Talk:Brilliant Light Power/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. 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 4

"Such states would require non-relativistic counterparts to remain physical, yet they don't have them"

What does the phrase "Such states would require non-relativistic counterparts to remain physical, yet they don't have them" mean? I don't think that it can be parsed as English. Could it be that it got mangled somewhere along the way? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's the paper if you want to write a better summary. It's over my head [[1]] Bhny (talk) 22:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I rewrote it to make it more clear. I encourage any of our physics geeks to have a nice chuckle over an engineer trying to explain the flaws in hydrino theory and correct the section as needed. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The Klein-Gordon equation does not reproduce the pattern of looped currents which Mills defines explicitly in his book, where he uses of basis sets and convolution operators to form the current density function. The Klien-Gordon equation relies upon the Schrodinger equation which affords no current density function and instead uses a probability density function. The concept of coupling strength as used in the Klien-Gordon equation is not applicable to a model where the Klien-Gordon equation is not valid. A negative result coming from such a brief analysis striving for coherence is surely the result of a circular argument.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 17:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

not sure what you mean by "affords no current density function". The Schrodinger equation doesn't preclude the existence of a probability current density function. But again, we are walking into WP:NOT#FORUM and OR territory that has no direct bearing on this discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The trick is writing a paragraph that can be understood by most Wikipedia readers and which follows the source rather than being synthesis or original research when the source is not itself understandable by most Wikipedia readers. Please feel to have a go at that [paragraph; I am not really happy with the result of my attempt. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made a small tweak. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I found something you might find interesting: courtesy of Google Scholar (http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.2864):

Extended content

Pragmatic SAE procedure in the Schrodinger equation for the inverse-square-like potentials
Teimuraz Nadareishvili, Anzor Khelashvili
"Abstract. The Self-Adjoint Extension in the Schrodinger equation for potentials behaved as an attractive inverse square at the origin is critically reviewed. Original results are also presented. It is shown that the additional non-regular solutions must be retained for definite interval of parameters, which requires a necessity of performing a Self-Adjoint Extension (SAE) procedure of radial Hamiltonian.The "Pragmatic approach" is used and some of its consequences are considered for wide class of transitive potentials. Our consideration is based on the established earlier by us a boundary condition for the radial wave function and the corresponding consequences are derived. Various relevant applications are presented as well. They are: inverse square potential in the Schrodinger equation is solved when the additional non-regular solution is retained. Valence electron model and the Klein-Gordon equation with the Coulomb potential is considered and the “hydrino”-like levels are discussed."

siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 17:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is another one (http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3309):

Hydrino like states in graphene and Aharonov-Bohm field
Pulak Ranjan Giri

Extended content

We study the dynamics of fermions on graphene in presence of Coulomb impurities and Aharonov-Bohm field. Special emphasis is given to the formation of hydrino like states and its lifting of degeneracy due to the presence of AB field. The flux of the AB field can be tuned to make the low angular momentum hydrino states stable against decay. The zero limit physics of the two coupling constants \alpha_G and \Phi involved in the system is discussed.
...
In this work, we report another possibility of exotic phenomena of massive fermions on graphene, which is the formation of hydrino like states. But due to the high coupling constant $\alpha _{G}$ , the so called hydrino states may have complex eigenvalues for low angular momentum values, which will make it dissipative. We therefore consider a Aharonov-Bohm (AB) field, which will rescue the low angular momentum states and will form stable bound states.
...
Theoretical model of hydrino states can be found by solving Klein-Gordon equation in 3 space dimensions. Recently it has been shown that, in (2 + 1)-dimensions, Dirac equation may give rise to hydrino like states [8]. Besides the hydrino states, the large fine structure constant $\alpha _{G}$ of graphene also may make the normal bound state eigenvalue complex. Our inclusion of a AB field will also make the normal bound states stable.

siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 17:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you please stop with this unnecessary pasting in of large amounts of text. We are capable of clicking links. I have collapsed them. Why are you pasting these? They aren't peer reviewed, so what is the direct relevance? This is not a forum. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

What is the point of mentioning CIHT in the lede?

