Talk:Brilliant Light Power/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Brilliant Light Power. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

1 cent per KW???

The lede claims it "produces electricity for 1 cent per KW". Surely this should be kilowatt-hour? Although since it's not referenced, it should be removed? Didn't anyone who knows anything about science or engineering read this page? --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

That error was recently introduced. Thanks for catching it. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't find the source of the one cent per kwh claim perhaps it is from Mills' book in which case a page number would be helpful, I searched through the book and I didn't find the basis of the claim there. I did find claims of vastly cheaper energy production. The specific cost claims that I found were for the capital costs of power plants using CIHT and automobile power plants using CIHT.

The last sentence of the lede is now somewhat confusing: "The heat produced by the proprietary technology has been confirmed by involved parties but the process is unknown and not confirmed to exist." I guess this is meant to mean that BLP and Rowan University have confirmed excess heat gain but that their confirmation isn't confirmed and it is not known what causes the unconfirmed heat gains. I think the sentence needs to rewritten to reflect actual facts or just eliminated. The original lede was clear with good citations. The new lede is now unclear in places and it has poor citations. Consideration should be given to just returning to the original lede of a few weeks ago. --Davefoc (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I edited the lede. I didn't find a source for the statement that BLP claims 1 cent/kwh for the cost of electricity generated by CIHT, although I suspect that it might exist. I substituted the BLP claim that it is expected that CIHT will replace basically all power sources which was close to the intent of the original statement and I did find a source for that. I made some minor changes that I thought improved it, but others may, reasonably enough, disagree. As I stated above I thought the lede of a week ago or so was fine and I'm not opposed to returning to that. I also removed the last sentence that I discussed above. I thought it was ambiguous and wasn't needed in the lede.--Davefoc (talk) 08:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The 1 cent reference should be there some place. Sorry if it wasn't clear. The effect has been confirmed but Rowan university is to involved to consider it anything like independent replication. The technology hasn't been disclosed so the article should assure the reader there is no science here while still confirming the replications for what they are worth. (not much) There is some confirmation and there is no reason to think they have nothing at all but until there is any actual publication we should assure the reader no science has been confirmed to exist.

I'm sure it can be worded much better but you have to respect all the nuances. If you don't provide such "negative" assurances it becomes impossible to have content in the article. Any citation would make the company look entirely credible while they haven't really shown anything other than press releases.

Changing the lead is fine but it should say exactly what it does. The effect came after the theory and the effect is claimed to be based on the theory. You can not change this into the theory being based on the effect. If there is anything real or not or if he really "discovered" the theory first doesn't matter. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 02:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to revert the change to the lede. First 84.106.26.81 missed the point of this discussion section with his change. A KW or kilowatt is a measurement of power and not a measure of energy. If Blacklight power has made a claim about the cost of future energy production using CIHT it would have been in cost per KWH or kilowatt hour. 2. A Blacklight claim of electricity production of two cents per KWH is made under the company section of the article and one cent per KWH conflicts with it. 3. The quotation about the fact that BLP is expecting CIHT to replace almost all other forms of power generation is a more significant claim and is probably better suited to the lede. 4. There was no dcoumentation provided for the 1 cent per kwh claim and I looked for it before I changed the lede because I wanted to put something in the lede that I could source. --Davefoc (talk) 07:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I remember now, I found a lot of sources for that sentence but I didn't find the time to actually dig up a good one.

"electricity for 1 cent per KW" https://www.google.com/search?q=%22electricity+for+1+cent+per+KW%22

You will have to ignore the entries from panicking wikipedians. haha

It isn't that strange to measure in cent per KW. They do it with solar panels and wind turbines to. "Solar recently dropped below 1 dollar per watt." 84.106.26.81 (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

What that google search finds is a few mirrors of wikipedia content, not any Reliable Sources. That Solar recently dropped below 1 dollar per watt." refers to the capital cost (per kW of peak power generating capacity installed), not the operating cost or the wholesale price (per kWh of generated energy, often cited for a specific time of day due to demand fluctuations). Of course, we've still not seen reliable evidence that BLP's technology can generate any power beyond what can be explained by ordinary chemistry, but their claims continue. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Citation required template in the first paragraph in the Patents section

A citation required template was added to the opening paragraph of the Patents section. Presumably the fact in question is that the status on two of the patents that BLP might hold is unclear. The next two paragraphs explain, document and cite references for why this is so. I don't believe citations are required for this kind of opening paragraph any more than they are required for the lede of an article when the lede summarizes the contents of the article to follow. I suggest that the citation required template be removed from this section.--Davefoc (talk) 06:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Support - yes, it is not necessary to decorate every single sentence of the article with little blue numbers. So long as the main points are covered at least once by WP:RS - we're good to go. SteveBaker (talk) 14:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Based on a little research on the issue of BLP patents I think an update to the section may be in order. BLP claims four US patents. I'm not sure what those patents are right now but BLP has definitely been issued patents after the time covered by the section in general. This isn't exactly related to the topic of this discussion. I continue to believe that a citation for a topic sentence is not required when it is fully documented in the text that follows.--Davefoc (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

A search on the WIPO site shows dozens of BLP or Mills applications at various states, for various countries. Few are specifically hydrino related, some are for biotech, others for generic UV applications, etc. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there are lots of US patent applications (which is interesting by itself) and according to BLP 56 international patents but I think right now BLP only claims 4 US patents but that is still not consistent with the article. I think perhaps two of the patents have been granted since the bulk of the writing was done on the patents section in the Wikipedia article. I think the patents section needs an update.--Davefoc (talk) 07:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Patents that show up as assigned to BLP in google patent search:
Method and system of computing and rendering the nature of the excited electronic states of atoms and atomic ions, 7,689,367 B2 Mar. 30, 2010 An imaging patent not mentioned in the article

Method and sytem of computing and rendering the nature of the chemical bond of hydrogen=type molecules and molecular ions, 7,188,022 B2 Mar. 6, 2007 An imaging patent already mentioned in the article

Molecular laser, 7,773,656 B1 Aug. 10, 2010 Patent of a laser apparently based on the use of hydrinos

Lower-energy hydrogen methods and structures, 6,024,935 One of the two disputed patents described in the Wikipedia article. The other patent, 6030601, is not listed and the link to it in the current article doesn't work.

I think these are probably the four patents that BLP claims, although I'm not sure. Of these four, two are imaging patents, one is one of the disputed patents, and the other is a patent for a laser based on the existence of hydrinos (7,773,656). It appears that the patent office's unwillingness to grant hydrino related patents has been reversed.

In addition to these patents Mills has several medically related patents. I don't know that they are relevant to the article though. I also don't know that any of Mills medial patents have ever been licensed. --Davefoc (talk) 09:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The citation required notice has been removed from the section and the section was updated with information about the new patents. I believe this issue is closed. --Davefoc (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Does this article belong in the pseudoscience category?

Alan Liefting and JZG have edited in and out the placement of this article into pseudoscience and pseudophysics categories.

I can see an argument for and against the categorization:
1. The article is principally about the company and as Alan Liefting correctly states the company is not a pseudoscience.
2. Hydrino redirects to the article and the theory of hydrinos might reasonably be placed in the pseudoscience category.
3. Is classifying hydrino theory a pseudoscience a violation of NPOV?

I lean to the view that the categorization should remain given that this is the only Wikipedia article that deals with the theory of hydrinos but I might change my mind. The violation of NPOV might be a significant issue though.

Another issue with regard to this:
Why isn't pseudophysics a subcategory of pseudoscience? It seems like categorizing with both pseudophysics and pseudoscience might be overcategorization. --Davefoc (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The relevant policey is wp:PSCI, with a particular content guideline at wp:FRINGE/PS. The policy makes clear that free energy claims should be treated as such. As far as I see, it is silent on whether articles on companies "selling" PS should be in the cat. If the policy or guideline needs to be made explicit, we can discuss it at one of those two talkpages. Davefoc is correct that pseudophysics is a subcat of pseudoscience. I've deleted the PS cat and kept the PP.LeadSongDog come howl! 21:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that hydrino theory falls within a pseudoscience category based on the policy LeadSongDog linked to. That only leads the issue of whether it is appropriate to place a company article in a pseudoscience category when that company is focused on a pseudoscience technology. I lean to the idea that in this case it is. When the hydrino article was folded into this one this article became the only Wikipedia article covering hydrinos and as such it seems appropriate to include it in the pseudoscience category. --Davefoc (talk) 06:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems fine to include it to me. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree for inclusion, the sources support a Pseudoscience categorization; however, as illustrated in the article the issue is quite controversial. If the claims are ever validated, it should likely be removed from this categorization. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

....and added to Category:Formerly-alleged psuedoscience.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 15:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The patents section is out of date

Enric Naval edited the Patents section so as to clarify it on April 25, 2012. However his edits did not address the fact that the Patents section is out of date.

BLP has two more patents than the section lists:
U.S. patent 7,689,367 7,689,367 B2 Mar. 30, 2010 - Method and system of computing and rendering the nature of the excited electronic states of atoms and atomic ions. The patent covers the calculation of the properties of atoms using Mills' CQM theories and the display of the results on computers.

U.S. patent 7,773,656 7,773,656 B1 Aug. 10, 2010 - Molecular laser. Patent of a laser apparently based on the use of hydrinos. Based on the issuance of this patent it appears that the USPTO has changed course and has allowed an hydrino based patent. --Davefoc (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

(I added links in your comment)

Yes, they need to be added.

However, the second one doesn't demonstrate that the USPTO has changed course, just that BLP managed to get one hydrino-related patent through the cracks. Remember that 6024935 was granted without a problem until someone complained. See Cold_fusion#Patents, there are ways to get cold fusion patents granted even if the USPTO has an official policy against them. For example, by fuzzing the language so the reviewer can't realize that claim goes against mainstream physics laws, compare:

U.S. patent 6,024,935 "quantized lower energy levels and smaller radii (...) than the "ground state""

U.S. patent 7,773,656 "a stimulated transition from at least one vibration-rotational level to at least another lower-energy-level other than one with a significant Boltzmann population"

So, I wouldn't put in the article that this shows a change of attitude in the USPTO, until there is some reliable source saying so. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter a damn what the USPTO does or does not pass. Patent examiners are generalists - not experts. So their decisions do not constitute reliable sources for the science behind whatever patents they approve. The process is cursory at best. These days a patent is worth nothing until it's been contested in court. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, a patent is only useful as a reliable source to demonstrate that the author really did claim that something is true/possible.

SteveBaker (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

On the issue of whether the USPTO has changed course: I agree with all of SteveBaker's comments. I don't think there is enough information as to why the patent office granted the laser patent for the article to make any mention about that. I emailed Bob Parks and asked him if he was aware of the new patent and whether he had any comments about it. He didn't respond.

On Enric Naval's changes: I thought they were fine. I appreciated that they were made. From my perspective this issue is closed.--Davefoc (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I rewrote some bits using a new source:

Rimmer, Matthew (2011), "Patenting free energy: the BlackLight litigation and the hydrogen economy", Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 6 (6): 374, doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpr010

--Enric Naval (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Attempts by EarthTech to duplicate BLP results

In 2000 and 2001 EarthTech International attempted to duplicate the "light water Ni electrolysis experiment that Mills described in considerable detail in his 1996 book (p. 469 ff)".

An introduction to the experiments is posted here: http://earthtech.org/experiments/blp/HiFi/intro.html

EarthTech according to the homepage of their website is "a privately funded research organization exploring novel ideas in physics." http://earthtech.org/

I've known about these experiments for awhile but I've never been sure whether including information about them is appropriate to this article. The reports carefully document the attempts by the EarthTech personnel to duplicate BLP's results of anomalous heat gains with the electrolysis experiments documented by Mills in the 1996 version of his book.

The problem with the reports from my perspective:

Not submitted to peer review journals
The reports don't identify who the researchers were although from other information on the web it appears that Scott Little of EarthTech might have been the principal researcher.
EarthTech is something of a fringe institution in that they seem to pursue controversial even fringe ideas, however I don't know of any evidence that they are faking results or are involved in any questionable promotion of fringe ideas for the purpose of raising money under false pretenses.

Despite the above flaws the reports seem to document the work of conscientious and competent researchers who made a significant and serious effort to provide independent testing of the BLP claims of anomalous heat gains and it might be valuable to the article to link to at least the introduction to the reports of their experiments in the External links section or even to reference the material in the Mainstream science BLP related research and analysis section.--Davefoc (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Successful Verification?!?

On Blacklight's website dated May 22, 2012, they announce several independently verified studies, quote several seemingly prestigious names from institutions such as MIT and CIT and others in support of their ideas and even include papers written by these independent reviewers in support. At least two of these names pass the google test, but I don't know how to verify that these aren't false claims... that these supportive reviews aren't fabricated. If true, this could possibly bring blacklight's entire concept (and the GUT that supposedly explains it) out of the realm of pseudoscience and into the realm of revolutionary breakthrough... I have a very hard time believing that these newer reviews are genuine, considering the previous widespread agreement among the scientific community that their claims and theories are completely incoherent. Can anyone help verify? They shouldn't be able to get away with fabrication of independent reviews and support from the scientific community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.19.30 (talk) 04:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I saw the BLP press release which seems to have been picked up all over the web without any critical review. There are quite a few difficulties and I don't know what the article should say about this if anything. Some of the difficulties that I saw:

No peer reviewed reports
I didn't see any reports at all although maybe they exist and I didn't find them.
It is not clear that the people quoted by BLP would have been free to release an independent report. Were the people making these statements compensated? BLP has had these kind of "independent statements" before and I've never been able to find any reports written by the people in question that were released outside of BLP.
All the reported lab work seems to have been done at BLP. Reports of lab work done at a truly independent lab would seem much more worthy of a mention in this article, but they don't seem to exist.
The net power generated was in the range of a few milliwatts. This is very little power and a very long way from the promises of only a few years ago. Were the input and output power levels reported that produced this few milliwatt power gain?
As yet, there doesn't seem to be any commentary on the BLP claims, by anybody of sufficient stature to quote in a Wikipedia article about the significance of the new BLP claims.--Davefoc (talk) 08:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

should a press release be in the lead?

