Talk:Brainwave entrainment/Archive 1

Archive 1

Possible addition

I have been reading here and there about brainwave entrainment. This is how I understand it. Correct me if I am wrong. I don't feel confident adding this information to the article. Maybe someone with more knowledge?

• The frequency that the brain is entrained is being entrained to is too low for our ears to hear and so two sounds are played at the same time in different ears. If one sound was at 500 hz and the other at 10 hz then they ,.... ok I thought I could recall what I had learned lol. Wow, does anyone understand what I was trying to get at? Jaberwocky6669 | ☎ 14:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Sub-bands reference

I've found and added a reference for the sub-bands,[1] at least we are sure they weren't made up by the author of the article. However, this is a page selling commercial products, so it's not the best choice. If someone finds a link to a non-commercial page with the same info, feel free to remove the current one. --Army1987 17:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You've almost got it. If in one ear is a pattern of 500hz and in the other 510hz, then theoretically the brain calculates that as 10hz.

overview

not to be an ass, but am i the only one who thinks the overview sounds like total nonsense? "Brainwave synchronization is a private case of functional brain connectivity concept, whereas functional connectivity is defined as the temporal correlation between spatially-remote neurophysiological events, expressed as deviation from statistical independence (temporal correlation) across these events in distributed neuronal groups and areas, which produce the brainwaves". near as i can tell, functional connectivity means 'two things happen at the same time' which could have been written a lot better. and i have no clue why this is a private case; are there public cases of brain connectivity? this seems like someone took a dense scientific article and ran it through babelfish a few times. --dan 03:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Link to Commercial Site

Anyone have an objection to linking to [2], which has an MP3 demonstration of binaural beat frequencies? Grunnah 02:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

External Link For Simple Overview

Would it be ok to add a link to a site which describes the documented responses within our brains when in certain brain wave patterns. This site has an easy to understand chart and brief and simple explanations of how binaural beats work, how isochronic tones work and how brainwave entrainment is achieved. http://www.relaxmp3.co.uk/brainwave-entrainment/chart.htm many thanks Leelahcat 15:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC) — JIP | Talk 08:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Another reference

I think this is a good alternative to the commercial crap about Brainwave Synchronization. The helpfile of CoolEdit '96 discribes the principle very simple and clear and also instructs how to make your own soundfiles if you want to 'Sync your Brain'... Arnoldus 23:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Copying Off I-Doser

"Brainwave synchronization (entrainment) may be achieved when audio signals are introduced to the brain causing a response directly related to the frequency of the signal introduced, called binaural beats. Two tones close in frequency generate a beat frequency at the difference of the frequencies, which is generally subsonic. For example, a 500 Hz tone and 510 Hz tone will produce a subsonic 10 Hz tone, roughly in the middle of the alpha range."

This is lifted directly from the I-Doser website, which I consider to be incredibly unreliable because, A, their main object is to sell you their product, and B, they themselves fail to cite any resources, such as scientific evidence to support their claims. So does this passage merit a delection, a citation, a disclaimer, or what? -71.104.92.253 00:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion as copyvio. Go ahead, fix it. :-) IPSOS (talk) 03:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It's copyright violation alright, but I have to say, it's also scientifically sound, and nicely put. Maybe someone should write something similar, as then it would not be paraphrasing others, because it is pure fact. Sorry to be an ass, but I had to point out that there's nothing SCIENTIFICALLY wrong with the above.89.241.181.185 23:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It is irrelevant whether copying is done from I doser. If a person wants to get drg files from pirate bay and convert them to sbg code, they will quickly see the juvenile code being sold as legitimate brain entrainment products. Besides, I doser ripped Jim Peters off, who designed the SbaGen code which I doser used unauthorized for many years.http://uazu.net/sbagen/i-doser.html

12:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed link to online shop making false claims

