Talk:Brilliant Light Power

Mills' credentials

There is no record that Mills ever attended MIT. There is no entry for a Randell Mills in the MIT alumni directory. He may have audited some classes but that would not be sufficient for the claim "He later studied biotechnology and electrical engineering at MIT". The citation for that statement is a magazine article. I vote for deletion of that statement and also taking a closer look at his other credentials.Zen-in (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Go ahead. All claims in Wikipedia articles need independent reliable sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC).

By "may have audited" do you mean "may have attended"? It sounds like you have looked at something specific to say "no entry"—is there a link? Does anyone have information on the other claim at BlackLight Power#Randell Mills ("degree in Chemistry from Franklin & Marshall College") which has ^{[citation needed]}? Johnuniq (talk) 01:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I meant that he may have just occupied a seat in a lecture hall a couple of times. If he attended his name would appear in the alumni register. There is no entry for a Randell Mills in the MIT alumni register. If you don't think I'm telling the truth you should ask another MIT alum to log in and verify that information.Zen-in (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

(ec) I found this.

Good find. Why don't the skeptics actually call MIT so they can see the truth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.93.181.106 (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

"Randell L. Mills, M.D. graduated Summa Cum Laude in Chemistry at Franklin & Marshall College in 1982 and graduated from the Harvard Medical School in 1986. While doing his intern work, he also went across the river to MIT and furthered his education with electrical engineering courses."

I don't believe a Harvard Medical School intern would be able to find the time to travel from Brookline MA to MIT a few times a week. Maybe once or twice but not every week.Zen-in (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

While I'm not inclined to credit it as a reliable source for...well, anything, I suspect that FUSION Facts: A Monthly Newsletter Providing Factual Reports on Cold Fusion Developments can at least be relied on to present one of its 1991 FUSION SCIENTISTS OF THE YEAR in the most favorable light possible. At best, then, he dabbled in a few engineering courses while a medical intern, and has since made a point of hyping it without offering any details. (Technically, every statement I've seen would still be true if he took one course in biotech and one course in electrical engineering. Heck, the statements would still be true if he audited the courses, or failed them, or did them as some sort of night-school continuing education offering.) Definitely shouldn't be included without some meaningful details. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

When I read "studied at MIT" I interpret it to mean he attended lectures, recitations, handed in complete problem sets, and wrote tests. Someone who audits a course has permission from MIT to just occupy a seat in the lecture hall. They are not studying the subject. If he was registered as a student, attended some courses and failed them he would appear in the alumni register. Sometimes Harvard students audit MIT courses. That might be what he did. But I don't think it could be said he studied at MIT. No "night-school continuing education offering" is available at MIT. OpenCourseWare videos are available for many MIT courses. I don't think anyone who watches a few minutes from one of these videos can seriously say they studied at MIT either. Zen-in (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

As far as the article's content go, I don't think there's any disagreement that the MIT claims should be excised as needless puffery. With respect to Mills' attendance or registration status, I would be hesitant to rely absolutely on the alumni directory/register info. Do we know with certainty that the same information and detail available for recent students is available for individuals who would have been on campus in the early eighties? (Similarly, the type and breadth of program offerings in the early 1980s are probably different from what we see today. Incidentally, MIT does indeed offer continuing ed courses.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, its just puffery. MIT's definition of who is an alumnus/alumna has not changed in that time. I can only speak about the courses and admission requirements at MIT in the early 80's because that was when I was a student there. MIT does offer professional courses beyond the undergrad and grad curriculum, but it is doubtful a medical school intern could afford them. I sometimes run into this kind of puffery and sometimes worse credential fraud. I remember one individual who claimed he "studied" at MIT and at the Kennedy school of business at Harvard.Zen-in (talk) 05:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no need for a long discussion. If rock-solid independent sources do not support a fact (as appears to be in this case) then the fact goes out:WP:RS. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC).