The lede contains this sentence:
- BLP has created a system it calls Catalyst Induced Hydrino Transition, or CIHT.
Previously the sentence included this phrase:
- and according to its web site "It is expected that CIHT will competitively, economically, logistically, and environmentally displace essentially all power sources of all sizes: thermal, electrical, automotive, marine, rail, aviation, and aerospace".

Bhny deleted the phrase on July 25, 2012, presumably because he thought it was unsubstantiated BLP blather. Fair enough, except that now the reader isn't told what is the significance of CIHT, so maybe mention of CIHT should be deleted from the lede as well? My own preference would be to either reinsert the original phrase or include a brief paraphrase of it that describes what CIHT is supposed to accomplish. Whatever is done here I think at a minimum the lede should contain the fact that BLP is claiming that the technology they are developing will be a source of very cheap energy that has the potential to replace almost all other energy sources.--Davefoc (talk) 07:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I've just looked at the lede and have to agree that it's clumsy. The sentence doesn't belong here, and since it's sourced to a company promotional website, it doesn't belong at all. I've deleted the sentence. However, I do agree that the lede has to make more clear that the BLP is yet another "free energy" scheme. Any ideas without using promotional materials? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. BLP is an expert on BLP's views, so their website is a RS on what they claim. It is clearly important to explain their CIHT bizzo because it is a very different way they claim to be generating power compared to what they had previously claimed to be doing. As I understand it their earlier work centred on using 'cells' to produce heat to produce steam to produce electricity. CIHT is claimed to be the direct production of electricity from 'cells' (obviously of a different type). So if we are attempting to explain to readers what BLP claim to do, then CIHT must be in the lede and body of the article. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 10:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Not a chance. Their credibility is questionable, to put it mildly, so their website would be a questionable source at best. It fails WP:SELFPUB and WP:EXCEPTIONAL because it is unduly self-serving and makes exceptional and extremely dubious claims. Their website and all other materials they release are primarily self-promotional in nature, and thus fail WP:PROMOTION as well. At best, they can only be used to back up or illustrate material from reliable independent sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree, it is unduly self serving. The text was also problematic in that it stated the system actually exists. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

If an article on BLP doesn't discuss what they claim to do, then surely it isn't an article on BLP. This isn't a big deal. Stating their claims is not endorsing them or damning them, it's just stating what they are. If you think that this is the place for partisan smearing then you are as mistaken as someone who thinks it's about advertising their wares. We're just supposed to present unbiased, accurate, well documented information. One of the best places to find what their claims are is on their site and it seems silly to claim otherwise. Their credibility has nothing to do with whether they claim X or Y. What matters is that they claim X and/or Y, and we can quite safely document that they do this because it's what they actually do!! It has nothing to do with any of those policies, and if there are other sources that reference the fact then so much the better - let's use them all! 110.32.79.50 (talk) 12:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Their web site is biased information and there is no reference that verifies it. There is a whole section on their claims below. Bhny (talk) 13:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

See WP:PROMOTION. Your advocating that WP should serve as a soapbox from which fringe proponents and their supporters are allowed to hawk their dubious wares and present themselves in their own words. That isn't going to happen here, especially with an organization that has a reputation for misrepresentation. What they claim to be and do is completely irrelevant unless it can be verified with reliable independent sources. There is absolutely no reason to believe that any of the information provided by BLP is accurate or of any encycopedic value whatsoever. They are truly a lousy source about themselves, their claims and their activities, specifically because their credibility is questionable, at best. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't expect this response. What BLP claims is the heart of their company and an article that doesn't mention what BLP claims is hardly an article about BLP. They are a reliable source for what they claim as 110.32.79.50 says above. But the nature of BLP's claims may be adequately summarized in the lede already without mentioning CIHT at all. If CIHT is going to be mentioned in the lede then the reader needs to know what the significance of it is otherwise the whole sentence should be deleted.--Davefoc (talk) 14:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but BLP does not qualify as a reliable source even about themselves per WP policies and guidelines, as I explained above. Yes, "What BLP claims is the heart of their company and an article that doesn't mention what BLP claims is hardly an article about BLP". But any material on their claims has to be drawn from reliable independent sources, as we absolutely require expert opinion on what the claims actually are, and what significance they have. We can't do that on our own, as that would be original research. Nor can we take them at face value, even with clear attribution. In case you haven't noticed, I've already removed the statement about CIHT in the lede. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