Just look at http://www.mind-optimizer.com/Answers and you understand what i mean. they have testimonials writing things like: "I had been stuck in a low paying office job for over 10 years and thought I'd be stuck there for another 10. Then my wife gave me the Mind-Optimizer Volume 6 CD for "Attracting Money and Wealth". All I did was start listening to it regularly and that was it. Now it's 4 months later and I'M looking for office staff for my own business! I can't believe how this one little CD pulled me out of a 10 year rut in a dead-end job. I can just imagine what the other CDs will do for me." most statements on the page are exaggerated likewise. if it would be that easy to change a boring life, they wouldn't set up boring websites and sell stuff over the internet. 12:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Health issues?

Noted in the article on binaural beats, risks include seizure and death. Can we get some numbers on how often that happens? Same risk as a Pokemon episode? or are we talking 1 in 10 here.

Grandeandy 03:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hemi-Sync the user Pessia complained of having tinnitus after listening to this. I got it too however only temporarly and for a short time. KhaaL (talk) 02:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Brainwave is scientifically proved, Hemi-Sync is not

Please forgive/excuse any rule-breaking in this post, as I'm not totally au fait with Wikipedia's posting guidelines, and don't have time to read them.

In short: Brainwave entrainment HAS been scientifically proved, and there is no doubt about that. BUT... at present, the market is dominated by Hemi-Sync, a large company who more than likely make hundreds of thousands out of the crap they sell.

In my opinion, all LINKS to Hemi-Sync be removed, and the obvious bias in their favour be removed. NAturally, they must be left in the main article as their founder conducted significant research into the method of binaural beats etc.

Thanks for reading. Again, apologies If I'm not making a great deal of sense. PS: the reason I say to remove links to Hemi-Sync is purely because I believe SOME of the stuff they sell, and the claims they make, are unfounded and ridiculous. 89.241.181.185 23:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hemi-Sync isn't a company, it's a brand. Owned by a registered non-profit organisation. They make precisely zip. K2709 (talk) 12:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to back up the claims that it's scientific with some links to made research! KhaaL (talk) 02:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I changed the topic title "THIS IS A SEPARATE POST, SORRY. WIKIPEDIA'S EDITING SOFTWARE IS COMPLICATED!" into "I think Brainwave is scientifically proved, Hemi-Sync is not". Well, one needs to support one's claim with scientific evidence. Don't just say, "I believe SOME of the stuff they sell, and the claims they make, are unfounded and ridiculous." 12:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes this article needs help

I have read plenty of clinical literature on this topic. I am out of time now, but someone (maybe me) needs to work on this. It is a legitimate subject, and it requires no commercial hype or links. There is plenty of research. And yes, it should be entrainment, not synchronization. Also, the frequency following response is a specific subcategory of phenomena in this topic and should be included in the topics whithin this article or as a separate one.

I just corrected a key myth in this article. Binaural beats are just one way to achieve entrainment. Pulses (tremelo) are actually more powerful from what I've read. A great deal of verifiable information can be added to this article. The nature of light and sound machines, legitimate theory of the mechanism, clinical uses, how the pulses are produced, what the various frequencies correspond to in terms of states of consciousness, (e.g. trance, sleep, alertness...)

Please just think of it as a work in progress and don't remove it. There is a significant body of non-commercial research. Just look in Pubmed (peer reviewed journals database) and see. Robert A. Yourell —Preceding comment was added at 09:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The article has been renamed to brainwave entrainment. With regard to aural entrainment, there have been countless studies on binaural beats, but there is a lack of published research on isochronic tones, which is why the article about binaural beats is significantly more developed than this article. sarkar112 (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

new link

i will be putting up a link to my site that provides free binaural beats set to music. [3] I would wait for a response, but the last post is 6 months old. Crommo (talk) 23:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to put in a link to a new online resource for brainwave entrainment, it is www.brainwaveentrainment.org, it is a site dedicated to researching an applying brainwave entrainment technology. Please advise —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.33.224 (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see the contents of that site have nothing to do with the topic of this article beyond a spurious use of the word "entrainment". Also it looks like a .com site disguised as a .org site. Looie496 (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion?