Here's the proof he studied there, and he studied under the famous Professor Hermann Haus, which should also be added to the page:

From: http://www.sheldonemrylibrary.com/tjsummer12.pdf

The Trends Journal Meanwhile, after completing his medical studies in three

years, Mills spent a fourth year at MIT investigating electrical engineering. He became a student of renowned physicist Hermann Haus, who won the prestigious National Medal of Science in 1995. He and Mills shared a frustration: hydrogen is the most abundant material in the universe, but in some basic ways, its behavior violates the laws of quantum mechanics, which is the reigning structure of physics theory. Scientists don’t know why; they just accept that it does.

That wasn’t good enough for Haus and Mills. Inspired by the professor, Mills turned away from quantum mechanics and returned to classical physics – physics as it was before Einstein – to find an answer. From those long-ago roots, he crafted a mathematical theory that not only explains why hy- drogen is stable, but also predicts that new forms of hydro- gen are possible.

I expect the person who made the bad edit by removing the text do the work himself to re-add the text along with additional text referencing Haus as Mills' teacher. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Where did The Trends Journal (TTJ) get Mills' MIT background? It is an interview, not a definitive biography of Mills. I would think the author either got it from Mills directly, or from some literature, likely online. Why would the author care how factual this small tidbit of information is? I wouldn't see the author spending much time verifying it. There is no indication in the article of his source. Therefore, I don't see this article as a reliable source on Mills' MIT background. That information should stay off the page until an RS supplied. If Mills just audited a classes at MIT, I would question adding the MIT quote in the article.

"Investigating electrical engineering" (TTJ) or "studied biotechnology and electric engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology" (Quantum Leap Mag) could mean many things. Going to MIT's library and reading a textbook occasionally would qualify. Jim1138 (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

here is a nice new book that explains it all Randell Mills and the Search for Hydrino Energy — Preceding unsigned comment added by GUTCP (talk • contribs) 21:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The author, Brett Holverstott, is described by the publisher as having been an employee of Mills.. That hardly suggests an impartial observer. LeadSongDog come howl! 03:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Possibly self-published? Ravensfire (talk) 04:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2016

Nothing useful here ...
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Do you guys realize how screwed you are going to be when the SunCell is released this year and the full extent of your continual efforts to defame Blacklight Power is uncovered for the entire world to see? Imagine the opportunity costs of just one year of suppression of the technology behind the SunCell. We are talking literally trillions of dollars; now multiply that by the decades long crusade perpetuated by team sycophant morons here and you will have an idea of the extent of crap that is about to hit the fan. Hope you enjoy going down in history as members of the elite few who tried their darndest to hold back real scientific progress for a couple of decades. We'll look forward to seeing your true identities revealed and plastered all over the news. 50.178.165.9 (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)  Not done No edit requested, just a rant. Ravensfire (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done No edit request made. Alexbrn (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Nothing useful here ...
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Of note, Whois gives 50.178.165.9's ISP as Comcast with an location of Mt Laurel, NJ 08054 about 35 miles SW from BLP's given address of 493 Old Trenton Rd. Cranbury, NJ 08512 Jim1138 (talk) 07:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Unbiasing the page

There have been several announcements, progress updates, and technology updates from BLP over the last few months, especially the last week. They have published videos showing a sustained reaction that's producing a visible plasma. I will say that this page is going to significantly change over the next few weeks, and hopefully, once and for all, it will become unbiased. By the way, Mills studied at MIT by taking EE classes there, he did not receive a degree. The edit that was made to remove that text was a bad edit. The text quoted the article, and the article correctly stated that he "studied" at MIT. I hope the person who made that bad edit has the sense to revert it. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Eric mit 1992, great! I'm looking forward to some relief from my electric bill. I will gladly rewrite the article myself when my power bill drops.

When will a working model be given to a qualified, reliable group who can verify its operation? Validation would need to be done in the group's own lab and on their own terms. And not being carefully monitored and orchestrated by BLP? Is there any RS information on such an event? That should be included in the article.

