relatively few peer-reviewed debunkings of the work (cited in the next sentence). If the community took much interest in the debunking, there would be rather many more. I've removed several of those 'cite needed' tags you added as nonsensical - they are either linked to relevant articles or cited in adjacent sentences. Re. linguistic contortions: some occurrences of 'claim' or 'claims' can be modified, but how would you render 'Mills claimed that the universe is accelerating as it expands' without changing the meaning? Michaelbusch (talk) 21:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In some of the places you had put cite-needed tags, I concede that the references were not immediately obvious. I have corrected these - but please don't flag things like orbital imaging and the collisionless nature of dark matter again. Those are explained well enough in the linked articles. Michaelbusch (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why I would have to make the list here instead as with tags in the article. The only way to respond to this tag is to provide a quote. Justifying the sentence in the talk page is NOT the wikipedia way to address it. Your explanation on atomic orbital imaging clearly shows that this is an indirect method, and does not support the view that this is "direct imaging". I have not said that your statements were nonsensical. References to other wikipedia articles are not valid: "Articles and posts on Wikipedia should never be used as third-party sources" (see verifiability). How can you prove that there is only only peer-reviewed evaluation ? Unless quoted, this is WP:OR. Rendering your sentence is easy: "Mills says that the universe is accelerating as it expands". Anything else is an attempt to throw point of view in the sentence. Pcarbonn (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pcarbonn, you are mistaking the meaning of {{citation needed}}. It does not mean a statement is dubious - it means it should be cited more clearly. Many of statements you tagged are cited in adjacent sentences - you don't go around tagging every word for citation. By linking other articles, we aren't using the other articles of Wikipedia as third-party sources - they themselves are sourced. We are using them as further explanation of material so that this article is not outrageously long. Your list should be made here rather than cluttering the article with tags because here you can explain why you take issue with a statement, it can be addressed, and discussion can take place. That doesn't happen if you simply tag the article - instead you get articles cluttered with tags that really shouldn't be there and confuse the reader. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Back to your particular concerns:
Re. atomic orbital imaging: it is direct imaging - you measure the electron distribution function at every point in space. That is as direct as you can get. If you wanted optical imaging - that is pointless - you can't make an electromagnetic image of a single electron (as I described). Even if you could, it would contain only as much information as is in the distribution function map - that is the electron.
Re. the matter of peer-review - all peer-reviewed journals are indexed thoroughly, in many places. For physics, this includes arXiv - which contains the vast majority of all physics papers (including a very large number that are not peer-reviewed before being posted). At present, Rathke's critique is the only one published in the peer-reviewed literature. There is one other paper on record, by a Norman Dombey, which has been submitted to Physics Letters. I will add an appropriate reference to the article, since you seem to insist. Michaelbusch (talk) 05:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re. 'Mills says that the universe is accelerating as it expands' - that is not sufficient information. Why do we care about this - that includes the surrounding text. In that context, 'say' doesn't ring right. We aren't here to defend Mills - we are here to be neutral while being in accordance with the scientific consensus. Doing that while removing words with negative connations for Mills' work is difficult at best. That is a stylistic judgement. 'words-to-avoid' is hardly an absolute. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AVOID is not policy. It is a guideline - and contains the specifier that it should be violated in favor of Wikipedia:Common sense. This is the rationale for including 'claim' - and note that very little of what Mills claims is 'basicaly factual'. Now, re. verfiability: you flagged a great many things that were cited in acadent sentences. Common sense says that that is pointless. In a few cases, additional citations seemed called for, and those I've added. In other cases, you flagged things as needed citation that are explained in linked articles (like dark matter being collisionless). Those are well discussed and cited in their associated articles, as I explained, so a full discussion/citation isn't needed here - again, that seems like common sense to me. Bottom line: please use common sense and please don't be dense. Michaelbusch (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I see that we are not progressing. Please realize that I'm not saying that your statement are wrong: I'm saying that they could be seen as wrong, and need more references. Again, article on living persons require a high level of standard. If general rules are not clear enough, let's take some examples:
"physical evidence such as the direct imaging of atomic orbitals": first, why don't you insert a good reference in the article ? It's easy, and it would be informative to the reader. I could not find any such reference in the atomic orbital article, which does not talk at all about imaging. Actually, that's why quoting other articles is not accepted in the guideline: you never know how that article will evolve. Second, I still challenge the "direct". When you think about it, the imaging you describe uses QM to derive the image: it looks like a circular reasoning, don't you think ? Better to say "physical evidence such as the imaging of atomic orbitals", without "direct", and with a reference: this would be NPOV to me.
