Talk:Nonradiation condition

Applications

We should add applications of nonradiation condition, such as fluorescent lights, nonradiative energy transfer devices, and recently invisibility physics. Mills also uses nonradiation as the basis for superconductivity. Holversb (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

No on the contrarty, I think we should leave Mills out of this article as far as possible. If this article is in any way based on Mills' work, in Wikipedia it automaticly becomes "pseudoscience" and has no chance of survival. What we should have here is the mainstram physics needed to undestand Mills' "theory", that cannot be included in the Hydrino theory article because of the opposition and the NPOV requirement of a scientific point-of-view. If you can provide reliable non-Mills sources that explain fluorescent lights with classical nonradiation conditions, please provide them. From the existing sources I see that Cerenkov radiation is explaned by nonradiation conditions by Hermann A. Haus, a reliable non-Mills source. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Name of article?

What should the name of this article be. Again I ask you to look at the issue from an anti-Mills point-of-view. One possibility is Classical nonradiation conditions, but is this too "millish"? If we call this Nonradiation conditions, then maybe we must include parts of quantum theory (not a bad idea). -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The nonradiation condition has absolutely nothing to do with quantum theory, it is entirely Maxwellian. I think the name "nonradiation condition" is fine. Holversb (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Expert-subject tag

The article appears to misstate results by Goedeke and Haus and to vastly overstate their significance, and has also been used in the past as a platform for Randell Mills to promote his pseudoscience. For those reasons I've added an expert-subject tag.--76.169.116.244 (talk) 21:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC) The description of Haus's result doesn't seem correct, since it describes the result as if it were of general significance, whereas Haus only proves a result for a single point charge. The depiction of the significance of Haus's work seems wildly overblown, which is probably because of Mills's kook agenda. Haus's paper is pedagogical, and a search for citations in SPIRES didn't show any citations.--76.169.116.244 (talk) 21:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)