"[W]e absolutely require expert opinion on what the claims actually are, and what significance they have." There is no such thing as an "opinion" about what claims actually are. A claim that 1+1=2 is a claim that 1+1=2. That is what it is. Similarly, a claim that 1+1=3 is a claim that 1+1=3. That is what it is. We can have an opinion about the claims, whether they convey significance or not, whether they are true or not, whether they are believable or not, but not an opinion about the what the claims actually are.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 16:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

We don't put in claims from the primary sources that are unduly self serving and likely to not be the case. We look to the independent secondary sources to see where the weight is as well, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

No, Kmarinas. That is incorrect. If a group portrays itself as a religious/patriotic community-service organization and is portrayed in the reliable sources as a bunch of troglodytes who dress up in bedsheets and spend their time burning crosses, stomping around with torches, and stringing up black people, their self-description is of little interest, consequence or encyclopedic value.

Same thing here. There is no reason to presume that BLP provides accurate information about themselves, their products, their theories, their activities and their significance, and plenty of reason to presume that they do not. Whether any element of their own self-decription is worthy of inclusion in an article depends on whether reliable independent sources written by real-world experts have seriously and extensively discussed it, and then only to provide totally non-controversial material, or to illustrate or support what the reliable independent sources say.

Self-promotional, self-serving claims from self-published or in-universe sources are not very significant, all the more so if the claims are exceptional and the credibility of the sources is questionable or lacking, as is clearly the case with BLP. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

"There is no reason to presume that BLP provides accurate information about themselves, their products, their theories, their activities and their significance, and plenty of reason to presume that they do not." Can you account for Davefoc's position on this matter?siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 20:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

You'd have to ask Davefoc if you want to know for sure, but if you're asking me to speculate, per Occcam's razor, lack of familiarity with the criteria set out in WP:SELFPUB seems the most likely explanation, or perhaps lack of familiarity with the fact that reliable sources have seriously questioned BLPs credibility. It really doesn't matter why, though, as his statement, like that of 110.32.79.50, is at odds with our polices. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

In any case, the point of this section by Davefoc was already summarized by none-other-than himself, "But the nature of BLP's claims may be adequately summarized in the lede already without mentioning CIHT at all. If CIHT is going to be mentioned in the lede then the reader needs to know what the significance of it is otherwise the whole sentence should be deleted." I agree with his position on this, and I'm sure that most of you do too.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 20:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

You apparently haven't been paying attention, as I have already informed Davefoc that I agreed with him about deleting the whole sentence, which I already did. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to read everything above. I do not have the time for that. Either way, you just confirmed my expectation that others (such as yourself) would agree with him. It seems that I had listened just enough to use a little "common sense" to figure out the same thing that a person reading the above could figure out without guessing like I did.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 20:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I'm not sure why you indented my statement. It wasn't specifically addressed toward you, but to those reading this section.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 20:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it was addressed to me specifically. Outdented back. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