Why in the world would this article be deleted? It was nominated for deletion over a year ago and that's still valid? 209.150.56.190

No idea. This article needs work, but i have no idea why it would be deleted DPic (talk) 23:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

"Criticism"

There is no need for a "criticism" section, because this is not an article about a policy, person, or theory. This is (or should be) an article on electrophysiological research into brainwave entrainment. Reputable research into the viability and efficacy of various methods should be included--both research that supports and research that does not support viability/efficacy. Methods with more or higher-profile research should be given more weight. If you have a low-profile article from a reputable scholarly journal about a method of entrainment that is almost not researched at all, then put it under an "Other methods" section.

All that debate earlier on this talk page over the viability of brainwave entrainment misses the point of the talk page, which is to discuss the article, not the subject of the article (see: violating WP:NOT#FORUM). Wikipedia does not care if you believe anti-gravity exists, it only cares if you have found a good source that speaks to it. Look at the anti-gravity article for an example: "Thomas Townsend Brown's gravitator" is not organized with a "criticism" section. It states the general consensus (since there is one),

If a device is *high profile*, then it should be included with information from appropriate sources (i.e., the NY Times quotes some doctor as saying the device doesn't work/works). Whether or not it works is irrelevant to talk page discussion--if whether or not is works is relevant to the article (yes!), put it in the article if the source is reputable. Of course, it is a massive violation of wikipedia policy to do your own research to synthesize a section whose thesis statement is "x doesn't work." If you want to improve the article, do general research on a particular method of entrainment and include the highest-profile, most recent, and most reputable sources, regardless of the "side," and also mostly regardless of "balance" between sides.

There should also be mention in the into whether or not any brainwave entrainment devices are certified as therapeutic devices by the FDA (I don't think so).

--gwc (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyright

The entire Isochronic tones section is copied verbatim from mindalive.com/articleeleven.htm. That section also credits two books, but they were references used by mindalive.com. Those sentences were also copied verbatim from mindalive.com. I'm not inclined to re-write the section myself to avoid copyright violations, but am bringing the situation to the attention of willing editors. If the section is not rewritten, however, I'll remove it if someone hasn't done so already. Thanks. Akerans (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Section not written, so removed WP:COPYPASTE material. Akerans (talk) 14:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

External links

This article was jam-packed with commercial/advertising links, so I reduced it to the only non-commercial link I saw. Please discuss links here first before adding them to the article. Thanks --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 02:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

This problem appears to be ongoing. I just removed two additional links that described their resources as "free" or "non-profit" but were in fact selling entrainment programs from the website, or directly linked to a parent company that markets such programs. Since this first comment was made back in 2006, looks like it could use reiteration. 173.59.78.86 (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

No criticism?

Something as flakey as this sounds must have some critics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Siodine (talk • contribs) 15:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Yeah, I'm curious about it too. I vaguely remember there was a criticism section in the binaural beats article completely debunking it, but it disappeared. Frigo 16:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing "flaky" about Brainwave synchronization except that this article should be called "brainwave entrainment" or "Frequency Following Response", because "Brainwave synchronization" is not the official term I've seen in the literature. BTW, Stanford just held a big symposium on this Brainwave Entrainment -- see external link to: Brainwave Entrainment to External Rhythmic Stimuli - Interdisciplinary research and clinical perspectives symposium