Also, when will samples of hydrinos be made available? (Can I get some?) The existence and characteristics of hydrinos were discussed without resolution on Talk:BlackLight Power/Archive 5#Hydrinos - Waste product BLP must have accumulated significant quantities by now. Verification of the existence of hydrinos would go a long way to demonstrating their claim. And, BLP wouldn't even need to give up any technological secrets. Given that the hydrogen to hydrino transition emits copious amounts of energy, hydrinos should be quite stable, safe to ship, and unlikely to deteriorate. Any RS news on BLP making hydrino samples available should be added to the article Jim1138 (talk) 04:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Great news! It's sad that the article has been locked, thereby hindering updates. Mainstream science community does not like being proven wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.93.181.106 (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

BlackLight Power now Brilliant Light Power

The company seems to now be named Brilliant Light Power. Clicking on the Home link on http://blacklightpower.com takes you a page titled "Brilliant Light Power". clicking on the Home link takes you to to http://BrilliantLightPower.com. Time to move the article? Jim1138 (talk) 04:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

While not a usable source, this appears to confirm the name change, effective November 2015. No problem here moving the article. Ravensfire (talk) 15:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

It appears many news sites echoing blp.com's announcement.

• BLP holds Brilliant Light Power trademark - https://trademarks.justia.com/867/84/brilliant-light-86784990.html
• Odd twitter - Home Depot doesn't stock needed parts? http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/02/25/blacklight-power-having-challenges-with-prototype/ BLP twitter: "Prototype scheduled probably early 2015. Sourcing components issue. Can't get at Home Depot or Lowes." ??? Also, some interesting comments by one who attended a demo.
• Report from a demo attendee - http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/01/29/report-from-the-blacklight-power-demonstration/
• "Latest from e-catworld - anyone can request a demo invitation" http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/01/11/brilliant-light-power-coming-out-of-the-shadows-becktembra/

Jim1138 (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Moved. Citations may need updating. Jim1138 (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Patent application activity

Checking up on activities at the European Patent Office, I came across an application EP 2966723  and this search opinion filed last month. Paragraph 3 of the opinion is an interesting analysis, particularly 3.3, where the opinion states that "The experimental data given on pages 146-232 of the present application do not appear plausible as many of the experiments are reported to provide an infinite energy gain (see, for example, the first experiment of page 146). This means that energy is generated out of nothing, i.e. a perpetuum mobile has been created. Perpetuum mobiles and infinite energy gains are also contrary to wel-established physics." LeadSongDog come howl! 17:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2016

Please add the following at the end of the section titled: == Legal threats to physicists ==

Legal threats were also made against Engineers Australia in 2016 relating to alleged copyright infringements following the publication of powerpoint presentation slides of an independent evaluation of Brilliant Light Power technology claims.

Simon brink (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 12:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2016

Hello- I am currently registered with Wikipedia and as this page only requires registration in order to edit I would like to have permission to do so, thank you. Much of the verbage in this article is out of date and should be updated. Leon Gonzalez

LeonGonzalez (talk) 16:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Claims section

The Claims section of the main article is out of date.

There is a substantial history of evolving claims since the "cold fusion" events mentioned in this section. These claims are important to describing the subsequent (and current) activities of Brilliant Light Power, the subject of this article, and its precursors.

I would be willing to propose updates to this section, but I sense that editing is very contentious here and I am not sure what level of citation is expected to support a statement "R. Mills claimed X in year Y". Are direct citations to refereed and non-refereed publications appropriate? Secondary sources like Holverstott's recent book? Blacklight Power and Brilliant Light Power web pages?