I think it's strange to have a press release as the 3rd paragraph. Maybe we should delete it unless someone writes an article about it Bhny (talk) 02:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. The problem is that company does not have a lot of credibility and even for a company with credibility extraordinary claims backed up only by press releases and articles written by people paid by the company might not be of sufficient reliability to include a mention in the lede. But right now, company press releases and articles in low credibility publications that re publish the press releases is all that is available about current BLP activities. There is no commentary from reliable sources to balance BLP press releases today because, I think, the company no longer has sufficient credibility or general interest to attract commentary or analysis from credible sources. It is hard for me to be completely objective about all this. I was an engineer and not a scientist but what is going on here does not have the ring of a search for truth to me. The company hires people to write articles that are never released in peer reviewed journals. It hires people to repeat their experiments, apparently with non-disclosure clauses in place. The replications are not independent experiments designed to creatively investigate BLP results, they are just rote repetitions of BLP procedures. The difference is obvious when you look at something like the EarthTech attempt to duplicate BLP results. EarthTech used their own initiative and skill to investigate anomalous results and to ensure meaningful results and they published completely independently of BLP. So what should the article say about all this? I don't know, but I think even the current reformulated lede gives too much credibility to the recent BLP press releases and reports. --Davefoc (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The lede is there to summarize the remainder of the article. The press release could be mentioned in the main body of the article - but a brief summary of what that would suffice for the lede.

Also, I'm concerned that the statement itself isn't quite what it may first seem. Finding "no evidence to reject" a claim doesn't make it true. You have to find evidence to compel you accept it...doubly so if it's something controversial (As Weinberg himself says in his report: "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence"...but mere lack of contradictory evidence doesn't pass that test!). For example, I can find no evidence against the hypothesis that there are colonies of small, green, piano-playing aardvarks on the dark side of the moon - but that doesn't make it true. (See Russel's teapot) So while Dr. Weinberg may indeed have said that, it doesn't have much bearing on whether this hypothesis is true or not. The whole thing is a little puzzling though - in his report, Weinberg says that he only spent two days working on this - hardly enough to gain a deep enough insight to overturn almost all of known physics! The report is also marked "CONFIDENTIAL" - which is an odd thing to push out in a press release. SteveBaker (talk) 13:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes a "confidential" press release is very strange. EarthTech isn't even mentioned in the article is it? Is it the only attempt at independent testing? Maybe their conclusion should go in the lead, replacing the press release. Bhny (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, the EarthTech work isn't published in a peer-reviewed journal - so just like most of the stuff relating to this whole BLP saga, it doesn't rise to the standards of WP:RS. Neither does Weinberg's report. All we can really say is "BLP said such-and-such" or "EarthTech said such-and-such"...but that's highly dubious since these reports are not by themselves particularly notable. But honestly - neither of these things belong in the article lede. That's supposed to be nothing more than a brief summary of the rest of the article. I propose that we completely remove the offending paragraph from the lede and discuss whether it belongs in the body of the article instead. SteveBaker (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

As to Bhny's question about independent testing:

I think there have been at least three independent attempts to independently duplicate anomalous heat gains and there has been at least one attempt to duplicate experimental evidence of hydrino spectrum evidence. The latter are the experiments by Šišović which were summarized in the article in the "Experiments" section. The three attempts to duplicate the heat gains for which I found any evidence are the NASA experiment listed in the article, the EarthTech experiments and attempts that were vaguely described by somebody that seems to have worked on them for a company that BLP had some sort of joint venture with. The NASA experiment is the only attempt that resulted in a peer reviewed paper. For me, the EarthTech experiment has some credibility, but the self published nature of the reports may not measure up to a reliable source as far as Wikipedia standards go (although I think an external link might be justified). I have forgotten what little details there was about the experiments done by the company that BLP had a joint venture with, but there weren't many and the information that I saw didn't justify a Wikipedia reference.--Davefoc (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

As to what SteveBaker did:

I agree that removing it from the lede was correct. I am ambivalent as to whether it should be mentioned in the article at all. There is a danger that the article could become an unintentional advocate for BLP if BLP reports are listed uncritically but there are not any reliable sources to provide balance to the last round of BLP reports and press releases and just the mention of the reports gives them more credibility than they may deserve. It seems very likely that the reports are prepared by people paid by BLP who are under non-disclosure contracts so that it is conceivable that other paid researchers had negative comments that weren't released by BLP. Clearly there was no effort by the individuals involved to use their own skill sets to devise experiments to investigate anomalous results and it isn't clear that the people writing the reports have the appropriate skill sets to do this kind of investigation. But in the past I have advocated that BLP press reports and press releases are a significant part of the BLP story and summarizing them is appropriate to the article for that reason. So I just don't think I have an opinion about what is appropriate for the article with regard to this recent round of BLP press activity beyond that if it is mentioned it should be done so as to limit the importance of the reports as a source for generating credibility of BLP claims. --Davefoc (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. I'm 100% convinced that I did the right thing by removing this material from the lede. The lede is there to summarize the rest of the article and shouldn't introduce new information that isn't in the main body of the article - that's a slam dunk, straight from Wikipedia guidelines - I'd hope that everyone would agree with that. However, I was (and still am) in two minds as to whether the information should be in the article at all...however, since my edit preceded whatever discussion might ensue here, I decided to put the statement back into the body of the article until/unless we decided what to do with it here on the talk page. I can certainly understand the WP:UNDUE/WP:FRINGE/WP:RS argument for removing it completely...but I'd like to see more discussion before we take that step. SteveBaker (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Rowan University Reproduction of Scientific Results

Davefoc incorrectly deleted the factual content I added describing the reproduction of related scientific experiments. A multiple member team of scientists associated with an accredited university are Reliable Sources under the Wikipedia requirements. A general concept of peer review has been met by the agreement of multiple known and respected scientists. Furthermore, the facts I added are in agreement with the requirement that Wikipedia articles be factual, fair, and unbiased (i.e. offering opposing viewpoints in important sections). It is my opinion that Davefoc is editing the page based on biased motivations. A primary example is that he deleted reference to a valid URL identifying a real subsidiary of BLP, Millisan Inc. I have reverted his changes back to my original, which is the correct action that should rightfully stand.Eric mit 1992 (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Note that I have had to undo Davfoc edits twice now in the past 10 minutes. My comments should stand until further input offered on this Talk page. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

In response to Davefoc comments in his edit that Rowan does not have a 'graduate' program, this is not a requirement of the Reliable Sources rule. Furthermore, the main contributors to the Rowan study are scientists who earned their PhDs at several accredited universities, and therefore have been vetted by defending their thesis in front of a board of other senior, respected, degreed PhD scientists and professors. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

It furthremore seems I have also made the unforgivable mistake of trusting Davfoc's assertion that Rowan University is:

   "a collete [sic] without a graduate chemistry or physics program and a close link to BLP".

when in fact this is a false statement and further shows his bias on the article. Rowan University has a graduate program in chemical engineering, among other disciplines, which offers degrees at the Masters level:

    http://www.rowan.edu/colleges/engineering/programs/chemical/graduate/curriculum.html

It also needs to be mentioned that his assertion that Rowan has a 'close link' to BLP is biased and malicious. Almost all university level research is funded by outside sources, and a large amount of that research (it could be a majority) is funded by private enterprise. The fact that BLP has funded in the past, and probably will fund in the future, research at Rowan (or any other university for that matter), is a non-sequitor. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for starting this discussion. I removed your edits to the lede for two reasons: 1. There was way too much detail about the Rowan Experiments for inclusion in the lede. The lede serves as a summary of the article and introducing significant detail is not consistent with Wikipedia style on that. 2. Your edit stated as a fact that Rowan independently reproduced certain results predicted by Mills' theory.

It is certainly not clear to the vast majority of the physics or chemistry scientists experimental support for Mills' theories has ever been reproduced but apparently it is clear to you because you stated it as a fact based on the non-peer reviewed literature from a small college without significant notability for either chemical or physics research. You also stated it as a fact that the results were reproduced "independently". Whether the Rowan research should be characterized as independent is debatable. There is a close relationship between Rowan and BLP as the article explains and the experiments are done with significant involvement by BLP. These factors suggest that the unqualified use of the word independent to characterize Rowan experiments is inappropriate.

I agree with you that non-peer reviewed citations are not completely disallowed by Wikipedia rules for something like this, but if your sources had been published in a peer reviewed literature there would have been a much greater chance that the Rowan literature would have received commentary by experts in the field. Peer review publication might have also required revealing any conflict of interest issues by the researchers. In the absence of peer review Wikipedia editors are placed in the uncomfortable position of trying to determine credibility of the sources. In this case, the only group in the world promoting BLP theories is BLP. Everybody that publishes on the subject for the last several years anyway is somebody that was probably paid by BLP, that has used BLP resources in some way and may be constrained by non-disclosure agreements. If your edit had been placed in the body of the article and was based on non-peer reviewed literature from an organization not closely linked to BLP with significant notability for physics or chemistry, I might have supported inclusion of an edit similar to yours in the article. As it is no such support for BLP claims exists, peer reviewed or not. --Davefoc (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Davefoc, thank you for your comments, I better understand your thought processes now. I will agree with you that I should not have stated 'the results 'were' independently verified'. I should have stated something like 'Scientists at Rowan University 'claimed' to have reproduced...' and so on. I agree to you making edits of that nature to my original edits.

However, I will reason that the rest of my edits should stand. Every sentence that I coped from the Rowan publication contains unique and relevant information (i.e. there is no duplication of information). I believe any honest reader will agree that the BLP page is currently biased towards a skeptical viewpoint. It is fair to allow the pointing out of a clear and detailed opposing viewpoint based on actual research.

Regarding your Talk comments about the 'relationship' between BLP and Rowan, please refer to my above explanation which you may have missed during your edit of the Talk page.

Regarding peer review of Mills' and BLP work, it is completely false to claim there have not been publications in peer-reviewed journals. There have been several publications in peer-reviewed journals. When I can find the time to reference those articles on the wiki page, I will do so to demonstrate this fact. I hope to do that soon, but as we all probably face, I suffer the time restrictions of a full time job. In the mean time I would prefer that my original edits stand, with the exception of changing the language you pointed out was too strong as I agreed with above. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Eric mit, thank you for the correction about the Rowan Master in chemistry program. Does it have a doctorate program in either chemistry or physics? As to your criticism of my characterization of a close relationship between Rowan and BLP: This is a difficult area and I am sorry that you think that I have been unfair to Rowan. The fact is that the literature is not peer reviewed that you cited. Given that, an editor needs to make some judgment about the significance of the literature on his own which per force requires that the relationship between BLP and the source be considered in judging the weight that the material should be given. If, for instance your source was based on work done at Cal Tech, a university with significant notability for physics research and the research appears to be done largely or completely independent of BLP I would agree that this is a very significant article with regard to BLP claims. Of course, if the work had been done by Cal Tech I would expect the article would have been published in a peer reviewed journal but even if it wasn't, the article would be a very significant piece of evidence for or against BLP claims. As it is you based your claim on some work done at a school not noted for physics or chemistry that has had various kinds of relationships with BLP over a very long time producing a paper for which there are no requirements that conflict of interests be revealed and for which there is almost no general scientific interest or analysis. This is only good evidence that Rowan staff wrote a paper. It is very weak evidence for BLP claims. As such I believe strongly that your edits have given the papers undue weight.

As to the issue of peer reviewed literature published on BLP theories: I am well aware of this. I wrote the summaries of some of it in the article. I have not found any published by an individual not associated with BLP that supported BLP theories or analysis. The closest might have been the NASA research already mentioned in the article. People associated with BLP, particularly Mills, have published many articles in peer reviewed journals, although, according to issues raised in previous discussions on this topic it seems these journals are low ranked journals. Have BLP articles been cited by other mainstream physicists in journal articles other than the few times that articles have been written that criticize BLP papers? --Davefoc (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Davevfoc --

1. Please feel free to call me 'Eric'. I don't think the decision to include university research that has not yet been submitted to a peer-reviewed journal should be a difficult one for a wikipedia editor. This is because there is no section in the wiki rules that says this is a requirement. The main requirements are that the information be factual and from a reliable source. The information I added in my original edit is both factual and from a reliable source. In fact, it may be considered as coming from multiple reliable sources, with each member of the experimental team becoming a separate validating source.

2. Regarding your question about the Rowan graduate program, I provided the link that shows the graduate level programs they offer. You may wish to consult it. The university has an established graduate program in chemical engineering. I don't know what confuses you about this fact? I'll highlight the further fact that Rowan has established a medical school, Cooper Medical School, which is undergoing the accreditation process. Rowan University is an established institution.

http://www.rowan.edu/coopermed http://www.lcme.org/directry.htm

3. You state, "I have not found any published by an individual not associated with BLP that supported BLP theories or analysis". I don't know that you understand how the peer-review process works. People don't normally "publish" articles in "support" of theories contained in a journal. It is usually the case that the theory is considered 'valid' (but not "correct" -- no 'theory' can be 'correct'), until such a time that another article is submitted to demonstrate the theory is not 'valid' (either part of it, or all of it). Then original authors are then usually given a chance to submit a rebuttal to the journal to counter those claims. This back & forth happened once already with Mills and Rathke, and two rebuttals were provided, one by Mills and another by an independent physicist, and neither of those rebuttals were contested.

4. You state, "People associated with BLP, particularly Mills, have published many articles in peer reviewed journals, although, according to issues raised in previous discussions on this topic it seems these journals are low ranked journals." First of all, your main objection, which is not valid, is that the Rowan study has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal. You are then presented with information that the theory and associated experiments have indeed been published in peer-reviewed journals. In fact, you even admit this yourself. But then, remarkably, you use contrary logic to dismiss the work that has been peer-reviewed. You dismiss this work as inconsequential due to the 'low-rank' of the journals (despite the fact this is neither true, nor is the 'rank' of a journal even measurable, let alone provable), yet peer-review was the requirement of your initial objection. So in one case you require it, and in the next case when it has been presented, you no longer deem it important. And this is all ignoring the fact that peer-review is not necessary to establish a reliable source in the first place. Your logic just doesn't work.

5. I plan on making two additional edits in the first section, unless it can be proven these potential edits are incorrect:

5a. The page reads: "Mills' ideas of "Classical Quantum Mechanics" ("CQM"), and "hydrinos" have been criticized by mainstream physicists[7][8][9][10] as "pseudoscience"..." In none of the supplied references (7,8,9,10) does the word 'pseudoscience' appear. Furthermore, 3 of the 4 references are personal opinions not backed up by a single paper or experiment. Unless the wikileaks policy explicitly allows it, I am going to remove those 3 references and the associated text, or at the very least move them to the appropriate section. Reference #10 is the only reference that points to a peer-reviewed paper, and that reference should be allowed to stand with the word 'pseudoscience' removed from the sentence. Furthermore, I will be adding the two aforementioned rebuttals to Rathke's paper to this part of the wiki. I will also note that the entry on BLP is already categorized under 'pseudoscience'. I won't contest this categorization (at least not at this time), but it should not be accompanied by comments which are clearly opinions. The reader is already aware of the 'pseudoscience' categorization and there is no further need to justify it with mere opinions.