This is sounding a bit overly bizarre. It is not for us to decide whether a company is a fraud or not - there are crazy things like laws and regulations and corporate watchdogs and the media etc. etc. Just because we may or may not like the claims they are making has absolutely no bearing on whether they are making those claims. If you seriously think BLP is defrauding those institutions which have invested in them, take it up with them, write them a letter, camp on their doorstep with a sign telling them what fools they are, but don't rely on WP to promote your crazy views per WP:SOAPBOX. We have RS's showing that they have been operating for DECADES without prosecution for any corporate malfeisance - if you have sources that say otherwise, bring them. We have RS's showing that they have sourced at least $60 MILLION from investors, and the very article that you described as an impeccable source shows that there are many instances of independent validation/acceptance of what they are claiming by respectable laboratories. So if they can convince professional investors and professional scientists that they are not a bunch of troglodytes burning crosses in bedsheets, then it isn't for us to know better. They are a company and therefore have legal obligations to provide accurate information about their activities. That doesn't mean they're right, but it does mean that what they say on their website reflects what they claim to be doing. They claim CIHT is a major advance over what they had been doing previously, we owe it to a reader interested in BLP to summarise their claims rather than forcing them to go off and dig them up for themselves. That's the whole purpose of WP. I'm sure we are all sufficiently skilled in the use of the English language to write something in the lede and body which accurately reflects BLP's claims without making it sound like they are necessarilly true. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 08:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Your whole post is irrelvant because it has nothing to do with 1) WP policies and guidelines, 2) what the reliable sources say, and 3) anything I said. BLP does not meet WP requirements for a reliable source, even about itself, and that's not going to change. Any material about their claims must come from reliable independent sources. If it ain't in reliable independent sources, there ain't no way in hell that it's gonna go in the article, and that's not going to change, either. Roma locuta, causa finita. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

And you are Rome? This is starting to sound as embarrassing as Maddox's heresy nonsense. There is no policy that excludes BLP as a RS on its claims. We are not living in a bizarro world where a company doesn't exist until someone else says it exists. WP:RS talks about using primary self published material carefully, and that is what is being proposed. Let's not start issuing papal bulls about what will or wont happen and stick to the WP process of discussing issues and reaching consensus. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 09:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

As you have been told time and time again, yes, there is a policy that precludes using BLP as a source about itself. See WP:SELFPUB and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Unless you come up with a concrete proposal that is based on relaible independent sources and conforms to WP policies and guidelines, there is nothing further to discuss. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

And we most certainly do not "owe it to a reader interested in BLP to summarise their claims rather than forcing them to go off and dig them up for themselves." If a reader/potential investor wants to know what BLP says about themselves, they most certainly should NOT becoming to Wikipedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not self-serving: they are not saying "BLP's superior workforce have produced CIHT, but we haven't brought it to full production yet because Exxon ate our homework." They're not North Korea. But even if they did say that, there is nothing to stop this article mentioning that they claimed it - THAT would not be exceptional, just a statement of fact. It is a category error to think otherwise. If we confused exceptional scientific claims with simple attribution (i.e. stating that they are making exceptional scientific claims) then there would be no article at all. And there'd be far fewer articles in WP. And we'd be working for Brittannica (do they still exist...?) Have a look at raelism - the Raelian movement is chocka block full of exceptional claims, but it is not exceptional to document what those claims are, and their website is a RS for such claims. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

"They claim CIHT is a major advance over what they had been doing previously", but without independent secondary RS support, how are we to know that claim is worth mentioning, as opposed to just another of many claims? In re Raelism, see wp:OTHERSTUFF. LeadSongDog come howl! 23:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have missed either my point or the point of WP:OTHERSTUFF, or both. I am using Raelism to help explain the subtle distinction my argument is based on, not relying on the existence of an article on Raelism as the basis of my argument. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 01:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

No we don't miss your point- otherstuff is badly sourced so this article should be badly sourced. Bhny (talk) 02:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you claiming to be a SP or telepathic? Sadly I have no idea what your point is. :-) 110.32.79.50 (talk) 02:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

It does appear that you are pointing to another article (Raelism) and using that as an example of what we should do here. With 6,827,725 articles to choose from you can find examples of just about anything.