The imaging is referenced in atomic force microscopy. If you insist on it, then some of the additional images I linked above can be referenced. AFM doesn't use QM to derive the image: you are measuring the electric field at every point in space, and making an image of it. That is direct imaging. Interpreting the image needs QM. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still request that the word "direct" be removed until it is quoted as such. This article says that it took 6 months of number crunching on a supercomputer to produce the image from AFM: this is hardly "direct". Again, WP:Verifiability states that ""Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." Clearly, your statement can be challenged, and has been (by me). Pcarbonn (talk) 07:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you concede that there is no circular reasoning here, please let me explain what is meant by 'direct image': the difference is between a model image inferred from some other data and a direct image obtained by something directly sensitive to the spatial distribution of the electrons. By your argument interferometry doesn't produce direct images - this is simply a question of terminology. If you are really so insistent, the word can be removed. Note: in the article you cited, the six months of computer time were a simulation of the imaging process, not the actual data reduction. That is many orders of magnitude faster. Michaelbusch (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your offer to delete the "direct" word, which I accept. Please include also a reference to a source describing atomic orbital imaging and which says or shows that there are no spherical ones.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcarbonn (talk • contribs)
"The only peer-reviewed evaluation, published in 2005 by Andreas Rathke of ESA". Your argument that one just has to look to find out falls into WP:NOR. It is actually not possible to check ALL peer-reviewed journals. It is similar to Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. Better to say "One peer-reviewed evaluation, ..."
The axXiv article says that "In many fields of mathematics and physics, almost all scientific papers are placed on the arXiv." So what you say is not correct. Pcarbonn (talk) 07:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is - 'almost all' includes all papers published in any peer-reviewed journal that accepts physics papers - arXiv uploads them as soon as it can get a copy. Michaelbusch (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Mills goes to great mathematical length..." Why do we need to say that ? To imply that the theory is not valid ? This is an unnecessary judgement, because it does not help in understanding the issue. Are we saying that QM goes to great mathematical length to derive atomic spectrums ? No, and we shouldn't. Better to say : "Mills uses mathematics to derive..."
I would prefer 'great length' - because Mills' mathematics are not valid. It is important to note the length of Mills' work - he has compiled 2000 pages of it, although much was copy-and-pasted. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Fringe makes a clear distinction between "a theory is not accepted", and a theory is rejected. You cannot say or imply the latter if you do not have a quote. Please provide a quote that "Mills' mathematics are not valid". I still challenge the article statement. This is also the reason why I reject the use of "claim". Pcarbonn (talk) 07:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify: you can say "Rathke says Mills' theory is wrong", but you cannot say or imply "Mainstream science says that Mills' theory is wrong" until properly quoted. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is quibbling and degressive. The sentence says 'Mills goes to great length' - that is simply a statement on the length of his book. I'm fine with you removing the entire sentence - it is a very minor point anyway. Michaelbusch (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
section on dark matter. I don't follow the logic. If dark matter is made of stable, non-ionized hydrino, they do not emit light according to Mills: this is in line with "dark matter is collisionless". When they are ionized, they are not dark matter anymore, and can react to create hydrino molecules. So, there is no contradiction, and the current statement is wrong. Furthermore, this is another example of Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. It must be quoted.