Hello 69.183.0.63. You haven't explained WHY it is not flaky. And by the way, you seem to be eager to spam wikipedia about this symposium. Frigo 00:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not flaky, as it's grounded in some solid scientific background. Agreed: Brainwave Entrainment would be good, but Frequency Following Response would be better. Synchronization is factually shoddy, and kinda sounds rather too positive. If that makes sense. Suffice to say, there will always be some significant grey areas when dealing with fringe science such as this.89.241.181.185 23:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It is very flaky. This is not even fringe science. It's just a misunderstood result due to bad test methodology. The bottom line is: binaural beats do not alter brainwaves and there is no frequency following / entrainment effect. The entrainment effect often claimed by sellers of various mind machines and other such groups is an unfortunate misunderstanding of results originating from a bad test setup. The key is to understand that EEG electrodes are highly sensitive to electromagnetic fields and EEGs are devices which amplify the most minute EM signals. If one places a relatively strong source of electromagnetic radiation (headphones) practically right next to the EEG electrodes, EM energy leaks and the EEG sensors will pick up wrong signals. It's like a small-scale TEMPEST. In other words, if the EEG sensors are not sufficiently EM-isolated from the headphones used to play the stereo audio signal there will always be a "brainwave entrainment effect" in the resulting measured signals. With a non EM-isolated setup, even a bowl of jelly will display "brainwave entrainment" effect. When the experiment is conducted by piping the audio in via long tubes and properly isolating the audio source and all its electronics from the electrodes, there is no entrainment effect seen. Pubmed surely has papers for you if you need citations. (Moved this here from Binaural Beats page). --90.224.116.18 (talk) 22:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

So, use an EM-isolated setup. The effects show up beautifully with topographic mapping technology, IBVA4 kit etc. Not flaky.

http://www.monroeinstitute.com/voyages/hsj-1990-fall-hemi-sync-and-brain-entrainment-sadigh.html K2709 (talk) 13:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

K2709, that's just the point... With EM-isolated setup the EEG entrainment effect just is NOT there. Also, I am sorry for being a bit misleading. The frequency following response (FFR) from ear to the auditory cortex is of course there and is measurable, i.e. you can measure that you actually perceive the audio. However some people use "FFR" when they mean "brainwaves synchronize to the (perceived) frequency, so if binaural beating is at 10 Hz, the brains will entrain to that frequency" - that does not exist, and this is what I wanted to say.

In conclusion: Binaural beating phenomenon does not synchronize the brainwaves, as far as current knowledge goes. Flaky test setup with improper EM shielding will show entrainment effects.

Also, I'm sorry, but I don't see the relevance of your link to anything. It reads more like a commercial. As I see it, the binaural beating employed with the mind machines is just nice background audio to drown out distracting environmental noises.

So that was it for binaural beating supposedly causing EEG entrainment. Audio doesn't do it.

But light does. I recall that photic driving (flash the light with proper frequency) has real and measurable effects. --90.224.116.18 (talk) 19:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by this, as I'm sure I've seen footage of output that contradicts it, and have personally experienced a number of qualitively distinct mental states using different binaurals that I've never experienced without them. My initial skepticism levels were way too high for me to realistically ascribe these results to placebo effects, and more objectively, placebo effects don't apply to this study either (double blind with subjects under anaesthesia): http://pt.wkhealth.com/pt/re/anesb/abstract.00000524-199908000-00008.htm;jsessionid=JGWFL4mX0GTH3w1JnWPLWG10LLtxcGyWGcBM2cJhjxG7KldvzCJC!-595418120!181195629!8091!-1 There is a magic ingredient in the mix somewhere. But if entrainment processes aren't it, what's left? Curiouser and curiouser. K2709 (talk) 22:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

K2709, anecdotal evidence buffered with a claim of initial skepticism does not demonstrate there's a legitimate effect. Even a "skeptic" can have a placebo effect. What you need is a double-blinded study. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.126.10.56 (talk) 00:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Erm, that's right, but I did provide a double-blind study, in that very same comment. Though its link has now degraded, others still exist.