To expand on what Bhny wrote above, WP:EXCEPTIONAL explains our policy on exceptional claims. It would be an exceptional claim to present the claims of Raelism or BlackLight Power as if they were established facts, but the criteria for presenting them as claims is lower; pretty much any mention of a claim in a reliable secondary source is enough to establish that Raelism or BlackLight Power made that claim. And indeed, the Raelism claims have been widely reported, as can be seen from the references section on that page. Once you have established, using a citation to a reliable secondary source, that a claim has been made (thus establishing that it is a notable claim), it is common to add a citation to the primary source so the reader can check to see if Wikipedia has accurately reported the claim, but the primary source alone does not establish notability. BlackLight Power or Raelism can put anything they want on their web pages. If that alone is enough for Wikipedia coverage, then anyone can game the system and make the Wikipedia article say pretty much anything they want. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for that very clear and considered response GM. I can see your point and am persuaded that you're right about the notability of the claim. Would you consider any of these sufficient to establish notability of the CIHT claim? I've done some preliminary filtering, but am not confident that I have pruned all the dross... [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] - this last one doesn't mention CIHT, but I've included it for the other investment discussion. Anyway, there are more, but it's a start. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 09:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

no it's not a start to anything. not one of those is a reliable resource. Bhny (talk) 11:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

110.32.79.50, please read WP:V and WP:RS before posting any more citations, and then post only citations that meet our standards. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 15:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Noted, although I thought most of these did that. Anyway, CNN should suffice for notability purposes, no? 110.32.79.50 (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Not really. The popular press has a lousy reputation when it comes to science reporting. They lack expertise in the relevant field, and are generally little better at identifying bullshit than the general public. That article is a good example. I'm going to say that it fails under WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Well I did specify CNN for the purpose of notability of the claim per Guy above, not for the purpose of assessing accuracy of the claim. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

If the source isn't reliable for assessing the accuracy of the claim, it isn't relaible for assessing it's notability, either. Journalists have no expertise in determining what is notable or not in the scientific community. The things they find significant often aren't, and vice versa. Furthermore, their contact with the scientific community is very limited, and dispropotionately dominated by self-promoters and cranks. Most mainstream scientists are extremely reluctant to talk to journalists, which is why they often resort to obscure junior college teachers for the "mainstream" point of view. I myself have been burned several times by journalists mis-reporting what I said because they didn't have the background to understand it. Now I never say anything to them, except "not interested". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

You're grabbing the wrong end of the stick, this has nothing to do with scientific accuracy. The question is whether BLP's claims about CIHT are notable. They appear on CNN, therefore they are notable. If CNN reported they claimed to burn crosses in bedsheets, that too would be notable. It's about whether the claim is notable, not about whether the claim is true. Thank you for sharing your personal experience. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

No, appearing on CNN does not mean that they are notable. And I explained why. In detail. Read it again. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmm... can't see it. All I see is why you've become camera shy, I don't see anything about CNN picking up on a claim by BLP not elevating the noteworthiness of that claim - and by noteworthy here I mean of public interest, not scientific interest. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 05:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Noteworthy doesn't mean of public interest. It means worth mentioning, and is determined by WP:NPOV, especially WP:WEIGHT. It would help if you read the policies and guidelines CAREFULLY, to which you have been directed numerous times, and made your case based on them. Otherwise, you're just wasting our time, and that falls under WP:DE and WP:TE. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you're reading a different policy to me? "the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all notable and verifiable points of view." I see no other mention of what constituted notability there. I assume you're not suggesting CNN is not neutral, or were paid to comment on BLP, in which case I would suggest that they are independent of the topic itself and have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published their own work that focus upon it. Sounds a lot like public interest to me, but maybe not scientific interest. In any case, it certainly sounds notable. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 06:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

In any case, that isn't even CNN content, just Joe Shea's iReport. These iReports are essentially open blogs, and definitely do not meet wp:RS LeadSongDog come howl! 06:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, funny you mentioned that, I was just searching the RS noticeboard about those CNN pages! The video is clearly a RS, but not useful for the CIHT bit. I'll keep looking. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 07:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing to find. We all have google and have looked. What you will find is endless "free-energy" blogs. Please stop filling up the talk page with your detective stories. Also read the archives for the talk page to see how we got here [[10]]Bhny (talk) 10:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