5. In the same section, reference 2, an opinion-piece news article, is used to justify another personal opinion expressed by Harvard's Howard Georgi, "It's just silliness," Georgi says, dismissing the possibility of Mills' findings being substantiated." Opinions like these should not be allowed on the wiki page if rules prohibit it, and if they don't prohibit it, then these clear opinions need to be moved into the appropriate section on the page. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I undid the edits by Bhny that were accompanied by the comment, "...non-peer reviewed study as per talk page". This Talk page has not established anything about the utility of peer-review in terms of reliable source, and the only 'discussion' on the topic was by Steve Baker who made a false statement:"The company hires people to write articles that are never released in peer reviewed journals." This very section of the Talk page refutes this claim. My edits should be allowed to stand until a course of action ca be sufficiently established and agreed upon by all interested parties, including myself and other relevant wiki editors. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Eric, there are two issues being discussed in this topic. The first is that the level of detail that you are putting into the lede is inappropriate. You are not summarizing the article. You are adding new content. Your edits, even if they were appropriate do not belong in the lede. You might have an argument that there should be a reference to Rowan research in the lede, but you are just wrong that the level of detail you are providing is appropriate to the lede.

The second issue is the weight that the Rowan research should be given in this article. The Rowan research is already summarized in the article and a principle researcher was quoted with regard to the results. You continue to suggest that the papers might be at some point in time submitted to peer reviewed journals. There is zero indication that this is true and given the nature of the papers it is not clear that any journal would accept them. Regardless they were not published in peer review journals and that is what is significant right now. What you believe to be independent research is actually rote repetitions of BLP experiments, without any indication of independent investigation or analysis. The papers are published by BLP without any indication on the constraints by BLP or any potential compensation by BLP on the researchers. There is a reason that the publication of papers in peer reviewed journals is viewed as important and should be a major factor in the consideration of the weight such a paper should be given in an article like this. If these papers had been published in peer reviewed journals the editors of this article could know that professionals in the field had assessed the papers and validated that they were of enough scientific value to justify publication. In addition the peer review journal would almost certainly have insisted on the identification of any conflict of interests associated with the papers. There is nothing like that in this case. --Davefoc (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

There's so many edits I'm getting confused. Anyway there's no way Rowan's research should be in the lead like that, so people are going to keep reverting Eric mit. Bhny (talk) 22:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:SCHOLARSHIP Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves.

…is regarded as reliable- If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses

Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. Avoid undue weight when using single studies… Bhny (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Bhny -- I am sorry you are getting confused, but the Talk section exists to sort out differences, and I have taken seriously the responsibility I have to explain my edits. If you read my comments carefully I think you will able to make good sense of them. Regarding your reference to WP guidelines, I thank you for that. However, the 2009 Rowan study cannot possibly be considered as being from the 'primary source', i.e. BLP. This particular study is published privately on the Rowan website (which is referenced on the wiki page), and this particular study indicates in no uncertain terms that the chemicals and equipment used were either off-the-shelf or previously Rowan-owned. The speculation as to whether BLP did or did not fund this study is a non-sequitor. As I pointed out above, almost all university research is funded from the outside, and I believe it can be easily shown that a majority of university research funding comes from private enterprise. It is completely without merit to make the inference that Rowan and BLP are 'connected', or that the results of Rowan studies are 'rigged' in favor of BLP, either on this Talk page, or especially in the wiki article.

I have made several structural changes to the wiki page in my latest edit of about 5 minutes ago that I hope will satisfy the viewpoints of all parties involved in the discussion here, and certainly, I believe the latest text well within Wikipedia guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric mit 1992 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

A research paper is regarded as a primary source. It's not you can't use it, it's just extreme caution is advised. It's best to use review articles about the research paper.

WP:PRIMARY, For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research. Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Bhny (talk) 00:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Eric Mit said: "I have made several structural changes to the wiki page in my latest edit of about 5 minutes ago that I hope will satisfy the viewpoints of all parties involved in the discussion here, and certainly, I believe the latest text well within Wikipedia guidelines"

Eric Mit's edits imply that Rowan University BLP related research was done independently of BLP. What did he base that claim on? Has he seen the contracts between Rowan and BLP? Does he know that Rowan was free to release results without pre review by BLP? Does he know what role BLP played in editing the reports? Eric has eliminated all mention of the facts relating to the close relationship between Rowan and BLP from the article. The papers that he has chosen to give weight to are released through BLP, describe experiments closely controlled by BLP, by people that have been involved with BLP over long periods of time. Not mentioning any of this would be reasonable if the papers were published in a peer reviewed journal. This would provide a basis for a belief that Rowan executed the experiments without undue influence by BLP. These papers were not published in a peer reviewed journal and as such it is essential to the balance of the article that issues potentially affecting the papers be described in this article or the papers should not be mentioned at all.

Eric Mit claims that the research was done independently of BLP. Then what has been the results of this independent research? Has it initiated research in the physics community because of the finds which would overturn much of established physics? It hasn't, which suggests that Eric's idea that the research was independent and significant is shared by nobody in the mainstream physics community. But maybe it is shared by the Rowan researchers? They have written papers with results that point to a major overturning of established physics. So are they hard at work on research that is driving them toward a Nobel prize? It's been two years since the last of the papers written by Rowan was published by BLP. Where is the follow up research by Rowan given the paradigm shifting nature of the results they claim? There is no indication that the Rowan researchers are doing anything like that.

Eric Mit has also chosen to hide from the reader that there were BLP press releases over a period of three years claiming independent confirmation by Rowan. Why is that? Is it because he finds the fact that there is a pattern of repeated claims where nothing comes of them inconvenient to his agenda? If Rowan results deserve to be in the section that he has mislabeled "Independent scientific research and analysis" then why has he chosen to not include EarthTech results? There is a far better case to be made there that their efforts were independent of BLP. The only reason that they are not mentioned in this article before he began his edits is because they didn't submit their papers for peer review.--Davefoc (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure where I saw this - but I recall reading results from "Independent" studies of BLP's technology before. The researchers were given sealed "cells" from BLP to test with - and stuck with a non-disclosure agreement. They'd pump the right gasses in and measure the heat coming out and verify that yes, indeed there was heat gain. The trouble is that without looking inside, there is no way to know whether BLP stuck a bunch of AA batteries and a heating coil inside! Given the tiny heat gains claimed, you might have to run a rigged cell for a year or more to be sure that it didn't have some kind of internal power source. That's why simply testing their equipment doesn't constitute "independent verification". For that, someone else has to build a cell from scratch using only plans and/or description of it. AFAICT, that's never been done. Absent that degree of testing, it's safe to claim that there has never been independent verification of BLP's claims. SteveBaker (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I think EarthTech made a very serious attempt to build a cell from scratch and duplicate BLP results. They were not successful in duplicating BLP results but they appear to have been very successful in creating a well documented, rigorous, thoughtful attempt to do so. FWIW, I may think it is less likely than you do that there is conscious fraud going on here. For me the issue is a strange, BLP controlled environment that precludes the normal kind of serious experimentation and creativity that is useful in getting to the bottom of an anomalous result. Of course, either way it is just speculation on our part. What is knowable is that the results of any genuinely independent research on BLP claims carried out by people with an appropriate skill set and notability have never been published that provides significant support for BLP claims. --Davefoc (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes - to be completely clear, I'm not saying that BLP are doing something fraudulent (like putting an internal power source inside the cell), only that they could. Which why constructing a cell from scratch (in an independent lab, using staff that are not affiliated with or funded by BLP - and without any legal entanglements such as NDA's) is the only way in which a "study" of the BLP theories can be considered valid. We have considerable amounts of additional testing of BLP-produced cells and reports like the one from Dr. Weinberg where he observed tests on those cells. But those aren't worth a damn from the point of view of duplication of results - as required by the scientific method. So all of this so-called "evidence" is simply irrelevant from a scientific perspective. I agree that the EarthTech attempt is better - but it failed, so that's not a good sign! SteveBaker (talk) 13:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

On the matter of Rowan University being defined as a Reliable Source

Smokefoot -- Please lay out the specific concepts and support them by citing 'rules' of the Wikipedia RS requirement to show that Rowan University is not to be considered a 'Reliable Source', therefore justifying your edits to remove this statement of fact from the main article. Thank you for your consideration on the matter. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Rowan research is a primary source that was not published in any peer-reviewed journal. It's being removed from the lead because such a prominent position in the lead gives it undue weight. As Bhny commented in 17 June "Anyway there's no way Rowan's research should be in the lead like that, so people are going to keep reverting Eric mit." Blacklight is making an extraordinary claim about their generators (that they work against quantum mechanics as understood by the immense majority of scientists), and extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. We shouldn't be implying in the lead that the generators has been verified to work until some independent third-party reliable source says that they have been really tested with all the warranties, and that it has been replicated elsewhere. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, well enough. I completely disagree, but I'm not going to waste my time arguing about it. I am, however, going to be modifying the lead appropriately. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The Lede (was: some problems)

"However, recently there's been an acceleration in the number of papers published in peer-reviewed journals which cite Mills theory" seems to be sourced only to a search in google scholar.

Correct. And Google Scholar is a search engine that finds scientific publications in journals that have been peer-reviewed by the journal editors and reviewers. If you are about to dismiss Google Scholar on some sort of "RS" bounds, then I will follow right behind you such that 'Google' searches and furthermore internet hyperlinks shall not be allowed in any Wikipedia article based on the same grounds. Certainly you are not suggesting this. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Conclusions about number of papers should be sourced to secondary sources that make that conclusion. They shouldn't be based on the personal appreciation of editors. A page of search results is not a secondary source. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Phillips 2010 doesn't seem to be talking about Mill's theory but about something? The sentence "Moreover, there are no data that are clearly inconsistent with the predictions of this new quantum model; thus, it remains a valid theory" appears in the abstract, but the abstract doesn't mention Mills or Blacklight or hydrinos or lower states of hydrogen. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The term 'Classical quantum mechanics' (CQM) refers to Mills' theory. He confused matters by giving the theory the name "The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics", and then later changed the name to "The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics". I'm not sure why the author of the aforementioned paper chose to use the old name. One reason may be due to my answer to your next question.

Mills' theory is indeed a 'new quantum model' despite the fact that very few intelligent people seem to realize this (yet), other than maybe the author of this aforementioned papers. Mills isn't throwing away the fundamental postulates that charge and energy are 'quantized', he's instead essentially throwing away the Uncertainty Principle. Therefore GUT-CP's form of 'quantum mechanics' may correctly be called a 'new quantum model', and Phillips understands the significance of this and I assume that's why he chose to refer to it a a 'new quantum model'.

This paper is certainly discussing and commenting on Mills' theory. In fact, if you click on the 'Enhanced Abstract' link at the bottom of the page you'll get the paper that furthermore cites both this paper and Mills paper wherein scientists are not only citing Mills work in general ways, but they're now starting to _postulate_ and _derive_ new physics _based_ on Mills' work. When I find the free time you will see that I am going to make extremely major revisions to this article to make it clear this is now happening, and I am going to follow papers all the way through their citation process and demonstrate the links that combine to support his theory. The fat lady is about to sing, my friends. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think you'll have a major fight on your hands. This reference in no way serves to back up what you're saying here. WP:FRINGE applies and we're going to need solid gold referencing if you want to push this pile of bullshit. "Throwing away the uncertainty principle" is really kinda dumb. If the uncertainty principle didn't work, the computer you're reading this on wouldn't work - because without that, there would be no flash memory. I shall be reverting inadequately sourced changes on sight...and I'm not your "friend". SteveBaker (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

1. Noted. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 05:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

2. Steve, take a step back and realize fully that I added a direct link to an actual peer-reviewed paper published in an actual journal which was written by an actual scientist at a real university who represents a reliable source that wrote a real paper that gave concrete support to the overall validity of Mills' theory, and quite simply the paper was identified through a Google Scholar search which returns search results that point to the actual & real internet location of peer-reviewed scientific papers in exactly the same way that a standard Google search does, but in the prior case it searches scientific repositories rather than internet sites in general. End. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 05:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

And again WP:UNDUE problems, giving half a paragraph in the lead to a primary source that contradicts secondary sources. There are review articles and articles in scientific journals saying that the theory is not accepted and is dismissed by most scientists as simply incorrect (e.g. Out of this world in Nature), and we shouldn't try to give a different impression in the summary.

For any given theory, you can find a number of papers (primary sources) supporting it. That's why we use secondary sources that review the primary sources and weight them. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Enric Naval-->WAIT a minute. I just got back home and I'm able to see your changes better. I agree with your change to remove the Google Scholar result link, ok? That's fine. However, you also removed the information that coincides with a peer-reviewed scientific paper. The LINK to that paper is: http://physicsessays.org/doi/abs/10.4006/1.3486356 . THIS is the link that is referenced in my set of changes. Furthermore, there are no known deficiencies to GUT-CP. The theory, on the contrary, can predict and calculate things that Quantum Mechanics has no chance of predicting due to its dependency on the Uncertainty Principle. On top of that, the paper referenced in my set of changes further confirms this. The lede becomes balanced with the addition of my changes. In fact, the criticism in the prior paragraph probably should not be allowed, because it is based on opinion (the Sheldon "paper" encompassed his own thoughts the matter. The only valid criticism is that of Rathke, and both Mills and Naudts published rebuttal papers that were reviewed and accepted, and to this day are unchallenged. There is also a mistake in that part of the wiki page which I am correcting now. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 17:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Enric Naval et. al. -->Please first explain how a peer-reviewed paper published in Physical Essays would be considered a 'primary source' and not an independent source. Please also note that the scientifically-based criticism of Mills work has been isolated to only a few cases. Rathke is one case, but his paper was rebutted by Mills and Naudts immediately thereafter and those rebuttals stand unchallenged to this day. Please also note that Rathke's scientific criticism, and the similar criticism published in ~2 other papers, are a minimum of ~7 years old, and they're based on interpreting Mills theory in terms of Quantum Mechanics which is logically and mathematically inconsistent, see below Talk section: On the Topic of Using Quantum Mechanics to Disprove The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Mechanics . Eric mit 1992 (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Eric- WP:CIV Bhny (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Bhny- Thank you for pointing this out. I apologize for my lack of civility in certain posts. It's frustrating when your edits are removed for reasons that you can establish are invalid, which means that people are sometimes editing the main page without taking the time to read and understand the Talk regarding the change. I will ensure that my level of civility does not drop below the acceptable level in the future, and as I've posted before, I appreciate everyone's input. The ideas, thoughts, and opinions of others are no less important than mine, and mine are no more important than theirs. That's what makes Wikipedia such a wonderful thing. I am new to Wiki editing, and my lack of familiarity to it is showing, I regret that. Nobody can be 100% absolutely correct, it's impossible. *Please also review recent comment by SteveBaker. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