What guidance can be offered to a contributor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.40.237 (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:PSCI. WP:BESTSOURCES. WP:POVSOURCE. WP:SYN. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Note: the text below is a work in progress. It was initially introduced 21 November 2016 as "Proposed outline for the Claims section". My intent is to edit it here in the talk page, guided by WP:FRINGE and the sources mentioned by LeadSongDog, to the point where it has enough detail to become a request to "Replace the existing Claims section with this text". 24.17.40.237 (talk) 07:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Replacement Text for Claims section:

Claims

Since the early 1990's, Mr. Mills has presented a large number of claims related to his novel physical theory. These claims may be categorized as

1. Claims that independently known or reported phenomena are explained by, predicted by, or consistent with the theory,
2. Claims that laboratory experiments designed to test or demonstrate the theory were performed, and supported the theory
3. Claims that there are important practical applications of the theory
4. Claims that commercial equipment exploiting the theory will soon be manufactured and sold

Considering the large number of claims put forward over an extended time period, the following sections are not comprehensive. Representative claims of the four categories are described below. 24.17.40.237 (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Explanatory claims

Mills has claimed that his theory explains early "cold fusion" results as hydrino phenomena; that the theory computes accurate values for atomic ionization potentials; and that the theory explains the properties of "dark matter", among other things.

Experimental claims

(Examples: hydrino generation in plasmas, electrochemical cells; detection of light, NMR, etc. signatures)

Few of these experimental claims have been independently replicated. Some have been strongly criticized (see Criticism, below).

Applications claims

(Examples: power generation, hydrino-based materials with special properties)

Commercial equipment claims

(Examples: electrochemical power generators, 2016 "SunCell" generator) None of the claimed commercial equipment has actually become available.

The intent of this section is to describe what Mills has claimed, no more. Thus the typical citation would be to a work, verifiably authored by Mills, which makes the claim attributed to him. Am I on the right track? 24.17.40.237 (talk) 22:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. I would like to see the article stubbified down to everything except its lede. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC).

I believe Xxanthippe proposal for massive article restructuring deserves separate discussion from this one, which concerns updating Claims section. 24.17.40.237 (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I am currently looking at WP:FRINGE for guidance.

Under Evaluating_and_describing_claims I see a suggestion to "first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas", which is where I see this going. However, WP:FRINGE also recommends to "avoid hiding all disputations in an end criticism section" and to "avoid excessive use of point-counterpoint style refutations". In light of this, I suggest we place Criticism immediately after Claims, so it is not "hiding" in an "end" section. I think Criticism should lead off with a couple of paragraphs fulfilling the WP:FRINGE-suggested role of referring the reader to more accepted ideas. I would remove the separate Experimental Results section entirely, placing Neidra et al ("NASA") and Marchese et al ("Rowan University") in the Experimental Claims section. Regarding Šišović et al ("European Physics Journal D") it could also go in this claims section, as a response to the relevant claims by Mills; alternatively it could go in Criticism. 24.17.40.237 (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

The reasons for these edits as indicated by the added warning templates

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brilliant_Light_Power&oldid=770863979 Sincerely, ^talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 03:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Please follow the WP:BRD rules and explain your reasons for making substantial changes to a fringe article under discretionary sanctions. WP:BRD does not mean WP:BRR. I see that you edit extensively in fringe physics areas. However, that does not mean that your edits to this article are invalid. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2017

Change spelling of "artefact" to "artifact" in 3 locations. 2601:602:9400:5140:7578:B034:8D5B:E22 (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: "Artefact" is a valid spelling and in each instance appears as a quote.See MOS:SPELLING for more information. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 24 Dec 2017

In the Peer Reviewed Responses section Rathke is cited as saying there is "no theoretical support of the hydrino hypothesis" back in 2005. There is a more recent article (2013) which states: "In summary, the hydrino states exist for both the Klein–Gordon and the Dirac equations, but they are sensitive to using a point-nucleus versus a finite-nucleus model, critically so in Dirac’s equation and less so in the Klein–Gordon equation." . Similarly, a paper from 2012 states "We propose a theoretical explanation of the effect based on the mathematical theory of physical vacuum...according to which hydrogen can be in the so called hydrino state with a small atom radius and the transition to this state is accompanied by considerable energy release" . Another even claims to have detected hydrinos "we in fact measured fluxes of {proton + heavy electron} pairs. Such {proton + heavy electron} pair can be named a subhydrogen, an additional term for the known hydrex[11-15], hydrino [16-19] and pseudoneutron [24]" . These seem to contradict Rathke, so some mention of them would be worthwhile, and perhaps some moderation of the Rathke assertion(s). I'd be happy to suggest appropriate edits, but it would be good to first reach consensus that some sort of edit is warranted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.97.117 (talk) 12:55, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Is anyone monitoring this section? Surely if it is semi-protected someone is aware of requests??