Kliempt P, Ruta D, Ogston S, Landeck A, Martay K (1999). "Hemispheric-synchronisation during anaesthesia: a double-blind randomised trial using audiotapes for intra-operative nociception control". Anaesthesia. 54 (8): 769–73. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2044.1999.00958.x. PMID 10460529. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Lewis AK, Osborn IP, Roth R (2004). "The effect of hemispheric synchronization on intraoperative analgesia". Anesthesia and Analgesia. 98 (2): 533–6, table of contents. PMID 14742401. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

K2709 (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there any sourced criticism on brainwave entrainment? The only criticism seems to stem form the fact that it's similar to meditation, but less well known, and people seem to think the effects come out of thin air. It sounds flaky to the average person, but there's really nothing crazy about it. Perhaps some people have made exaggerated claims which just makes things worse. If someone can dig up some real criticism, i think it would make people feel *more* trusting of the content of the article just to be able to see what kid of criticism there has been, and what counter-criticism there is. DPic (talk) 23:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

There is not much sourced criticism that I'm aware of, but there is essentially no properly sourced evidence that entrainment has any valuable effects in the first place. Looie496 (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Blast my invisible ink, or possibly the non-linear ordering of this thread. I refer the editor to my previous comment here just an hour or so ago... These independent, randomised, double-blind studies in peer-reviewed medical journals indicate worthwhile effects at p < 0.00x significance levels. I'd say they constitute half-decent sourcing. K2709 (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Expert Explanation and Evidence for Eradication of Egregious Errors

I am an expert on the subject of brainwave entrainment (known as the commercial enterprise "Hemi-Sync" as sold by the Monroe Institute), and in particular its refutation. I will endeavor to make this assertion serve as an explanation capable of being understood by the lay person, thus serving to satisfy two requirements for this article and its continuation or demise.

I am a neuroscientist specializing in the development and validation of analysis techniques used on bioelectric signals generated by the brain as well as those produced by external brain imaging devices such as MRI, PET and SPECT. My research during training included that which was mentioned in the movie "Thank You For Smoking" (telling congress 'We've found that smoking can offset Parkinson's Disease'), and taken together was instrumental in my having been invited to non-competitive post-doctoral positions at National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda MD and with the department of psychiatry at Yale Medical School. I was a respected professional before being awarded my doctorate.

In 1995 I began studies in experimental psychology at the Behavioral Research And Information NeuroScience (BRAINS) Center at Radford University under Karl Pribram. I had applied to this program in part due to the article in OMNI magazine about the Monroe Institute (Cox, Murray; OMNI v16 #1, p. 40, "Notes From A New Land", as the application of EEG as an objective measure of neural activity intrigued me. I had written off to the Monroe Institute and received reprints of the original articles used to explain the entrainment effect, including Dennis Mennerich's original EEG studies on the binaural beat/EEG entrainment effect. While the write ups seemed quite conclusive, a single point bothered me: every study used electromagnetic headphones for stimulus presentation situated on the head over an EEG electrode cap. Since we, as did many others, employed an EM screened chamber for EEG recording (to prevent signal pollution from outside sources), it seemed counter-productive to place just such a source (the electromagnets of the headphones) in contact, or nearly so, with the detector electrodes of a microvolt meter, which is in essence what an EEG is.

At Pribram's suggestion I generated binaural beat stereo tracks, and played them via headphones into a test subject wearing an EEG cap attached to a recording EEG device. I obtained an "alpha" EEG display just as suggested by the previous research. The one point that suggested more research needed to be done lie in the fact that in this study the 'test subject' was a head-shaped styrofoam wig stand. It was clear that there was a distinct possibility that the "entrainment" was simply the binaural beat set up by the electromagnets in the headphones playing the stimuli while sitting on the electrodes. Of course this one-of test was a demonstration, and not a valid experiment. That required further exploration.