And read the policies, CAREFULLY, so that you know what to look for. It's extremely rude of you to ask us to evaluate your sources when you obviously can't be bothered to take the time to properly evaluate them first. If you make a reasonable effort to do so, and get stuck, we'll gladly help you. The policies can be daunting and even experienced editors occasional have trouble interpreting them. But I'm not seeing the faintest sign of reasonable effort here. We're not here to do your work for you. Our time is no less valuable than yours. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

It is a bit like detective work I suppose! No doubt all part of the appeal. Anyway, let's not get bogged down on who is and who isn't being extremely rude, here's a second start. This book seems to be written by a journalist and published by an independent Canadian firm and talks about CIHT. [11]. International Business Times seems to be a global online newspaper (oxymoron?) which has picked up the CIHT press release. [12] UK paper refers to the claims attributed to CIHT (although doesn't use the acronym). [13] The TG Daily claims to be a leading online news site, and quotes the CIHT claims. [14] News Blaze, another online daily newspaper, discusses CIHT. [15] I think these demonstrate notability for the CIHT claims from independent RS. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Just off the top, the IBtimes is a reprint from PRNewswire-USNewswire and therefore absolutely not worth spit. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

and the Daily Express is just as useful. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

the author of the TG daily piece which is a reprint from EarthTechling is written by aSports columnist, newspaper desk guy, website managing editor, wine-industry PR - not really someone with any credentials to evaluate cutting edge physics claims. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

and newsblaze is Glen Becks media firm, and one thing he is not known for is fact checking and accuracy in much of anything, but particularly his credibility in the science arena is not shall we say stellar. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Google News Search Results return "0" for hydrinos

"Your search - hydrino - did not match any news results." https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=hydrino Strange.... This is where I would usually go to look for third-party sources on BlackLight Power.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 17:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Only works if you search Archives. Try: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=hydrino&tbs=ar:1

(Note, by the by, how many of these track back to releases from BLP's press flacks at the notorious Hill & Knowlton. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a couple of news services that give free 1-year access to wikipedia editors, see Wikipedia:HighBeam and Wikipedia:Questia. Questia applications are closed but HighBeam's are still open. Effectiveness vary depending on what topic you are looking for. And they only deliver results for certain newspapers. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Ahh... I see that Google News now has a very muted-looking "Search Tools" button for selecting the "Archives" option.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 19:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

About the Balmer Broadening of Hydrogen Lines

Selective Atomic Hydrogen Heating in Plasmas: Implications for Quantum Theory by Jonathan Phillips arXiv:0810.5280 [physics.plasm-ph]

This article by Jonathan Phillips^[1][2][3] discusses the question of Selective Doppler Broadening in H-Plasmas (http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.5280):

 -->siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 18:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Note. As an almost-certain copyright violation, I have deleted the above extended content. Please do not copy large quantities of non-free material to talk pages in future. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there a reason you have posted a large portion of this preprint here? a13ean (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

It's an FYI comparison of different studies on H-plasma. It's a context setter. It's a starting point for looking for additional third-party source material concerning the subject, so that when new material arises, an another editor can swoop in and add it to the article.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 19:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

What is the direct relevance? IRWolfie- (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The above fits under BlackLight Power#Analysis of Mills' models. Independent sources cited by the paper can be used, although the author of the paper should be considered a primary source. More sources to articles discussing BLP in the literature are needed. In this way, a logical prose format adherent to Wikipedia:Glossary#Wikify can develop in the section, being organized by citation refs and not chronology.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 20:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Pfft, It's published in a fringe journal "International Journal of Hydrogen Energy" and has 3 citations. This has no weight. If you want to have a source that challenges atomic theory, get something in PRA or similar. Not something which has undergone no meaningful peer review. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The article cites 47 sources. You can discern for yourself which ones are reliable and which ones are not.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 21:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Please note that I specifically referred to "independent sources cited by the paper" and not "independent sources that cite this paper".siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 21:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