A search of Wikipedia for "Physics Essays" is not encouraging. The very first result shows it as an "alternative journal". Still, wp:RSN exists for addressing such questions. I suggest seeking comments there as to whether it is a credible source.LeadSongDog come howl! 20:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

LeadSongDog --> Thank you for the reference. Please allow me to counter it. First, make sure you're hitting the proper website:

   http://physicsessays.com (incorrect, i.e.  ".com")
   http://physicsessays.org (correct, i.e. ".org")

The later is the page that represents the latest state of the journal. Second, the criticism you post is based on a single wikipedia Talk page. I hardly think that amounts to a valid criticism. Third, I am going to copy some of the "About" page of the journal website verbatim to make clear the sufficient level of peer review involved here, which is based on a consistent review process that contains many checks and balances to ensure accuracy and correctness of the papers. The journal may only be considered 'alternative' in that it allows papers that are inherently consistent in terms of the theory and mathematics of the models even if the science described therein conflicts with other models. As long as the peer-reivew board can establish the correctness of a given paper, and as long as that paper can precisely explain why the results it describes conflict with other models in a way that does not inherently invalidate the proposed model, then the paper is determined to be sound and publishable.

   http://physicsessays.org/page/about

(pasted web page removed by Bhny (talk) 22:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC))

Eric mit 1992 (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Eric, no need to paste a whole web page here, we can all click a link. Searching wikipedia reveals many people calling "Physics Essays" fringe, alternative, "... Physics Essays should simply never be used on Wikipedia unless there is outside notice. They are low-impa[c]t journals notorious ...".[1] Also this highly relevant link- [2]. Bhny (talk) 22:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Bhny --> There has been no evidence established or collected anywhere on Wikipedia or otherwise that has established Physics Journals as a 'fringe' journal. Most relevantly, the link you included above which points to a single paragraph that contains the opinion of one Wikipedia user that the journal is 'fringe', does not mean in any way, shape, or form, that the journal is indeed 'fringe'. The reason I copy/pasted the contents of the about page was to further establish that the journal is anything but 'fringe'. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 22:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

It really is a sub-standard journal. Those references in the lead have to be deleted Bhny (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Bhny --> Same answer: There has been no evidence established or collected anywhere on Wikipedia or otherwise that has established Physics Journals as a 'fringe' journal. Most relevantly, the link you included above which points to a single paragraph that contains the opinion of one Wikipedia user that the journal is 'fringe', does not mean in any way, shape, or form, that the journal is indeed 'fringe'. The reason I copy/pasted the contents of the about page was to further establish that the journal is anything but 'substandard' or 'fringe'. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 22:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I saw about 8 comments saying it wasn't a good reference and not one saying anything positive. At best it is "low-impact" which still means it's not good enough Bhny (talk) 23:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

We certainly can't allow the personal opinions of "about" 8 anonymous wikipedia users to determine whether or not a given journal is "not a good reference". Physics Essays is a peer-reviewed journal having, as of today, 20 editors, 4 associate editors, and a main editor, all of whom are accredited scientists in academia and industry. There is absolutely no factual evidence that the papers in the journal do not live up to all necessary standards of science and the methods therein. If changes are made to remove references from this journal, I will seek arbitration. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 23:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

There is nobody except you saying that it's a good reference and plenty saying otherwise. Its "peer review" isn't peer review, they made up their own method. Here's one of the arguments about it on a talk page-[[3]]. I'm not arguing further about this as you seem to have your mind made up. Bhny (talk) 00:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

On the Topic of Allowing arXiv and Physics Essays References

This is the wrong place for this. Please post it here- [[4]] Bhny (talk) 22:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course, i will. i apologize for incorrectly posting here. I'll also supply the link when I have it reposted. Thank you for your consideration. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources#On_the_Topic_of_Allowing_arXiv_and_Physics_Essays_References

On the Topic of Using Quantum Mechanics to Disprove The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Mechanics

The concept of basing criticism of this new theory on Quantum Mechanics is not only illogical, but mathematically incorrect, given the fact that Mills quite clearly states that the theory is derived from first principles. Of importance, after he did the initial derivations to come up with a wavefunction that represented a new model for the electron, he then realized, in retrospect, that the new model did not require Quantum Mechanics in its subsequent descriptions and derivations, and not only that, but that if you go far enough into the equations of the new model, you can quite clearly see that it allows for the derivations and calculations of items which are by default not possible in Quantum Mechanics, due to QM's inherent dependence on the Uncertainty Principle, which to be sure is merely a postulate of science. A postulate of science is something that can't be proven. It's merely an initial intuition about how things "might" work such that when employed, it allows for the derivation of equations using a model which is based on the corresponding postulation(s). Every theory starts with a postulate and/or an assumption (and in many cases multiple of those). Therefore, because Mills' theory is not based on the postulate of the Uncertainty Priciniple, and because the theory can derive its supporting equations using its postulates alone, and because the derivations result in calculations that match experimental values, and to such a degree that the error is less than QM calculations in many cases and in other cases Quantum Mechanics simply cannot be used to derive the similar equations because of its fundamental structure. This means that GUT-CP is able to derive and calculate items of nature that were previously incalculable. Even further than that, Mills has shown that the reason that several QM paradoxes exist (double-slit experiment, Schrodinger's Cat, Twin Paradox, etc) is that QM is based on the flawed postulate of the Uncertainty Principle, which declares that particles/reality is 'fuzzy' in such a way that it inherently means that phenomenon at quantum scales cannot be modeled, nor derived, nor calculated. In an extension of that, Mills takes these QM paradoxes and explains them in terms of Classical Physics (CP) and thereby _resolves_ the paradoxes. These things, coupled with many others (including the discovery of a new fundamental force of nature that was previously unknown (i.e. The Fifth Force)), gives the basis for Mills, and by extension his theory, to assert that QM is an incomplete and more importantly inherently insufficient. Therefore, one cannot base criticisms of GUT-CP by starting with Quantum Mechanics and QM equations and its fundamental wave function structures. That approach simply not logical nor is it mathematically correct. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

They are conflicting theories. One is accepted and the other is fringe. It is ok on wikipedia to criticize a fringe theory because it contradicts accepted theories. But anyway if you have a reliable source for the above then it is relevant. There's a lot about how we should write about fringe stuff here- WP:FRINGE Bhny (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

What would I physically have to do in terms of this issue to elevate myself to the level of a reliable source, such that my analysis and writings may be established as reliable? Eric mit 1992 (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Have it published in a reliable science journal. Otherwise it's WP:OR and doesn't even belong on the talk page Bhny (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Or a magazine, newspaper, or other reliable news source, correct? Eric mit 1992 (talk) 21:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes go for it. Just don't put any original research in wikipedia Bhny (talk) 22:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Pro hint: Rossi's "journal" Journal of Nuclear Physics is not a reliable source in wikipedia standards. There are too many problems with the members of the board, dependence from Rossi, etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Catch-22: if you get it published, it should be left up to someone else to include it in the article. See wp:COI. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

TLDR it all. Reasoning is all WP:OR. We defer to reliable sources when discussing content. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Undue "Potential Implications for the Standard Model of Physics"

Claims that Blacklight power has potential implications for the standard model, but sourced to primary/self-published sources are undue per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. I have removed it. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The 'claim' that it was a 'potential implication' for the Standard Model was my language alone, and I should have been more careful to review it before posting. I have changed the language such that it is properly neutral, and references real events that are fully relevant to this page. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 00:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I removed your addition because you are required to get consensus for it, per WP:CONSENSUS, before it is re-inserted, read WP:BRD. We also don't include content on a fringe theory into an article based on primary sources, see WP:FRINGE: "Wikipedia is meant to be a tertiary source of information, summarizing the information gleaned from secondary sources, and in some cases from primary sources. Primary sources about research and investigations should only be used to verify the text and should not be relied upon exclusively as doing so would violate Wikipedia's policies on original research." We don't include whole sections based on your reading of the primary source. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V#Sources

   "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves..."

The section about the book update is not 'exceptional' either, after the text has been corrected per above. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 00:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The claims made are WP:EXCEPTIONAL and require high quality sources. 1. You are making claims on the standard model with the self-published source. 2. it is contrary to WP:FRINGE as outlined above, and is an undue promotion by comparing it with accepted science, contrary to WP:VALID: this section tries to unduly legitimize pseudoscience. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The description of the contents of the book that are relevant to this page are not exceptional. The book is establishing an explanation for a real physical phenomenon. I made the mistake of giving the section a title that caused it to 'become exceptional'. I have corrected that such that the text is neutral, and none of it is exceptional. Any 'claims' that I have made in clear error, by sloppy editing, are corrected. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 00:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It's an attempt at undue legitimization of pseudoscience; one which isn't present in reliable sources Wikipedia:FRINGE#Independent_sources: "Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles.". If mainstream sources don't deal with something then we shouldn't deal with it. We can describe what Blacklight Power purports to do, but we don't depart from the reliable sources by unduly legitimizing it. Also, when you have sentences that say "Mills is essentially arguing that..." it's obvious it's also WP:OR; We aren't here to interpret sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe you quite obviously missed my previous response, which fully counters your above claim, and in fact all of your above claims:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V#Sources

   "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves..."

And of course this rule is fully sensible. If a Wiki-page on a particular topic is not allowed to be self-referential, then no topics would be allowed on wikipedia.

Eric mit 1992 (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You've taken a half sentence out of context, that adds zero to your argument so I have ignored it; don't do that. The context is revealed when you read the read of the sentence and paragraph (WP:ABOUTSELF for everyone else), it specifically excludes using self-published sources for exception claims. WP:ABOUTSELF also dictates what they may be used for, other policies and guidelines also place restrictions on use, particularly WP:NPOV. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

A) You said, "don't do that". --> Don't tell me what to do. B) The text that I posted is not making a __claim__, let alone an exceptional claim. The text I posted summarizes a new section in the book that is the basis for the company's entire product line, and the section in the book makes no __claims__ either. It __provides an __explanation__ for a physical phenomenon that is known to exist. C) Your arguments do not apply here. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 01:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

NPOV: 'Neutral Point of View' -- While we're at it, let's also discuss how the lede reference to: "So they have nothing to sell but bull shit." is a NPOV.

Robert L. Park

A comment by Robert L. Park was removed. I restored it. Reliable sources link Robert L. Park to the topic: [5]. Mainstream views are also required to be mentioned per WP:PSCI. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Quite clearly: 1. An opinion, by default, is from 'the primary source', i.e. the opinion giver. 2. An opinion is, by default, not supported by experimental data. It represents an expression of the emotions of a human being towards a subject. 3. By extension, and by nature, it is impossible for an opinion to be 'peer reviewed'. Therefore, removing text that highlights opinions from individuals is a valid action. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 00:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Your reasons appear to be some arbitrary criteria you have decided. On wikipedia we base our reasoning's on policy and guidelines (which reflect common practice).IRWolfie- (talk) 01:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I see. Maybe you can help me understand, then, how a reference to the clear opinion: "So they have nothing to sell but bull shit." is an example of an idea coming from a source that is not primary? Let's start with that, and then we'll move forward. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 01:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Why are you referring to experimental evidence? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a scientific journal. We don't rely on evidence, but sources alone. That is why editing wikipedia does not require any expertise but familiarity with how to work from sources, we don't interpret, analyse or evaluate claims. We defer to reliable sources for that. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

See above edit, question has been changed appropriately. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 01:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't change a comment after another editor has already replied (per WP:REDACT). Just ask another question. I've already answered your question at the start of this section. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect categorization of 'Pseudoscience' and 'Fringe Theory'

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

"Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status"

The "GUT-CP" theory, as it relates to being the basis for BLP, adheres to the scientific method ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method ). It formulates a question: "How can the electron be modeled such that the resulting physics is accurate to experimental error, but will also account for the spin of the electron, which the Quantum model does not?". It provides a hypothesis: "The electron wave equation may be solved using finite boundary conditions, rather than infinite boundary conditions as is the case in standard quantum model.". Prediction: "The geometry of the electron is 2-dimensional, and not a 3-dimensional-like point particle". It provides a theory that allows for experiments to be designed to test it, and it furthermore has subsequently been tested by multiple parties, independent parties, university parties, and supporting results have been published. Some are indeed peer reviewed, some are not, however, to meet the requirements of the scientific method peer-reivew does not come into play at this fundamental level. The theory has been analyzed, numerous times over, as it has clearly evolved from a 140 pg. theory in 1990, to an 1,800 page theory in 2012.

The "GUT-CP" theory certainly does not lack plausibility, and quite clearly does not lack supporting evidence or supporting experimental data, as evidenced by ~100 scientific papers on the matter.

The "GUT-CP" theory does not lack scientific status. It has been published, peer-reviewed, critiqued and supported by outside individuals.

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FRINGE

"To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability. Additionally, when the subject of an article is the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear."

The 'idea', in this case GUT-CP theory, as it relates to BLP, is not being applied to 'an article about a mainstream idea'. The idea is being applied in a self-referential way, in an article 'about' the 'idea'. Therefore, it merely needs to meet the test of notability. Furthermore, the subject of this article may be considered a minority viewpoint, but as long as both viewpoints are equally weighed in the article, the article is considered valid, and non-fringe.

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability

"Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and aren't outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources such as published journals, books, and newspapers employing strong journalistic standards of neutrality to earn this distinction. Notability does not gauge the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article."

There is no doubt GUT-CP and BLP have gained significant attention around the world, as they have been referenced in numerous news articles and scientific papers. The theory and the company have been in existence since 1990, and therefore that meets the 'long period of time' requirement. None of this is outside the scope of Wikipedia. The topic should have, and does indeed have, it's own article, and therefore by definition it is already 'notable'.

Eric mit 1992 (talk) 01:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide an example of a reliable source publication saying this theory has been verified experimentaly in any of the predictions it makes which differ from the standard model? LeadSongDog come howl! 04:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Reliability is a value judgement.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 05:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

LeadSongDog is probably not talking about 'reliability' as you mean it. We have guidelines for sources that we consider reliable. Dougweller (talk) 05:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The guidelines were indeed based on value judgements as to the reliability of sources in certain contexts.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 05:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It is unclear what point you are trying to make. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Eric mit 1992 is very carefully cherry-picking which parts of those three guidelines to quote.

WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE: "Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science, but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods. Conversely, by its very nature, scientific consensus is the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic. Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other." -- The work of BLP is not following the scientific method. Specifically, reproducibility is a major issue. BLP claims to have sold entire, practical, working power stations based on this "science" - yet, so far, not one truly independent test of the underlying apparatus has ever succeeded. The supposed efforts at reproducing the idea are, without exception, pathetic and obviously useless. Either the "independent" testers are paid by BLP or they are merely given a piece of BLP hardware to test as a "black box" (which might easily contain something other than what BLP claim) - or some other shinnanigans have taken place. This failure to adhere to standard scientific methods is a solid indicator that GUT-CP is a pseudoscience. We are therefore justified in applying the guidelines that Wikipedia requires for articles about such topics.
WP:FRINGE: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field. For example, fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science and have little or no scientific support. " -- There can be no doubt that the "hundreds" of papers about GUT-CP is utterly dwarfed by tens of thousands of papers describing conventional quantum theory, string theory, chromodynamics and so forth. GUT-CP does indeed "depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view", so we are entirely justified in calling this a "fringe theory" and imposing the full weight of WP:FRINGE's guidelines for such articles.
WP:NOTE: Most editors here don't dispute that BLP has gained enough notability (through notoriety) to be sufficiently notable for Wikipedia to have an article written about it...and this is that article. I don't see what your complaint is here. But as you quoted from WP:NOTE: "Notability does not gauge the content of articles". So yeah - there should be an article here - and there is. However note that many attempts to start other articles surrounding this topic have either failed or resulted in the material so created being merged back into this article. This is a borderline case.

Conclusion: Yes, the article should exist (per WP:NOTE), yes, this is considered by Wikipedia to be pseudoscience (per WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE) and yes, it's also a fringe theory (per WP:FRINGE). Hence we will continue to write this article with those three guidelines clearly in mind. Therefore, I trust we will continue to have an article that clearly states that what Blacklight Power is doing is pseudoscientific, strongly contrary to mainstream science and the underlying hypothesis has about as many holes as a good Swiss cheese.

SteveBaker (talk) 12:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I have established above what the WP criterion are for marking something as 'psuedo' or 'fringe'. I have made an in-depth argument that neither of these apply to GUT-CP, and by extension, BLP. So far, there have been no countering arguments beyond personal opinions, such as yours, Steve. Note that a theory which is 'strongly contrary to mainstream science' is not in itself a condition of 'fringe' or 'pseudo', especially when the theory indeed satisfies the criterion above, and I've established that it does. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you've established a damned thing! The acid test is very simple: Does GUT-CP "depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view". Without doubt (because it essentially tosses out all of quantum theory) it departs significantly from the mainstream. That's it. That's the test. This is fringe. If you're saying that it's not - then you're either saying that GUT-CP is the mainstream view (hardly likely) or that WP:FRINGE is somehow not correct...and that's a matter you'd have to take up at the WP:FRINGE talk page. SteveBaker (talk) 17:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

QUESTION: Which reliable source says this is Pseudoscience or a fringe issue? Why would an editor wish to push this POV into the article without source support? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting claims of a state of hydrogen lower than the ground state are not fringe or pseudoscience? Pick up a standard university textbook on atomic physics, you will see no mention of hydrinos. There is already numerous statements by scientists showing how fringe and unaccepted his ideas are. See [6] for example. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You may want to re-think referencing the 'IEEE' news article, as I've established in the new section below that the references to it should be removed according to WP guidelines. Secondly, I have established above what the WP criterion are for marking something as 'psuedo' or 'fringe'. I have made an in-depth argument that neither of these apply to GUT-CP, and by extension, BLP. So far, there have been no countering arguments beyond personal opinions, such as yours, Steve. Note that a theory which is 'strongly contrary to mainstream science' is not in itself a condition of 'fringe' or 'pseudo', especially when the theory indeed satisfies the criterion above, and I've established that it does. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Gasp! Someone actually failed to count THE Robert Lee Park of THE Maryland State University as a reliable source. WOW! BAFFLING!!!!siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 19:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

rexresearch (EDIT of title: Section is in relation to uncited/unreliable ref. to (as of yet) unsubstantiated quote)

Eric mit 1992 (talk) 00:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This [7] content is sourced to the dow jones newswire. We do not require links to sources. The link to rexresearch is there as merely as a tool for easy verification. It is not the source itself. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

1. WP:BURDEN "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You [an editor] may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source."

Per #1, I'm going to remove the reference until consensus is reached. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 23:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

2. WP:RS "The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or **archived by a reputable third party** may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited. Additionally, **an archived copy of the media **must** exist**. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet."

Until an authentic archive kept by a reputable, reliable source can be produced and unambiguously linked to (preferably Down Jones News itself), this material can't be included in the article. Furthermore, the 'burden of proof' is on the editor who restores the material to show that the referenced material is indeed authentic, unedited from its original form, and archived by a reputable/reliable party.

http://rexresearch.com

is not a WP:RS.

"Rex Research was established in 1982 by Robert A. Nelson to archive and distribute " InFolios " -- Information Folios -- of collected articles about suppressed, dormant, or emerging Sciences, Technologies, Inventions, Theories, Therapies, and miscellaneous Alternatives that offer some Hope to help Liberate Humanity from its Stupidity and from **evile [sic] Psychopaths ( &c ) and their Pornocracy**..." Eric mit 1992 (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Further expounding on the link in dispute, it is not referenced on this Talk page, so I will reference it here:

http://www.rexresearch.com/millshyd/millshyd.htm#dow

The page claims to represent text from an actual 'Dow Jones' news story, however, as of this date, according to my research and given the fact no one else has produced a reputable copy, the raw text located at the above page cannot be considered authentic, correct, complete, unedited, or otherwise reliable. If and when an reference to the news article in question, which may or may not even exist, is found, and if it exists in the archives of a reliable/trusted source (preferably the Dow Jones news service itself), then this matter may be considered resolved in favor of supporting that the story is authentic. However, I've also noted in a detailed explanation above, that Chu's quote should not be allowed into the wiki article based on other reasoning which I fully believe is justified, and would therefore continue to be an issue of contention for this group to debate and find consensus on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Blacklight_Power#This_article_is_littered_with_unsupported_statements_of_conjecture_and_opinion.2C_their_removal_is_strongly_warranted.

Thank you for your consideration on these matters. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 00:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

As pointed out, we aren't required to link to an actual source, we are only required to source. This means that a source must be verifiable, but that doesn't mean it's going to be easy to verify. So really, if we wanted, we could simply source it to DJNW without actually providing a link to rex, but then no one would be able to read the text .Nonetheless, I appear to have found (if I'm reading this correctly) the patent text from BLP's application and they reference the same exact story from DJNW. The text of the patent is here. I would suggest that you contact DJNW or Erik Baard directly if you would like full verification, though I don't know that they have all their records going back to 1999. I seriously, seriously doubt that the story is a forgery as you seem to suggest - it's just a really obscure topic and apparently DJNW doesn't have an archive of all their publications. Sædon^talk 06:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I almost posted the same suggestion - that we keep the cite but remove the link. Just search for the title (in quotes) and you will find the same article mirrored on dozens of sites, so apparently it is not just a forgery, it is a conspiracy. Seriously, though, the fact that five different editors restored the text that was placed by a sixth, with all the opposition coming from one single-purpose account, means that effective consensus exists. If Eric mit disagrees with the propriety of that consensus, then he should take it either to RSN or down the Content Dispute Resolution pathway. (I could cite policy, but there is already too much wikilawyering here.) Agricolae (talk) 11:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

3 day's protection

I've fully protected the page for 3 days due to edit warring. I note that one editor has already been blocked. Dougweller (talk) 06:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This article is littered with unsupported statements of conjecture and opinion, their removal is strongly warranted.

In general: WP:RSOPINION --> Self-published books, blog, zine, website, web forums, blogs, and tweet references to Randell L. Mills must be removed from this article.

I've outlined below a number of personal opinions referenced in this wiki article, absolutely none of which are supported by data, proof, or even peer-reviewed references to support that the opinions should be included in this article. The inclusion of these opinions, *most of them 10+ years old*, is causing the article to take on a bias that is not only disallowed, but is furthermore without merit, and they should be removed. In the case that consensus cannot be reached such that the statements are removed, then they should be moved to a section at the bottom of the article entitled "Unsupported Personal Opinions", or the like.

"Several prominent physicists have been extremely critical of the underlying physical theory, calling it "extremely unlikely", "bull shit" and "fraud", suggested that their investors are fools and dupes,[7][8][9] while IEEE Spectrum magazine listed Blacklight as a "loser" technology"... ""There is no independent scientific confirmation of the hydrino, and BLP has a patent problem. So they have nothing to sell but bull shit. The company is therefore dependent on investors with deep pockets and shallow brains."

WP:PROFANE -->> Comment(s) containing profanity must be removed in good faith.

http://www.bobpark.org/WN00

WP:SELFSOURCE --> Park blog

WP:NEWSORG --> author / non-scientists unsupported opinion

1. It is immaterial what "IEEE Spectrum magazine" thinks about the technology, especially in terms of a meaningless status such a 'loser' or 'winner'. This statement of opinion, composed by a (non-scientist) journalist, is immaterial to this wiki article and its meaning cannot be construed. It must be removed. Secondly, any and all of Robert Park's personal opinions must be removed from this article as they are from a primary source, namely, the personal blog Park maintains on the Internet, where [his] "Opinions are the author's and are not necessarily shared by the University, but they should be.". Primary sources are not allowed on Wikipedia, and these statements must therefore be permanently removed from this article.

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-402579

" Steven Chu, the current United States Secretary of Energy, said "it's extremely unlikely that this is real, and I feel sorry for the funders, the people who are backing this".[49] Princeton University's physics Nobel laureate Phillip Anderson said of it, "If you could fuck around with the hydrogen atom, you could fuck around with the energy process in the sun. You could fuck around with life itself." "Everything we know about everything would be a bunch of nonsense. That's why I'm so sure that it's a fraud."[9] Wolfgang Ketterle, a professor of physics at MIT, said Blacklight Power's claims are "nonsense" and that "there is no state of hydrogen lower than the ground state"."

2. Chu's statement of personal opinion was made 13 years ago, in 1999. Furthermore, he has not established, the article had not established, and certainly no research has established that "it's 'extremely unlikely' that 'this' is 'real'". The statement of opinion is too ambiguous to be included in this article. The meanings of the phrases "extremely unlikely", "this", and "real" cannot be established. 'Exactly how unlikely' is it? What probability analysis was done to formulate this statement? What is 'this'? He says 'this' is not real. What is he referring to? It cannot be determined, and it therefore cannot be included in this article. What does he mean by 'real'? Mills' book is "real". The theory is "real". The mathematics is "real". The published papers are "real". The published supporting papers and critiquing papers are "real". This comment cannot be allowed to stand in this article.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/loser-hot-or-not/0

"IEEE Spectrum magazine listed Blacklight as a "loser" technology in its 2009 report because "Most experts don’t believe such lower states exist, and they say the experiments don’t present convincing evidence."[10]

WP:RS/AC --> blanket statement, no proof of 'most', or let alone a definition of 'expert'

WP:NEWSORG --> author / non-scientists unsupported opinion

3. There is no basis for this speculation by the author of this IEEE article. He's not a scientist, he did not provide peer-reviewed literature in his article to support his invalid speculative writing, he did not provide the list of "experts" that "don't believe such lower states exist", let alone did he establish that this list represents "most" experts, let alone did he establish was is meant by the term "expert". This statement must be removed from the article.

http://www.villagevoice.com/1999-12-21/news/quantum-leap

"Dr. Michio Kaku, a theoretical physicist based at City University of New York, adds that "the only law that this business with Mills is proving is that a fool and his money are easily parted."[9]

WP:RSOPINION

4. Again, this is clearly a statement of opinion, made 13 years ago, wherein no supporting evidence or data was provided by Kaku, or included in the news article. This statement of opinion was made by a known scientist, so contrary to #1 above, it may not be eligible for removal, but it is proper to place it in the new "Unsupported Personal Opinions" section.

http://www.villagevoice.com/2000-04-25/news/the-empire-strikes-back/2/

"Peter Zimmerman, an American nuclear physicist, arms control expert, former Chief Scientist of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Professor Emeritus of King's College London posted in an abstract for an APS lecture that "[his] own Department and the Patent Office have fought back with success" against "pseudoscientists," but didn't name his targets. His abstract railed against, among other things, inventors of "hydrinos."[24]"

5. First, this article is 12 years old. Second, I will include the relevant text from the article that shows not only has Zimmerman's "abstract" been _removed_ from publication, but a State Department Official is quoted in the article, "[Zimmerman's abstract] was missing a disclaimer explaining that he was speaking only as a private citizen. The official added that department employees are not allowed to use their titles outside of their official capacities... His views did _not_ reflect those of the State Department". This statement of opinion, which is no longer supported by an 'abstract' (which was never submitted as a complete paper, let alone peer-reviewed), should be removed from the page, or at the least moved into the new "Unsupported Peronal Opinions" section where it shall be balanced by including the statements I included above.

Eric mit 1992 (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:PARITY.