Indeed yes, people are aware. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 23:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Aware and unwilling to engage in a discussion per my request? 49.199.182.82 (talk) 06:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I think mainstream physicists would continue to claim that there is no theoretical support of the hydrino hypothesis, so there's no reason to make a change to that part of the article.

JCMNS is a fringe journal. Useful, perhaps, to describe fringe beliefs themselves, but not to comment generally on science. ApLundell (talk) 15:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

There are plenty of people alert to watch that fringe material is not inserted into Wikipedia unchallenged, but not to engage in tendentious debate on the subject, which is not the purpose of the talk page. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC).

Agreed. According to page information, there are currently 135 watchers. Given that BLP has been doing this for awhile, they should have accumulated a large quantity of hydrinos by now. I'm sure any chemistry prof would give their eye teeth for a significant sample. Need a postal address? Jim1138 (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

What has any of that to do with the references from reliable sources provided above? These are all more recent than the cited materials in the article, and would warrant some sort of moderation of what is currently clearly untrue statements. "Thinking" what mainstream physicists would or wouldn't claim is no replacement for reliable sources - not to mention the fact that mainstream physicists who have read Mills' & co. papers have deemed them suitable to publish in journals. If JCMNS is a fringe journal, please provide evidence to back that up - and by all means then disregard that single reference - but I note the others are not fringe, hence worthy of consideration. Assessing the content of RS is not tendentious debate, it's editing. As for the tendentious comments about accumulating hydrinos, this is both irrelevant to my request and demonstrates you haven't been paying very close attention to BLP. 49.199.112.144 (talk) 02:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

We don't give a reference to every new paper that comes along. We wait for new papers to be assessed by the scientific community, which will confer its imprimatur by citing them in the mainstream scientific literature. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC).

and so far there have been no cites to these papers. I can't see the profit of debating ad nauseam with the IP spas that flock here with requests to de-protect and to accuse others of corruption DFTT. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC).

That can lead to corruption. The company has provided math based on classical physics. To date not one academic scientist has found an error in the math. Important updates continue to come out of BLP, but you people in power of wikipedia continue to resist and block. How you people sleep at night is beyond me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.93.181.106 (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I normally lay my head on my pillow and close my eyes. Usually works. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 16:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes. And at least two of those references are examples of exactly that!! They both cite papers by Mills et al. demonstrating that more recent scientific enquiry contradicts the older claims currently featured in the article. Which is why I am suggesting that we moderate the language there by removing the impression that there is no theoretical support, when it appears there is some or limited theoretical support. 49.199.112.144 (talk) 06:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

There is obvious intellectual hypocrisy here. The zealous overprotection of the article does not comply with WP standards. Favouring 20 year old quotes over all the RS material that has since emerged is a beautiful example of circular reasoning. Some editors here claim that scientists would be clamouring for hydrinos yet fail to realise that the exact human frailty on display here operates amongst scientists as well. If you have already decided something can't be true, then no end of evidence will persuade you to do your due diligence, you will instead invest heavily is smear, innuendo, and most of all - ingorance. Ignorance derives from the root "to ignore" - just like these sorts of edit/discussion requests are ignored. Self-fulfilling blindness is how people sleep well at night, and if they're lucky their passive-aggressive ignorance will slow down developments enough that they can retire whilst still clinging to and cherishing their favoured world view. It is no accident that science progresses one funeral at a time. So too with WP!! 180.250.27.131 (talk) 05:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia cautiously reflects the scientific mainstream. This is a general-audience tertiary source, not a journal nor any other publisher of original research. If this is a failing of scientists, so be it, but it is not one that Wikipedia is equipped to solve. Grayfell (talk) 05:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting WP solve such problems. The main issue here is entirely internal to WP - the observation above merely points out how WP is reflecting the political defects of science. Note also that it is simply not possible to reflect the so called mainstream - aferall, who knows what that is?? All we have are RS to draw upon. But some editors would rather prop up their own belief of what the mainstream is rather than factoring in what actual RS materials say. It is notable that there is yet to be a single argument against moderating the language from "no" theoretical basis to "limited" - just a lot of ignoring inconvenient RS content. 180.250.27.131 (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy on fringe science is very clear.