To better discern the nature of the effect I teamed up with Dr. Jim Horton of the University of Virginia at Wise. Some of his students, he and I conducted a study in which we presented the same binaural stimuli to subjects using both standard headphones and air conduction headphones, which have the transducer at least 2 meters from the head and only rubber tubes to transmit the sound. With the headphones the usual results were obtained. Using air conduction phones, there were no "brainwave entrainment" effects. This study was presented at the Society of Psychophysiologial Research in Washington DC in October of 2002. Due to this study and the results obtained, one researcher who had been consulted by the students early on, had her publication on binaural beat brainwave entrainment rescinded from the journal that had published it.

References are available on Horton's web page: http://www2.uvawise.edu/jeh2b/ under "binaural beat research" and "SPR 2002". The actual poster can be requested from him.

I hope this serves as an explanation for the basis of "brainwave entrainment" and how it developed as well as justification for removal of the relevant articles, or better yet, to have this information appended to them in order to assure anyone who seeks information on this subject is presented with this evidence that all previous electrophysiological results were artifactual of the equipment used, and the behavioral and self-report results likely placebo effect.

Dr. Dennis McClain-Furmanski PhD Emory & Henry College Emory, Virginia USA

Drmcclainphd (talk) 10:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC) drmcclainphd

Ok, a few things should be noted here. First, attaching headphones to an EEG doesn't cause electrical brainwave activity to show up on any EEG. Second, the link you gave to the psychology chap just shows a few pictures of some people hooking someone up to an EEG via head gear electrodes and doesn't contain any information about any studies and their results. And third, your name in a google search is linked to some kind of Christian outfit. And fourth, a search of your previous wiki contributions shows that you are interested in music principally. Therefore, you are a troll. But even worse, you are trying to blemish this good topic.

I realise that my contribution may not fit the wiki rules per se, but to allow his contribution to stand here seems to me to be utterly irreprehensible. I suggest people investigate him and come to their own conclusions, and then add the revelent information to debunk him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.110.214 (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

As an EEG researcher myself, I am personally pretty much convinced that this stuff is all cruft, but I don't see how we can make any use of your findings unless they have been published in a peer-reviewed article. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

There's an important logical disconnect in the conclusion, "and the behavioral and self-report results likely placebo effect". A useful real world effect doesn't automatically become placebo just because it's caused by A instead of B. And in fact there are double-blind trials listed in the Hemi-Sync article whose results refute the placebo explanation - as an editor of the same you presumably know of them already. Unless your expertise extends to the non-electrophysio side as well, I suggest that we continue to rely on existing references. K2709 (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Online Brainwave Generator

Would this be considered as commercial, or a valuable tool allowing wikipedia readers to have a better understanding what it is all about?

Online Isochronic Brainwave Generator — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.133.215.62 (talk) 12:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

This article is full of pseudoscientific crap, and that would just add an external link to more pseudoscientific crap. Looie496 (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but tell me one single thing what is not pseudoscientific crap about brainwave entrainment. At least, it helps understanding the kind of tones that are used in that pseudoscience.

The only genuinely scientific study I know of is PMID 17709189 -- and even that is not very strong. Looie496 (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

"Dynamic Attending Theory"

just a note for later.. no time to deal with this now. name in header appears to be another (perhaps the main) name for this. see here. No reviews on this... Jytdog (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Jargon and unreliable sources

Unless specific examples of unreliable sources and jargon can be given, I must strongly oppose the suggestion. Firstly, this article is written in such a way as to relate to other articles on WP in this area, citing similar or same sources. If this article is upheld as unreliably sourced and written in jargon, then many other related articles would also need to be so tagged. However, far from using jargon, the article specifically uses terms that are well-established and familiar in the related fields. Just slapping on a template without specifics does not constitute a helpful contribution to the editing process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prolumbo (talk • contribs) 16:59, 14 March 2016‎ (UTC)

I understand that you are protective of the article, since you created it. But it is almost impenetrable with jargon, and the sourcing needs improvement. This is something I keep meaning to come back to but haven't made it yet. But please do read WP:TECHNICAL. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)