Also, can you prove that the situation has significantly changed in the last 10+ years? --Enric Naval (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

List of Mills patents 1995 - 2012 (over 50 of them), most of them last 5 years. Many of them are cited as original art in patents owned by unrelated individuals (see esp. the hydrogen power patents, and DNA/molecular sequencing patents).

http://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=pts&hl=en&q=ininventor:Randell+ininventor:L+ininventor:Mills&num=10

List of Mills & BLP publications, most of them last 5 years, some of them cited in original work by unrelated individuals, many of them peer-reviewed in multiple journals, some journals of which are being falsely labeled as 'low-impact'. When you can explain to me how an editorial board of 25 people, at Physics Essays for example, represents a 'low-impact' group, then we can continue the conversation.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=randell+l.+mills&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=1%2C23

http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/Publications.pdf

Eric mit 1992 (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

About Park's blog, see WP:USERGENERATED "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

Park is an expert in standard physics, however he has no expertise whatsoever in the physics "which is the topic of the article", nor has he authored a peer-reviewed paper that specifically deals with the theory on which this article refers to. (per above). Therefore, his blog does not fall under WP:USERGENERATED. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 23:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Secondary independent third-party sources still say that the theory is not believed by scientists, and that it conflicts with experimental results:

Oxford University Press 2008 "(...) Needless to say, the evidence for hydrinos lack scientific support, but they do have a number of adherents who believe in them."[8]

This book has _two_ pages dedicated to the 'discrediting' of Hydrinos. Two pages? Eric mit 1992 (talk) 23:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Simon & Schuster 2009 "This sounds impressively science-y, but even a dog can tell that it's nonsense. (...) For such states to exist, our understanding of fundamental physics would need to be so far wrong that it would be impossible to achieve the fourteen-decimal-place agreement between experiment and theory that we see with QED."[9]

This book has a _single_ page dedicated to the 'discrediting' of Hydrinos. A single page? Please do advise. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 23:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Time 2000 [10]

Opinion piece written by a non-scientist journalist over 12 years ago. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 23:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Wired 2002[11]

You mean THIS article (which by the way is 10 years old)? The article that contains this quote? "If somebody asked me if I [Anthony Marchese, a PhD engineer from Princeton] believe hydrinos exist, it would be very tough for me to say yes because it really goes against science theory as I know it and the whole human races knows it. But from what I can tell from BlackLight's studies -- and they've been pretty good about letting others outside verify their excess energy -- there are some things going on that people are having trouble understanding." Eric mit 1992 (talk) 23:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The Register 2005 [12]

Maybe you can find an article that is not an opinion piece, contains a quote from a scientist who has actually invested time into the theory to understand it, and maybe most importantly, an article that is recent enough to be relevant. Seven year old articles, and knee-jerk opinions may not cut it with most folks. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 23:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

CNN 2008[13]

You mean the article that contains this text? "In 2005, leaders at Greenpeace asked Randy Booker, chair of the physics department at the University of North Carolina at Asheville, to fly to New Jersey to investigate BlackLight's claims. Booker says he was skeptical at the outset, but during his visit, "I found that they really were producing a great deal of excess energy with hydrogen," he says. "Some people may disagree with the theory, but the experiments work." Booker believes that commercialization could lead more independent laboratories to validate BlackLight's claims. He now performs paid research work for the company." Note that Booker, chair of the physics department at a large & accredited university, was initially skeptical and not paid for his initial analyses. Once he became scientifically convinced of the validity of the process, he invested his time and reputation into the matter. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 23:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

--Enric Naval (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You are trying to narrow the field to authors who have published papers or books dealing directly with Mill's theory. That is not acceptable because Mill's theory is a fringe theory. There are experts in nuclear theory and quantum mechanics who can opinate on the status of Mill's theory in relation with the wider field.

Also, cherrypicking the positive parts of the article is not useful. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

To E. Naval: In your view, do Randy Booker's claims prior to working under BLP's payroll count as being reliable? Or must they be rejected simply because the later Randy Booker decided that, for whatever reason, that he should work for BLP?siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 15:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Reliability of a source is dependent on what you are trying to do with it. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you a sock puppet trying to answer my questions? I didn't think so. It's probably a no on both counts. By the way, nice mimicry.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 02:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Well anyway, to answer my own question, in my view, Randy Booker's claims prior to working under BLP's payroll count as being reliable. Maybe I should have asked if they count as "independent from Mills' claims", which is closer to what I really meant. In that case, my opinion would be that they are independent from Mills'. Nevertheless, it's only a value judgement on my part.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 02:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

hey let's slow down on all the edits

I kind of like the new small lead that has come and gone a few times in the past hour. But anyway, we should all slow down a bit. One editor has already been banned for WP:3RR Bhny (talk) 03:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The short(est) lead needs something more - it says the company was founded by Mills, that Mills has a unique concept of physics, that his physics violates the laws of physics and that a lot of physicists don't like it, but somewhere it the process we quit describing the actual subject of the article: the company. The lead should be short and to the point (that is why I moved the quotes to the body), this one is just short. The lead needs to say something more about the company than that it is in New Jersey and is Mills' baby, for example what it is trying to accomplish. Agricolae (talk) 03:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes you are correct, though it's hard to know what to say about a company that's over 20 years old and doesn't have a product. Usually there is more evidence that a company does something Bhny (talk) 05:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

If your latter sentiment is indeed valid, amazing that the new lead could be reverted so quickly. I guess that it is not really all that important then. I think that most of us here actually had fun edit warring, and not necessarily come here on the basis of some altruistic notion of improving "Wikipedia". Who here disagrees with that?siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 02:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I most strongly disagree. You honestly believe that most editors actually have fun edit-warring? That's a horrifying assumption - and a crashingly bad violation of WP:AGF. No, it isn't fun. If you have fun doing it then that's more than enough justification to get you booted off of this site forever. SteveBaker (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

In order to assume good faith, one needs to read, participate in, and comprehend the Talk page before undoing an editor's original edits which are more than likely justified by comments he/she made on the Talk page shortly before or after the original edits were made, but then again, I don't know of an editor who uses the Talk page, at least as it pertains to this subject, at least as it pertains to the latest page protection, wherein that editor's ID doesn't start with Eric_. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 21:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

By the way. Yobol's recent participation in this article is most likely due to the fact that I made edits on an article that he also so happens to be working on. If not some strange coincidence, it is very likely that it was a result of going through my user contributions page.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 04:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You are the reason the page is now protected. Please have your fun elsewhere Bhny (talk) 13:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. SteveBaker (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion is a waste of time

This discussion is a total waste of time. It is entirely evident that hydrino theory is WP:FRINGE/WP:PSCI. That BLP have not produced anything tangiable to back their claims of having produced complete, working, power stations (and Water-fuelled cars!) based on this technology - and we know that they have carefully rigged all of the efforts to reproduce the results of their claimed experiments. Heck, this company even went so far as to claim that they'd built a car that could drive 1500 miles fuelled only by a liter of water! We all know that the chances of them producing a bucketful of hydrinos for mainstream science to play with is zero. So why are we even bothering to bait Eric with this stuff? If this were a real effect that had been exploited to the point where one could build large, working power stations (not to mention Water-fuelled cars) - then BLP could make an absolute fortune simply by demonstrating their technology openly before mainstream scientists. If they did that then investors would beat a path to their door and they would rapidly rise to become the dominant power conglomerate on the entire planet. There would be Nobel prizes for all involved - and Mills would be hailed as the new Einstein. Since this clearly hasn't happened, we must deduce that they have something to hide. This is a company whom we simply cannot trust. Truly - how can we trust a company that said they have a water-fuelled car? It's quite ridiculous.

So everything that BLP say has to be examined minutely for signs of impropriety before we can use any of their papers as sources. We talk of "reliable" sources...but I don't see any signs of reliability here - lying, cheating bullshit, yes. From a Wikipedia perspective, we must treat everything that comes out BLP as dubious at best. That is without doubt the consensus view of editors who have been working here over the long haul.

Worse still, once every few months, another obvious BLP "shill" appears here - pushes a ton of POV in our direction and then either mysteriously vanishes or is banned for sock-puppetry, COI or a raft of other issues. This again speaks badly of this company who have steadfastly abused, vandalized and rule-broken Wikipedia time after time, year after year.

User:Eric mit 1992 is a single-use account (he only edits this article) who's owner claims to be a new editor, but who is evidently sufficiently familiar with Wikipedia guidelines to quote them at every turn - that's always a huge red flag for experienced editors. He follows very closely the line that previous single-use accounts with pro-BLP POV have taken here - stating the BLP company line in glowing terms, without criticism, defending them at every turn. He claims to be a fully trained nuclear physicist with degrees in engineering physics and nuclear engineering - yet clearly claims to fully believe in hydrino's and GUT-CP and takes the entire BLP position hook, line and sinker - which is a very odd thing to do because mainstream science couldn't be less supportive of BLP's theories.

So I regret that we have to ask ourselves: Is this yet another BLP sock puppet attempting to bias our article? Eric is operating in direct opposition to the consensus view for this article, has had a reckless lack of judgement in edit-warring and violating WP:3RR. He has a strong tendency to ignore the questions we ask of him and reply with a wall of text - which is a common trait of BLP shills. While WP:AGF applies, if (as claimed), he is a qualified nuclear scientist then I can only ask whether he is operating under WP:COI because as far as I can see, the only serious scientists who claim to believe in this nonsense are BLP employees and their contractors - and those people are expected to explain to us their possible conflicts. I would remind Eric that WP:COI says:

"Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged—but not actually required—to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of the related article they are editing, particularly if those edits may be contested. Editors who disguise their COIs are often exposed, creating a perception that they, and perhaps their employer, are trying to distort Wikipedia. "

Since this has happened on at least two occasions in the past - we have more than a "perception" that BLP are trying to distort Wikipedia - it's an absolute certainty. I believe it is long past time that we ask Eric to be a little more forthcoming about his affiliations and motives...because his credibility with the editors of this article is sitting right around zero at this point. I for one will ignore further posts from him until I get some explanations for his bizarre (for a mainstream nuclear scientist) perspective on BLP.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I've had off-line conversations with Eric. He has shared enough detail about his background for me to establish with near certainty he is not connected with BLP in any tangible way. Ronnotel (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Since I am unable to examine this near-certain evidence, I obviously cannot judge it's validity. However, since BLP are well established as an entirely untrustworthy organization, I wouldn't put any level of trickery past them. SteveBaker (talk) 13:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Steve, to address your assertions, on the contrary, it's absolutely not 'pseudo-science'. Please refer to the above section where I explain why that's the case. The development of the theory has followed the scientific method from the start. Furthermore, WP:FRINGE is not applicable when the topic provides an alternative explanation for pre-existing physical phenomenon, which is precisely the case here. Fringe applies to theories that are A) not developed according to the scientific method, and B) to theories that have no fundamental basis in science. The theory in question here is based on the definition of the QM wave equation for the electron, wherein the equation is solved using a set of boundary conditions that differ from the boundary conditions that are typically used to solve the wave equation. In the prior case, the boundary conditions are arbitrarily set to infinity, which in obviously a problem because it causes the Uncertainty Principle to be forced into the physics in an indirect and physically unsupported way. In the latter case, Mills based the boundary conditions on the Nonradiation condition, which is itself based on a peer-reviewed scientific paper by Haus. This all results in a theoretical model for the electron which allows the further derivations that Mills has made to the mathematics that underlie the theory. The rest of the theory is based mostly on Maxwell's equations and the associated laws (Gauss's law, Faraday's law, etc).

Steve, to address your concerns, believe it or not I understand where you're coming from. You're correct that Wikipedia should not allow 'shill', 'puppet', or otherwise related conflicts of interest to enter into the evolution of a Wikipedia entry. However, I am none of the above. I do not work for BLP, Millsian, or Mills, I do not make an income from these enterprises or from the underlying theory, and I do not otherwise risk COI for this entry. Second, I didn't know squat about Wikipedia editing the day I joined a couple of months ago! Do you realize the amount of time I've spent reading up on the formal processes of WP?? I am about to lose my job as a software professional because of it, trust me on that! (well, not really, just trying to bring humor into this mix). I'm very fortunate that I was blessed with the intelligence to be a quick study. It allowed me to survive the hell that was Univ. of Michigan physics and MIT graduate nuclear engineering. Learning the WP guidelines over a course of 2+ months pales in comparison to that. :) Plus, I've read Mills' book on GUT-CP twice (in my free time, which gives you an idea of how much I've gotten out lately), at least as it pertains to Volume I and Volume III. I haven't dug much into Volume II because it mainly concerns chemistry and my interest is atomic and nuclear physics, and electromagnetic physics.

Furthermore, to your point on BLP's market potential. Actually, I've calculated it (hopefully correctly). It's an astounding amount, which clearly indicates why Mills has spent 24 years pursuing this, and will spend another 24 in my estimation if he has to.

Finally, I sincerely hope that nobody is seriously considering 'banning' me based on COI. It's simply not the case. I've tried to establish that here. I've sent enough emails to people on here wherein they can easily check my previous educational affiliation with MIT.

Eric mit 1992 (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

We don't ban people for COI. We do, however treat their edits with extreme suspicion and doubly so if they don't fully reveal the extent of their COI. It's a matter of trust. Right now, I don't trust you. Sorry - I've just seen too many increasingly sophisticated attempts by BLP to get this (and related) articles changed to give a favorable view of their organization - and your actions and the nature of your Wikipedia usage simply don't add up to what you claim to be. Your utterly one-sided, uncritical view of a company that is so clearly and demonstrably up to no good bends credibility to breaking point. Without exception, every editor who acts the way you do has eventually been revealed as being a BLP shill. Now, it may very well be that you are indeed the only qualified, independent scientist on the planet who actually believes in all of this nonsense - in which case I apologize for my opinions. However, that is how I feel - and I know (through private email support for my previous post) that almost all of the editors here agree with me. Since the unspoken consensus is that we don't trust you - your edits are going to get reverted and life here will be tough.

Email me privately over WP, and I will give you my contact information if you pledge to permanently keep it absolutely confidential, and you may feel free to call me and quiz me all you want about my background, current relationships, and GUT-CP. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

As for BLP's market potential. If what they have is "real" - then indeed, they are worth tens of billions - perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars...that they have spent 20 years doing this and are essentially worth zero means that there is something severely wrong here. Mills is not a stupid man - if what he has truly works - and those power stations that he claims to have delivered are out in the field, generating free energy "for real" - then he can earn those tens of billions overnight by simply inviting a truly independent team of well-known scientists to inspect one of these plants and to go though it with a fine-toothed comb. That's what any sane businessman would do under these circumstances. That he doesn't do that is categorical proof that this is all a pile of steaming bullshit. Instead, he PAYS people in minor universities to "study" components that he gives them under conditions that prevents them from opening up the box and checking that the excess energy they measure isn't coming from a bunch of AAA batteries hidden inside the box. That convinces nobody who works in the sciences because that's not how "the scientific method" is done...and it shouldn't convince you either. Without free, unfettered access to the equipment or a totally independent reproduction of his results - nobody should believe him.

The market potential is more likely trillions. Per year. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Then we look at other claims...what about the "1500 miles on a liter of water" car? Oh, puh-lease...do you really believe that? Our article on Water-fuelled cars has a list of a dozen or more people who've made this crazy claim - and so far, how many water-fuelled cars (or water-fuelled-anythings) are there out there? It's quite simply the most obvious and ridiculous free-energy con-trick the world has ever seen. Why has this amazing vehicle not been handed over to a professional car reviewer who could take it and drive it for 1500 miles, pour in a couple of liters of water and then drive another 1500 miles? Doing that convincingly and independently would have every car company on the planet showing up with billion dollar checks in hand. I'm sorry - but if you're taken in by these kinds of ludicrous claims without having gone out there and examined the stuff yourself - then you're simply deluding yourself - and if you are what you claim, then that's very, very sad indeed.

Steve, I hope you don't have a heart condition -- the theoretical capability for a CIHT engine is 3,000 miles/liter, which is 2x what you state above. Note that BLP is not developing an engine, let alone a car, but instead it looks like they plan to license the technology to companies that are interested in the former and latter. I agree with you that auto companies would be showing up at the door with checks in hand, and while I absolutely have no 'inside' information, I would suspect negotiations like these are already very far along. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

An MIT trained scientist would examine all of the angles and treat extraordinary claims extremely skeptically. You're not doing that. You're swallowing the BLP company line completely uncritically - and I don't believe that's possible unless either (a) you don't have the background you claim or (b) BLP are paying you a big pile of money to ignore your training.