If you want to debate policy, go to the Village Pump.

ApLundell (talk) 15:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

So please explain how this policy endorses the use of old, inaccurate sources in preference to newer RS? 49.183.58.243 (talk) 01:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you are not grasping wp:REDFLAG: To support an extraordinary assertion requires extraordinarily good sources. You could always debate it with Francis Bacon. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

What is so extraordinary about changing "no support" to "limited support"? And, even if such an edit is deemed to be extraordinary, then the good sources to justify it would be the existence of peer reviewed journal articles, as have been provided. I don't see how facetious comments about debating a long dead individual progresses the issue in hand - although it does highlight the narrow minded/self justifying approach on display here. In fact, the extraordinary claim here is that there is "no support"!! Please prove this assertion.49.199.190.137 (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

We don't pretend that Jello can provide "limited support" for a skyscraper. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are becoming increasingly obtuse. I have no idea what point you are attempting to make. My point is a simple one - I assume you would agree that if there are no peer reviewed journal articles supportive of the hydrino prediction that would demonstrate that there is no support for it. Conversely, if there are several peer reviewed journal articles (many if you count those published by Mills et al.) then this demonstrates that there is, at least, limited support for the theory. Snarkily clouding the issue with claims about bacon infused jelly doesn't make simple logic go away. 49.199.204.128 (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear to me. We have a direct attributed quote from a reliable source at a specific time saying that there is "no theoretical support of the hydrino hypothesis" in relation to Mills. Undermining this quote as you suggest would be WP:SYNTH, among other problems. If you have a reliable source which specifically says there is now "limited" theoretical support for the hydrino hypothesis, bring it forth for discussion, but this would merely be necessary, but not sufficient. As this is an extraordinary claim, this would require a high quality source and at least some context. Grayfell (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Is any purpose served by continuing to argue with the few-edit spa IPs? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC).

Ok. So here is a direct quote from a reliable source at a more recent time saying "A number of papers have reported empirical support for Mills' theory." 49.185.191.224 (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

And immediately after that sentence, they list the papers to which they are referring.

All of them list Mills as the primary author. ApLundell (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

That is not the issue, especially given those references aren't self published but are peer reviewed. The author also says "A new theory proposed by Dr. Randell Mills reproduces and surpasses the predictions of quantum mechanics" (emphasis added). These statements/judgements are about Mills' work by that author, it isn't for us to try and second guess/judge how/why they reached their conclusion - that is beyond the scope of WP. The fact is the RS just provided does exactly as was requested viz. it provides a high quality source with a directly attributable quote at a more recent specific time that says there is empirical support for the theory. This is even better than theoretical support. And if the referees of the quality peer reviewed journal deemed the evidence print worthy, it doesn't matter who the author is. At least, it shouldn't matter to WP if we are judging the quality of the sources rather than just obstinately relying on prejudice. And here is another which directly refers to Rathke's claim: "In a recent paper, Rathke [8] criticised the unconventional theory of Mills [9] concerning the existence of the hydrino state of the hydrogen atom. The present paper shows that one can find arguments in favour of the hydrino state also in the standard theory of relativistic quantum mechanics" (emphasis added).. So these are two separate authors post-Rathke claiming that there is theoretical support for Mills' prediction. 49.185.191.224 (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