There is a contradiction. Mills says he has made 'molecular dihydrinos' - which means he says hydrinos interact. Dark matter doesn't interact, and Mills says hydrinos are dark matter - therefore he says hydrinos don't interact. This is the contradiction, and both halves of it are cited - noting that the contradiction exists is appropriate. There are other reasons why dark matter can't be hydrinos - aside from hydrinos not existing in valid quantum mechanics or under special relativity - but this single contradiction is what is relevant for the sentence. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I still do not see a contradiction. Dark matter is NON-IONIZED hydrinos, which don't emit light. I challenge the statement until quoted otherwise. Pcarbonn (talk) 07:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are mis-understanding the definition of collisionless - dark matter particles do not interact by anything other than gravity. They cannot form molecules, be ionized by light, or do any of the other things Mills claims hydrinos can do - if they did the distribution of dark matter in the universe would be very different. Thus the contradiction - dark matter cannot be Mills' hydrinos. Michaelbusch (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand the definition of collisionless, and I still see the contradiction. I suspect that you do not understand the definition of ionized hydrino according to Mills. I still request a quote for the article statement. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand Mills' claims. Any interaction of dark matter particles is not permitted - and yet Mills claims to have created hydrino molecules. This is the contradiction - don't bring anything crazy about ionization into it - that would require original work on both of our parts. Michaelbusch (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, because you are so insistent, I have added a reference to one of the main papers showing that dark matter is collisionless. Are you satisfied now? Michaelbusch (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the recent edits in the article. They go in the right direction, although I still have issues, eg. on the use of 'claim'. We could save ourselves this painful discussion if the article was wholly written based on the 4 papers available in arxiv. Could you consider doing that ? It would then be easy to provide quotes to any statements of the new article. Any statement that is not in one of these 4 papers should be removed. This would greatly enhance the quality of the article, and its NPOV. Pcarbonn (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re-writing the article based entirely on the arXiv papers is neither possible nor desirable. Those four papers are high-level theoretical physics, with exception of Rathke's critique, and making them understandable to the general reader is most difficult. In addition, the other information about Mills' work - his statements, the unofficial evaluations, the matter of plagiarism, and anything to do with his company - are not included in the papers. I'm afraid you'll have to accept citation of stuff other than physics papers - and do note that only Rathke's paper, out of the four, has actually been published. Regarding 'claim': as I said, words-to-avoid contains the specifier that common sense should be applied, and gives examples. We are to reflect the scientific consensus, which is that Mills' claims are uniformly wrong. Words-to-avoid lists this as an example of marginal use of the word - but I don't think you'd be likely to accept 'Mills falsely says' or similar repeated eight times over. Michaelbusch (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do accept "citation of stuff other than physics papers", in line with WP:Fringe#Parity_of_sources. I challenge stuffs that have no citations.
Pcarbonn, please explain what exactly you think is unfair synthesis, and why WP:BLP is relevant here. In my assessment, the dark matter business falls under WP:OBVIOUS, if that is what you are complaining about. Michaelbusch (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to explain why I would find it unfair, as my opinion is irrelevant. These sentences are challenged, and must be sourced according to the key, primary, essential wikipedia policy that is NPOV. BLP is only reinforcing the need to respect the NPOV policy, which applies to all articles. WP:Obvious is only a guideline, with much less strength than NPOV. It relates to facts, not synthesis, and usually applies to the first statements of an article. Please consider the examples that are given in WP:Obvious. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you are indeed objecting to the statements re. dark matter: dark matter is non-interacting - cited. Mills says hydrinos are interacting and that hydrinos are dark matter - cited. This is the contradiction, and it is necessary by NPOV and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE that it be made clear. WP:OBVIOUS merely means that it must be made explicit, rather than implied. Honestly, I don't understand why you are making such a big deal about this - Mills' work is bollocks regardless. This is just one particularly glaring example. While you do not need to explain why you think something is unfair synthesis, it would help greatly to my understanding. Michaelbusch (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if I'm going through this discussion, it is to make Wikipedia a more reliable source of information. I have also requested a clarification on the editing guideline for talk page. Your input would be welcome as it also relates to this discussion. See here. Pcarbonn (talk) 12:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So: what do you find unclear about the contradiction? This isn't synthesis: this is writing down two available pieces of information. Re. citation: Mills claims hydrinos are dark matter (cited). Mills claims hydrinos interact, producing 'molecular dihydrinos' (cited). Dark matter is non-interacting (cited). Contradiction. I am done. Michaelbusch18:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rathke quote