I'm not a scientist Steve, I merely have two 'science related' degrees, and probably more working knowledge of the GUT-CP theory than most people outside of BLP itself, but this is only because I make the voluntary decision to study the theory and analyze its math at every free opportunity I get. I wish BLP were paying me, I could use the extra cash! Maybe I should ask Mills for a stipend. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

SteveBaker (talk) 13:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Steve, I would appreciate at least an acknowledgement of my above statement regarding Eric's bonafides. I am in possession of fairly strong circumstantial evidence that Eric is who he says he is, and not a shill for BLP. Since you have presented no evidence that he is, I would kindly ask that you follow WP:NPA and focus on the content. Ronnotel (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

As an only slightly involved editor, I have no confidence in your certification of -anything-, especially a SPA's bonafides. Neither you nor Eric are 'Reliable Sources',as it were, to vouch for anything. I agree with Steve's assessment of Eric. His editing style is characteristic of either a 'true believer' or a company shill. Neither type edits neutrally and most end up banned not for COI but for bad behavior after having their efforts frustrated for a while. Guyonthesubway (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

er, WP:AGF anyone? Ronnotel (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It would be easier to assume good faith if Eric diversified to outside of this topic, at the moment he appears to be a WP:SPA with major problems with their contributions (most of which are edit warring: [14]). From his comment below he has not taken any advice from experienced editors on board (lots of which was offered on this talk page) and still believes himself to be wholly correct. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

We agree that Eric's editing has been problematic - I think he is starting to recognize that also (see below). However, I am asking for a show of good faith regarding the accusation that he is a shill. I think it should be clear that *I* am not a shill (seven year wikihistory, five of that as admin, overwhelming majority of edits in the option/derivatives space), and in that capacity, I am asking Steve to desist with the bad faith accusation that Eric is a shill and/or subversely on the BLP payroll. Whatever motivations Eric may have, I do not believe his editing is part of some BLP marketing campaign. I come to this conclusion because of verifiable personal details that he has shared with me. I would make the same effort on behalf of any editor who is being accused in a like manner. Ronnotel (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPA "Many single-purpose accounts turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest...", "Communal standards such as don't bite the newcomers apply to all users. Be courteous. Focus on the subject matter, not the person...", "...statements regarding motives should be avoided in almost all circumstances...", "...users acting in good faith often edit topics in which they have a general interest. Such accounts warrant particularly gentle scrutiny before accusing them of any breach of official policies and content guidelines...", "...extended improvement to a specific section of Wikipedia should not disadvantage an expert opinion...". Eric mit 1992 (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully I won't give anyone the opportunity to ban me for bad behavior. I apologize for the recent episode, it absolutely won't happen again, and it was due to my solid understanding of the WP guidelines associated with my edits, but I did not realize the 3RR trumped everything else. I have been informed of that, and I will never violate it again, period. Note that I don't "only" edit the BLP page. I also edit my own 'WP book' related to physics. I don't have the time, or current interest, to edit much of anything else. I am not a career WP editor, nor do I wish to be, but I have respect for those who are because they keep the WP machine rolling. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me make my apology more direct. I take responsibility for my single breach of the 3RR rule, I apologize for it, it was wrong (albeit while ignorant of the seriousness of the 3RR), and most importantly it won't happen again. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Move Blacklight Power to BlackLight Power

Done per consensus Ronnotel (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

As the company capitalizes the L in BlackLight, I propose moving the article from "Blacklight Power" to "BlackLight Power". The "Blacklight Power" would be redirected to "BlackLight Power". User talk:Cardamon has changed the spelling in the article body. Any objections? Jim1138 (talk) 08:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

No objections from me. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. The fact that you're the only one to have caught that over this many years indicates you may be the only one really paying attention here. :) Nice find. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't catch it, Cardamon did! Jim1138 (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Even the start of /Archive 1 has both spellings. If I recall correctly there once was a technical issue with CamelCase in article titles. I presume that's now been resolved. Does anyone find anything useful to add from this recent Forbes piece? (Click through to page 2 for BLP mentions.) LeadSongDog come howl! 18:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been a lurker in the various BLP discussions for awhile and haven't gotten involved for various reasons, partially because of the acrimony and my mixed feelings about interfacing with a possible true believer or perhaps even a paid shill, but I would really like to come together on this issue and provide my unequivocal support for this important and long overdue change. If BlackLight Power spells their name with a capital L then the title of this article should definitely be changed.--Davefoc (talk) 20:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Capitalizing the L sounds good to me.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 00:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It sounds good to me. Cardamon (talk) 05:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

we all seem to agree. An admin has to do this as the page BlackLight Power already exists Bhny (talk) 06:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Hydrinos - Waste product

A quick search does not reveal anyone analyzing samples of below ground state "hydrinos". What would the material be called, hydrinogen? I would imagine that gram or kilograms would have been produced by now. I would think a milligram quantity would be sufficient to demonstrate the substance exists and give BLP a credibility boost. An independent study would show the world that BLP was on to something without revealing any technology. Suggestions of the utility of a novel form of hydrogen are mentioned but no chemical analysis. Anybody know of any papers on this? Preferably independent. Jim1138 (talk) 03:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

A hydrino is a hydrogen atom in a fractional state where n < 1 (where n==1 is conventionally known as the ground state of hydrogen). So any hydrogen atom below n==1 is called a 'hydrino'. When n <= 1, the equation for n becomes n=1/p, where p == 1...137. Therefore, there are 136 energy states of hydrogen below 1. Hydrino atoms are abundant in the universe. Mills suggests Hydrino based molecules represent the dark matter of the universe, which means the universe mostly consists of hydrinos (to answer your question about how abundant it is, it is the most abundant form of matter there is, by far). Hydrinos are unfortunately very physically difficult to detect throughout the universe because their formation radiates energy in the soft ultraviolet region, but Mills has published papers that establishes their existence, and Rowan studies confirm it. Here are two independent papers on Hydrinos. There are several. See scholar.google.com. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 03:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

http://papers.sae.org/1999-01-3325

http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3309

This paper might be one of the most important. It derives the fractional n=1/p states of hydrino (where p --> 1...137) using quantum mechanics alone. (I can't believe I forgot to post this one in first place):

http://www.m-hikari.com/astp/astp2007/astp5-8-2007/bourgoinASTP5-8-2007

Eric mit 1992 (talk) 03:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes but are there any papers that would satisfy WP:RS? (and please don't begin lines with white space) — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

All three of the papers I posted are RS. The last one, which is the most important one, is published in Advanced Studies in Theoretical Physics. Or maybe the editorial board consistent of faculty from Georgia Tech, Tx A&M, Oxford, MIT, Yale, and Los Alamos, et. al., isn't good enough for RS. I don't know. Nothing seems to be good enough for the bad actors who are intent on allowing the BLP page to remain biased beyond recognition.

http://www.m-hikari.com/astp/edit.html Eric mit 1992 (talk) 07:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Eric, that did not answer my question. BLP should have produced signficant quantites of hydrinos. Has any of that "waste" been made available to researchers to study? And, where are the papers?

Does it still form H₂, or more complex compounds?
Does it form compounds with any other elements?
What are its density, melting, and boiling points?
What does it take to convert it back to hydrogen?
Miscibility in solvents?

There as been 20 years in which to study this unique substance. Where are the papers with empirical data? A new substance of this significance would easily rate many papers in Science or Nature.

Please don't pepper me with papers not related to the question. None of your links discuss the chemistry of hydrinos. And, please format your talk to guidelines so others can tell who is saying what. See Wikipedia:Indentation Jim1138 (talk) 07:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Jim, a 'hydrino' atom is simply a hydrogen atom in a lower energy state than n==1. There is no 'waste' product. Yes, it binds, but not very well due to the grip on its electron. Read up on these papers:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=hydrino+molecules&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C23&as_sdtp=

Eric mit 1992 (talk) 07:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

nearly all those papers are by Mills. He is the only person to have seen this dark matter hydrino. Here's a the same search minus Mills [[15]] which gives you an interesting mix of UFO and cold fusion papers Bhny (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Now see, this is what I'm talking about. The 'bad actors'. Bhny, why did you choose to throw the term 'UFO' into the mix? It has nothing to do with GUT-CP, nothing to do with Mills, and in fact it has nothing to do with any scientific papers. The reason those two 'search hits' came up on Google Scholar which unfortunately contained the term 'UFO' was because in a document, not a scientific paper, written by some guy in Russia, the Russian non-scientist author had referenced __this very BLP Wikiepdia page__ in a paragraph that was dedicated to alternative physical theory. Why didn't you bother to read the document before you voluntarily decided to cloud this issue in a way that is very, very tired. Associating 'valid' things with 'fringe' things, despite the fact those 'things' have nothing to do with each other, is one way a 'bad actor' operates.

http://proza.ru/2010/04/06/165

--Eric mit 1992 (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

We have already established this is fringe. Even if it is true it is still fringe. No matter how much stuff you type here it will still be fringe Bhny (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

By "we" I mean the consensus WP:CON. Consensus is a very important concept around here Bhny (talk)

I look forward to being allowed the equal opportunity to establish the case that this page should neither be categorized as fringe nor 'pseudo-anything', such that consensus may allow this page to be written in an informationally complete and neutral way. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

No waste product like CO₂ is a waste product of burning fossil fuels? What happens to all of the hydrinos? Is the reaction hydrogen + secret catalyst → energy + hydrios followed by the recycle process hydrinos + secret catalyst + little energy → hydrogen? Or do the hydrinos just magically revert to hydrogen on their own? I.e. "free power"? Jim1138 (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Jim, thank you for your questions. They are valid, and you're the first person from what I can tell who is actually interested in flushing out the facts such that this page can finally be made neutral. The 'hydrino' process, called the 'blacklight process' because it releases energy in the ultraviolet spectrum (hence 'blacklight'), is not a 'chemical reaction'. It is a resonant energy transfer between a hydrogen atom (or even a pre-existing hydrino atom) and another agent (hydrogen atom, hydrino atom, molecule, etc), that will accept integer multiples of 27.2 eV, which then puts the hydrogen or hydrino atom in question into a physical state that allows the electron to drop to a lower energy level whereby it also releases the proportional amount of potential energy stored in the electric field between the proton and the electron as the electron moves to the lower state. The by-product is the hydrino itself. There is no 'waste' product because there is no 'chemical reaction' and there is no 'nuclear reaction'. The energy released is in a range between what is typically released by a chemical reactions and nuclear reactions, i.e., the energy released in a hydrino transition is larger than a chemical reaction, but smaller than a nuclear reaction, however, the benefit is that there are no harmful byproducts. The hydrino atom, given its more tightly bound state, is less reactive than hydrogen, it is lighter than hydrogen (so it easily escapes the atmosphere), and to answer your question as directly as possible, it behaves very similarly to hydrogen, which is another reason why its difficult to detect as a separate entity. Finally, hydrinos do not 'revert' to hydrogen. They are more stable than hydrogen. They neither revert up, nor fall down, the energy chain by themselves, although if my memory is correct (forgive me, the book is 1,800 pages and I've only read it twice), hydrinos still have a non-zero probability of decay. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Eric, the fact that the hydrino is not recycled means that it is "waste". It might be useful in another process or somewhere else, but as far as the hydrogen to hydrino reaction is concerned, it is waste. So therefore, the hydrinos could be collected and studied. If you raise the energy state of an atom, the chemical properties will change. Example: singlet oxygen is more reactive than triplet oxygen. It would follow then that hydrinos are different chemically than hydrogen. This would affect the melting point, boiling point, density of the liquid and solid, and chemical reactions. Given the energy released by hydrogen to hydrino conversion, I would say it would greatly affect the chemical properties. The question is, where are the studies? I would think that any chemistry prof would give his first born for a sample. Evidence of an exotic form of hydrogen would be strong evidence, if not overwhelming evidence, for BLP's viability and would not give away any technology. Jim1138 (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Jim, I believe I understand your question more clearly now, but I am still not sure that we're on the same page. Just to make it clear, hydrino==hydrogen. It's not an 'additional' atom that gets created or otherwise 'shows up'. The hydrogen that existed before the resonant transition is still 'there', unaccompanied by anything that wasn't previously already there, however it's now in a lower energy state than it was before the transition took place. Furthermore, a hydrino can also be coaxed into lower states itself, lower than its state prior to a given resonant energy transfer which causes a subsequent transition. So, hydrogen-->hydrogen(prime) (hydrino)-->hydrogen(double-prime) (hydrino(prime))-->etc. Therefore, I'm not sure its correct to ever characterize a hydrino as a waste product. It represents the end state of an energy transition, just like hydrogen itself represents the end state of an energy transition when its excited electron drops back down to a stable energy state. In terms of the apparent interest hydrinos would and should generate in academic community -- you'd think so! I certainly think so. The chemistry faculty at Rowan Univ. thinks so (and they ask others to reproduce their experiments which confirm the hydrino signature). http://users.rowan.edu/~jansson/blacklight_power_summer2009.pdf (conducted on Rowan premises using off-shelf chemicals and Rowan equipment). European Physical Journal D finally had the common sense and spirit of scientific debate to publish Mills paper on hydrino transitions in late 2011 (which had been written several years prior). This will spawn related experiments and papers going forward, whether they be critical or not.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/x604u4634548p705