That Selke paper that you're quoting seems to be written rather...informally. It also shows just one week from submission to online publication (received 19 November, accepted 24 November, published online 26 November). As a scientist, I can appreciate the value of efficient manuscript processing—nevertheless, one wonders if this might be too much of a good thing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

That's the best you can do to justify ignoring all of these RSs? The link is to a slightly improved version of the original paper - presumably why it was so 'efficient'. 49.185.191.224 (talk) 05:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, it's actually the Naudts paper which links to v.2, not Selke. But speculating about the implications of publishing efficiency is hardly the point here. The substance of these papers warrants a change to the article. 49.185.191.224 (talk) 05:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Applied Physics Research, published by the Canadian Center of Science and Education has been credibly accused of being predatory open access publishing. Not happening. Grayfell (talk) 06:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

"Not happening." - what happened to bringing forth RS for discussion? A blanket accusation hardly applies to every journal and paper... in fact professionals in the field think that paper suitable to cite in their work - which should trump any vague accusation. Plus there are other RS provided above, much like this one: "...new states called 'hydrino' or 'peculiar' states may be in principle observable..." . 49.185.191.224 (talk) 07:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you understood what I was asking for. I asked for a reliable source. This isn't. It's a questionable non-notable journal associated with a non-notable for-profit outfit which has been connected by reliable sources to predatory practices. You are mistaken in claiming that this paper's raw cite count trumps such accusations, and predatory open access publishing isn't vague. The PDF is not usable either, as it isn't published in a Journal as far as I can tell, nor would a WP:PRIMARY submission be sufficient for actively refuting this claim anyway per WP:OR. The reference to hydrinos is cited to Naudts, making it part of the same walled garden. As I said, a reliable source would be necessary, but not sufficient. Grayfell (talk) 08:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Who said anything about refuting Rathke's claim? The request seems to be to include additional information that moderates the impression of that claim. Adding WP:PRIMARY quotes or summarising them per the "limited support" suggestion is no more WP:OR than the Ratche quote 49.199.224.87 (talk) 08:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

This page should not be locked!

I see numerous fixes such as a broken link. Who broke the link because the original still works: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2005/aug/05/hydrogen-result-causes-controversy Also the last update in the article was 2013 when brilliantlightpower.com received a $1.1 million dollar grant from the government. A lot has happened since. 108.93.181.106 (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Calm down. Nobody "broke the link". It just became broken when PhysicsWorld renovated their website.

I've fixed it. ApLundell (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2018

CHANGE The following year, a 2000 patent based on its hydrino-related technology[25][26] was later withdrawn by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) due to contradictions with known physics laws and other concerns about the viability of the described processes, citing Park and others.[27] TO The following year, a 2000 patent based on its hydrino-related technology[25][26] was later withdrawn by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Robert Park had made a call to sound the alarm on Mill's patent with a contact he called "Deepthroat" in the patent office as per his own admission [REF PARKCOLUMN]. The actual reviewers were not involved only the superiors had overuled the patent. In a later court case BLP filed against the PTO Director James Rogan, the court admitted "that no one invovled in the withdrawl had actually reviewed the patent." [REF HOLVERSTOTT]

REF PARKCOLUMN- Brett has written a 5* reviewed book on Amazon.com Holverstott, Brett. Randell Mills and the Search for Hydrino Energy (p. 176). KRPHistory. Kindle Edition. Indeed, Park even gloated about this publicly in his online column. On September 5, 2002, Robert Park boasted: Prompted by an outside inquiry (who would do such a thing?) the patent director became concerned that this hydrino stuff required the orbital electron to behave ‘contrary to the known laws of physics and chemistry. (Park 2002)

Holverstott, Brett. Randell Mills and the Search for Hydrino Energy (p. 176). KRPHistory. Kindle Edition. Nhsadika (talk) 05:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.

There are many problems with this, specifically with WP:NPOV and WP:RS. For one example: a reliable, independent sources would need to explain why an Amazon review score has anything to do with anything being discussed here. Again, gain consensus for this before using the request template. Grayfell (talk) 06:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)