Pcarbonn just added a large quote from Rathke's debunking of Mills' work, which I have removed (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hydrino_theory&diff=175585448&oldid=175585243). Now, don't include primary sources likely applies, but I also take issue with the quote as being mis-leading. It is a flat-out de-bunking of Mills' work, worded in the appropriate hedging-of-bets tone of a physics paper. However, a casual reader might take it as something other than what it is. It is also long and confusing. So, Pcarbonn, what is your rationale for including the quote, and third-parties please express your opinions. Michaelbusch22:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because this is the central hypothesis of the theory, it is critical to say that QM does not exclude the possibility of lower ground state, according to Rathke. Please make a proposal on where to put it if the current statement is not OK for you. Pcarbonn22:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above that is not what Rathke said. You seem to be falling into a false dichotomy of dis-proof - thinking that if Rathke hedges his bets, it negates the debunking. Mills' work is falsifiable, and Rathke did so. He could not exclude the remote possibility of a lower energy bound state under exotic conditions, nothing more. That in no way weakens the debunking - and actually makes it stronger, because Mills' claims happen in laboratory conditions. If you may make this error, the casual reader is at least as likely. Thus my statement above. Michaelbusch22:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pls clarify the link to WP:Primary source: it doest not work, so I'm not sure what you mean. Also, I'm just reporting what Rathke says: if he said it, it has notability, and it must be relevant. I don't understand why we could not quote him here. Pcarbonn22:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has been fixed. Now, Rathke's critique is indeed notable and relevant. However, we should not provide a large and confusing quote when the summary is sufficient (see WP:QUOTE, under 'when not to use quotes', which is what I'm referencing). I have explained why the quote is confusing. Michaelbusch22:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is notable, relevant, and critical to the understanding of the subject. I do insist that it be included one way or another, possibly even in the first paragraph of the article. Pcarbonn22:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not dispute that it is notable and relevant, but a verbatim quote of Rathke isn't 'critical to the understanding of the subject' - the summation does that just fine. As I have explained, the quote you have proposed leads to certain mis-understandings, which are to be avoided. And putting it in the first paragraph is definitely undue weight. To be honest, I don't understand your motivation for including this - it is confusing and adds zero meaning. Michaelbusch23:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why you consider placing it in the first paragraph "undue weight", when it is about the main feature of the theory. Pcarbonn23:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded your version some, if you really want it in the lead. My reading of undue weight is that the lead paragraph should be general discussion of the idea - but that is approximately true of the current version. Michaelbusch01:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
cold fusion statement
There are 2 versions of the statement:
Mills first put forth his proposition of the hydrino in 1991, claiming to explain the purported excess heat reported in 1989 by cold fusion experimentalists[[16]] (the excess heat claimed in that particular experiment was later attributed to systematic errors[[17]]).
Mills first put forth his proposition of the hydrino in 1991, claiming to explain the purported excess heat reported in 1989 by cold fusion experimentalists[[18]].
I favor the second version because the quote of the first statement is a link to another WP article (which is not a reliable source), and because the section quoted cannot be summarized as you propose: the 2004 DOE panel was evenly split on the issue of excess heat, so you cannot summarize by quoting only (part of) one side. Please explain your justification before I ask for a Third opinion.Pcarbonn22:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Pcarbonn, the Mills' work in 1991 was based on the 1989 cold fusion claims, which were discredited. The 2004 panel isn't relevant here, because it referred to later work. The reference given is to the cold fusion page to avoid a long explanation here - we've had this discussion before. The Wikipedia article is not the primary source - the sources in it are. Michaelbusch23:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting from cold fusion, which is citing one part of the 2004 report - not the panel's conclusions, just the literature review:
'..in 1989, Fleischmann and Pons used an open cell from which energy was lost in a variety of ways: the differential equation used to determine excess energy was awkward and subject to misunderstanding, and the method had an error of 1% ...'
All experiment have a margin of error. The way you present it in this article misrepresents the situation.
Furthermore, unless this is quoted in relation to hydrino theory, you are giving notability to a statement that doesnot have it. I have now requested a 3d opinion. Pcarbonn06:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, you are confusing "error" and "systematic error". The sentence you quote only mentions error, not systematic error (ie. bias). Pcarbonn15:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the excess heat observed by F&P was well above the 1% of error, so this is not invalidating their report of excess heat as you imply.Pcarbonn16:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wasn't - it was around 3-sigma if I recall. I am quite aware of the difference between random and systematic errors, but an open cell has to suffer from systematics. Re. Rathke - don't try to game the system - he was debunking Mills. Don't try and pick select a quote that might lead to the readers thinking otherwise. Michaelbusch19:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mergal per Wikipedia precedent
In the past, when ONE PERSON advocates a singular theory and that person gains notoriety and notability from that theory, it is traditional for Wikipedia to merge the theory and person's articles into one. I have done so.
-- all very well, but by attempting to re-direct hydrino theory to Randell Mills you have managed to delete several years of contributions by many different authors, both pro and against hydrino theory! if however you were to re-direct the Randell Mills entry to hydrino theory instead, i at least would have no great objection.