Regarding properties of hydrino atoms and compounds, see Chap 5, 6, 11 of GUT-CP book. Regarding BLP not wanting to 'give away' their technology, I don't think that's a concern of theirs given that Mills has made his book freely available for download since at least 2003, if my memory is correct. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's a little reality check, Eric: They love it at Rowan, but what are they saying at MPI Mainz? or ETH Zurich? or Imperial College? or Stanford? or Tokyo? or Caltech? or MIT? or TU München? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. Why don't you post a couple of scientific papers from those institutions, whether they are peer reviewed or not, so we can find out what they're saying without relying on mere opinions of individuals (who may even be scientists) who may have never read the theory let alone conducted an experiment. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 23:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Eric, sorry about my terminology. My terminology has been ground state as hydrogen, sub-ground state as hydrino. Is there an accepted terminology? ⁰H, ^-1H? Let's back track a bit. In BLP's CIHT Cell, hydrogen atoms are converted to hydrino atoms. The hydrinos being waste product which is removed from the system re faq 3. I presume that significant quantities of hydrinos have been produced. The chemical properties of hydrinos are likely quite different from hydrogen (example triplet oxygen and singlet oxygen) Some of your links refer to compounds including other elements besides hydrogen/hydrinos, are there any studies of the pure hydrino material itself? Given all of BLP's experiments, I would think that considerable hydrinos (kilograms?) have been synthesized. So elemental hydrino studies could easily have been done. Studies of elemental hydrinos would provide cleaner information regarding its existance. Jim1138 (talk) 00:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Jim, your terminology is not quite on, but I do believe your understanding is correct. The terminology would be H(1/p) where p represents the fractional state (e.g. H(1/4)). Point I was trying to make is that, for example, H(1/4) can be induced into H(1/6). H(1/1) is not the required starting point. The problem with detection is that isolated hydrinos mainly only exist in the hot plasma in which they're formed. They are much more easily detected by measuring the signature radiation they emit in real-time while being formed. They can also be cryogenically isolated, I believe, but I don't believe that serves much of a use in terms of measuring them, let alone transporting that 'bundle' of equipment to another entity for analysis. Once the plasma cools they combine into dihydrino and dihydrino ions (H₂(1/p), H₂^-(1/p)), which is why I referred you to molecular papers above, and at that point I'm not so sure they behave that much differently than "ground state" H₂, and in addition to that more extensive equipment is required to detect them (e.g. NMR) at this stage. Volume II of the GUT-CP theory book is what details the aforementioned post-formation-processes, but unfortunately I've elected to focus on Vol I and Vol III of the theory because the chemistry-aspect of Vol II isn't currently of great interest to me. These papers might answer some questions for you as they appear to describe detection methods, but I haven't read them yet:

http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/21cm-1%20paper%20080210S%20081010.pdf

http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/ThermallyReversible.pdf

Eric mit 1992 (talk) 01:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

A hydrino is virtually indistinguishable form ground state hydrogen? Given that the hydrogen atomic orbital "balloons" when in an excited state, it would seem to follow that a sub-ground state would have a smaller orbital than the ground state? Where does the energy come from in the formation of a hydrino? Loss of proton or electron mass? An unknown particle? It seems that hydrinos being undetectable is rather convenient... Jim1138 (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jim, no you're absolutely correct that hydrino atoms are physically smaller than 'ground state' hydrogen. I meant to convey that both hydrogen and hydrino atoms consist of the same components -- one proton and one electron. In that sense they exhibit fairly similar characteristics. They are indeed detectable but I believe they are easiest detected during their formation and less easily afterwards. The excess energy comes from the potential stored in the electric field inside the atom which is undergoing the transition into a given hydrino state. Once I'm finished deciphering volume 2 of the theory book I'll better be able to discuss the aspects related to chemistry, wherein vol 2 (the largest of the three volumes) focuses on chemistry, and whereby I'm currently well read on only vol 1 (atomic physics) and vol 3 (high energy physics and related). Eric mit 1992 (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Try reading this recent critique "The hydrino hypothesis leads to many other problems in Big Bang Cosmology. Hydrinos as proposed by Mills and Lu are inconsistent with laboratory scale high pressure LTE hydrogen plasmas, inconsistent with the stability and structure of stars including the Sun, and inconsistent with the known Universe." Comment on “Time-resolved hydrino continuum transitions with cutoffs at 22.8 nm and 10.1 nm”. Mills will really need a working device or a repeatable experiment before he can convince many people. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

A few claims are made in that paper which fail to understand where hydrinos apply or do not apply. For example:

"The higher temperatures in the electrode regions of high pressure hydrogen discharge plasmas would overcome significant activation energies for the proposed hydrino formation reactions. There are no reports of high pressure hydrogen plasmas collapsing into hydrinos with a burst of hard ultraviolet radiation and X-rays." They, the authors of this response to Mills' work, do not account for the catalysts needed to make the hydrino transitions possible. Indeed, the word "catalyst" fails to appear even one time in this response to Mills' work. They do not account for the fact that sun produces massive amounts of hard ultraviolet radiation and x-rays by multiple means, and these are not necessarily all identified. They do not make note of the claim that hydrinos cannot be observed without knowing where the emissions of their formation should peak in the sun's electromagnetic spectrum. Indeed, the word "peak" fails to appear even one time in this response to Mills' work.

"If hydrinos existed, their LTE density in the photosphere would be vastly higher than the density of ordinary hydrogen." They provide no calculation - any assurance that the former would be much greater than the latter. Indeed, there is no math at all in their response to Mills' work. They do not account for the lack of sufficient density of catalysts to produce such alleged greater presence of hydrinos relative to hydrogen, particularly in the photosphere. Indeed, there are no numbers in their paper which relate to density.

Aside from the two cutoff lengths mentioned in the title of the paper responded to, only one set of fractional numbers, one value of a mass, one value of a time, one value of a pressure, and one value of a temperature is mentioned. This is insufficient to make a comparison between standard theory and Mills' theory. Such are the only numerical references in the body of this response (aside from the reference numbers and the numbers in the title of the replied to paper). The response is therefore a completely non-mathematical analysis, and thus it is clearly incapable of supporting its claims mathematically.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 03:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Jim1138's question about hydrino waste products is a serious issue with regard to the hydrino theories and the possible answers go to not only the credibility of the theory but how serious the supporters have been about testing the theory. If the theory is that energy is derived out of water by inducing hydrogen atoms to drop below the conventional ground state then there is a waste product of hydrinos. BLP continues to tout the idea of using these hydrinos in products like super good anti-corrosion coatings for ships. Great, in 20 years have they supplied any of this hydrino product to coating manufacturing? Who have they supplied their hydrino laced water to for testing? Or more simply have they done an experiment where they recover the water from their experiments that allegedly recover energy from water and keep using that water and notice as the build up hydrinos increases the ability of the water to supply energy declines? My objection to the characterization of Rowan as an a source of independent research on BLP theories was at least partially based on this issue. Where is it that Rowan showed a hint of independent thought about the experiments they did? Did they ask questions like this and do independent testing to try to ferret out answers or did they work as paid technicians that did exactly the experiments that BLP paid them to run and only report their results after BLP had approved the reports? Has BLP ever done an experiment which proved that they could distinguish between water with hydrinos and water that doesn't have hydrinos?--Davefoc (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's make this clear. A hydrino is in fact a waste product. So is water, which is the waste product of oxidizing H₂.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 00:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

"BLP continues to tout the idea of using these hydrinos in products like super good anti-corrosion coatings for ships. Great, in 20 years have they supplied any of this hydrino product to coating manufacturing?" If I understand correctly, Mills did not publicize hydrino hydrides until spring of 2004. That is less than 9 years ago. Also, consider that in addition to this discovery, they are also touting the more recent solid-fuel hydrino reactor as well as the CIHT fuel cell. Before all that was the discovery of plasma-based hydrino reactors. It is easy to see why this might take 20 years or more to develop.

"Or more simply have they done an experiment where they recover the water from their experiments that allegedly recover energy from water and keep using that water and notice as the build up hydrinos increases the ability of the water to supply energy declines?" No, because the water itself is gone as soon as the electrolysis is performed, and there is no requirement to burn the resulting hydrogen to recreate H₂0 when the objective is to turn them into hydrinos. So they do not try to reform the water after taking the hydrogen out of it. In the CIHT cell design, once the hydrogen is used, the oxygen is incorporated in other oxygen species which serve various functions in the fuel cell. The ability for the water to supply energy declines the moment that energy is extracted from them, rendering them as "non water". Furthermore, there are no indications in the paper that recombination of two hydrinos with one atom of oxygen will form "water", or that further energy would be extracted by catalytic reaction of such "water", nor is any importance placed upon trying to measure the amount of such "water" as a separate item from normal H₂0. The interest here, primarily, is not the notion of "recycling water" for further extraction of energy, but rather, the interest here is to allow the electron of each hydrogen atom to fall to fractional orbitals below ground state and allow that energy to be harnessed through an electrochemical fuel cell via absorption of energy by ions.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 23:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

"My objection to the characterization of Rowan as an a source of independent research on BLP theories was at least partially based on this issue. Where is it that Rowan showed a hint of independent thought about the experiments they did? Did they ask questions like this and do independent testing to try to ferret out answers or did they work as paid technicians that did exactly the experiments that BLP paid them to run and only report their results after BLP had approved the reports? Has BLP ever done an experiment which proved that they could distinguish between water with hydrinos and water that doesn't have hydrinos?" To my knowledge, Mills has not made it clear that two hydrinos could combine with an oxygen atom, and this is perhaps because the nature of them would be rather unclear at this time, thus not justifying publication of claims regarding that issue. Any questions specifically about this probably have no solid answers at this time, so it would not be surprising if no information could be gathered that Rowan scientists asked any question of this sort because such questions would probably not be formally disclosed by BLP or Rowan until any such question has a good answer. In other words, BLP is not the type that publishes a question that it does not have an answer to, so it keeps mention of such to a minimum until better data can be gathered. In fact, publishing phrased "questions" is something that BLP does very little of in general, given that their primary means of publication are press releases and research articles, not discussions or journalistic writings as would be required to obtain evidence that such questions were asked. So, as far as I know, answers to your questions are "not publicized, not publicized, yes, no".

As far as my view about whether or not Rowan is independent from BLP—it's not.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 23:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Answer to the questions:

Does it still form H₂, or more complex compounds?
Does it form compounds with any other elements?
What are its density, melting, and boiling points?
What does it take to convert it back to hydrogen?
Miscibility in solvents?

1) In addition to forming H(1/n)₂, where n is an integer > 1, representing the fractional state of a given hydrino pairing, it forms more complex compounds, such as hydrino hydrides, when combined with other elements.

2) Hydrinos being a gas, there is no specific density it may have. Detecting the boiling point and melting point of hydrinos requires cyrogenic cooling or exotic pressures. The formation of hydrinos results in increased temperatures. It is unlikely that BLP will place measurement of boiling points and melting points ahead of understanding the catalytic processes which may form hydrinos in the first place.

3) High energy radiation

4) Miscibility is a property that occurs between two or more substances. Hydrinos, being a gas with an effective cross-section much less than ordinary hydrogen, would be highly immiscible with most substances due to a much greater ease in passing through matter, in such a manner that it will easily escape into space.

siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 23:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

"They love it at Rowan, but what are they saying at MPI Mainz? or ETH Zurich? or Imperial College? or Stanford? or Tokyo? or Caltech? or MIT? or TU München?" What is so interesting about what they say when comparing it to what they do? Why spend time ineffectively philosophizing about institutions that may or may not have any public statements to make about BLP? Here is a good summary of qualifications and actions taken by various commentators on BLP's activities[16]:

A California Institute of Technology professor that advises brand name institutional investment firms on technology and business opportunities: "While visiting BLP in Cranbury, NJ in early January, I participated in the construction of three CIHT electrochemical cells and control cells as noted earlier, as well as in the observation of a large number of other cells running their laboratories on 88 Arbin Instrument (College Station TX) battery and fuel-cell testing stations."
Industry expert, Massachusetts Institute of Technology PhD in chemical engineering, that managed R&D for brand name companies including battery and fuel cell product development "On November 30th, I visited BLP and observed the preparation of the cell components, electrolyte and electrodes, and the fabrication, test assembly, and testing of the three CIHT cells using different anodes (negative electrode materials)."
A team from a Fortune 500 firm consisting of an expert R&D manager, a PhD physics US DOD advisor, and a PhD chemist with fuel cell expertise "Four CIHT test cells were constructed and started on December 13, 2011. The Technical Team witnessed the assembly process, cell startup, and an equipment calibration check. The four test cells used the same basic construction, the same electrolyte (i.e., catalyst) and the same pre-oxidized porous nickel (NiO) cathode."
Top-5 Engineering School Professor, California Institute of Technology PhD "I asked to see dynamic calibration data, and I was presented with some data during my visit and additional data after the visit.""I reviewed these claims and added some additional analysis. I identified two possible exothermic pathways that I had not seen mentioned in the BLP analysis, and I investigated the possibility of thermal dissociation of the water to produce H2 and O2. I forwarded some preliminary analysis to BLP, and they provided a detailed analysis that ruled out these possible pathways."
Defense company with 25 research electrochemists that manufactures missile batteries for the defense departments "ENSER staff witnessed on February 12th careful assembly of four CIHT cells. Three of the test cells were comprised of pre-oxidized porous nickel cathode, LiOH-LiBr-MgO electrolyte and pressed porous nickel anode. A fourth test cell used a Molybdenum (Mo) anode. The startup of the cells and data collection setup was also witnessed."

Of course, all this is some of what they say about what they do, but it is certainly better than hearing what they say about what they conclude or judge about BLP and the ideas promoted by it.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 04:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

the Caltech one is a paid "engineering consultant" hired by BlackLight? The Top-5 Engineering School Professor one is an internal report by an investor, it says "On balance, I recommend continued funding of BLP for at least another 24 months (...)" (emphasis added). In The Fortune 500 one they made a lab tour and a few demonstrations, it looks like a prospecting investor; they agreed on a protocol for a 3-day test, but it doesn't mention if the test was ever performed or its result. I am not looking further, I don't think these reports represent the opinions about hydrinos in universities. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Anyways, you know how self-published content has to be taken with caution: "For example, [Mills] once cited that his work had been verified by a researcher at Harvard. In fact, he'd had one of his associates rent a piece of equipment at Harvard, and use it for a test. So yes, it was tested by a researcher - if you count his associate as a legitimate researcher. And it was tested at Harvard. But the claim that it was tested by a researcher at Harvard is clearly meant to imply that it was tested by a Harvard professor, when it wasn't." [17]
The above Harvard validation was publicized over the internet by unreliable sources[18]. The relevant press release was removed from the BLP website but can still be seen here. "BLP also announced today the replication of the extraordinary high-energy light emission below 80 nm from hydrogen at the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA). (...) The CfA validation, which was headed by team leader Alexander Bykanov, PhD under contract with GEN3 Partners, showed hydrogen spectral emissions below 80 nanometers, the previously known ground state. This is decisive evidence of the existence of hydrinos as Dr. Randell Mills theoretically predicted. Describing the significance of the breakthrough, Dr. Mills said, “This is smoking-gun evidence of the existence of hydrinos. The light signature observed is from pure hydrogen and exists at a much higher energy level than deemed possible for this element in any known form.” In a joint statement, Dr. Alexander Bykanov and Dr. Sam Kogen, GEN3 COO, said, “BLP’s spectral results were identically independently reproduced, and we could find no conventional explanation for the emission of bright light from hydrogen in this very high energy region. We believe that this confirms hydrino emission.” The Rowan validations (...) and the GEN3 Partners validation of hydrino light emission further confirm the BlackLight Process as a new non-polluting energy source." Amazingly enough, this important validation does not feature on BLP's own list of validations..... --Enric Naval (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)