"Bullshit" & independent validation

Hi,

I think that in light of the existence of the numerous authors claiming to have validated BLP results that these should be included in the article. I also think that even without these claims, the lede should be moderated to remove the needlessly POV choice of adjectives. As for the idea of BLP not being a WP:RS, this seems unreasonable given the reports have all seem to have been commissioned by them, and carry various 'commercial in confidence' caveats - so it would be entirely for them to publish such reports. I haven't been able to find any evidence that the claimed authors aren't who they say they are or having repudiated the public claims of BLP - happy to keep looking, but if you know of something along these lines I'd be happy to agree with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.79.50 (talk) 07:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

You can't use BLP as a reference for content to support itself. You need third party references. There is no POV problem in the lead, those are all properly referenced. Bhny (talk) 08:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for replying here. I am attempting to collect third party refs - several of which you reverted. The POV problem is the tone of those references, especially given there seems to be at least as many (or more?) scientists making the exact opposite claim. How do you suggest handling these validation reports - which have been picked up by other media outlets... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.79.50 (talk) 08:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

what are these other media outlets? ecatworld is a blog, inhabitat and prnewswire are a self-publish sites, you need real references Bhny (talk) 08:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the "bullshit" reference a blog? Anyway, are you happy to use this: http://www.rowan.edu/colleges/engineering/clinics/cleanenergy/pv/papers/pdf/files/paper7.pdf and here's a quote from it which diametrically opposes the view that it is 'bullshit'. "For some time now, teams of engineering professors and their students at Rowan University have been involved in validating many of the heat experiments performed by BlackLight Power in our own campus laboratory facilities." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.79.50 (talk) 08:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes they have a friend at Rowan university and BLP is involved in experiments there. This is not independent research. This has been discussed before in these talk pages Bhny (talk) 15:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Well I've done some more digging and think that the lede should certainly be changed. I haven't got much time left tonight and may not get back to this for a couple of days, so I'll reinstate the change I'd made previously - I don't see any valid object to that at the very least. I will add refs that show that there are many WP:RS's which have taken him seriously, so I don't think it is encyclopaedic to leave such derisive terms in the lede. If you think they have a place further down, please insert them there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.79.50 (talk) 11:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

You've re-worked it to push a POV that the criticisms are in the past and you also removed referenced criticisms. You wrongly said that the IEEE magazine loser award was in 1999 when it was 2009. I don't have time to check all of your 15(!) references. Please just give an example here of one peer-reviewed article that claims this magic is real. We've been through this recently on this article and not one peer-reviewed paper was found Bhny (talk) 15:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Most are primary sources, which can be ignored as they have no due weight. The rest aren't scientific or academic sources which would be required for the exceptional claim. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Nothng new has been presented. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Yep - my mistake with IEEE date, I'd confused it with the Baard piece. I am very happy to change the wording I offered, but anything other than the kind of emotive language in the lede that is currently there would be better, in my view. There appear to have been considerable developments since 2009 (what to say of 1999), so it is both unbalanced and inaccurate to give such prominence to outdated material. Again, I'm very happy to work on the wording so we maintain NPOV, but the wording that keeps getting reverted to is inappropriate. Here are some peer reviewed articles that seem to claim the magic is real: R.L. Mills, G. Zhao, K. Akhtar, Z. Chang, J. He, X. Hu, G. Wu, J. Lotoski, G. Chu, Int. J. Green Energy, 8 (2011), 429–473. R. L. Mills*, M. Nansteel, W. Good, G. Zhao, (2012), Design for a BlackLight Power multi-cell thermally coupled reactor based on hydrogen catalyst systems, International Journal of Energy Research, Volume 36, Issue 6, pages 778–788. As for the WP:RS's that I provided (non-primary) - this is an article on a company, not a scientific theory, so those sources are perfectly acceptable and should be used. I think some people are confusing this article with one on hydrino theory, in which case the WP:DUE issue would be relevant. It would, of course, be ludicrous to expect a body of scientific literature to exist about a company. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 01:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

This article is about a bizarre fringe psuedo-scientific topic. It's properly sourced and respected people have said bad things about it. We just quote them Bhny (talk) 02:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Every once in a while, I check for "reliable, independent, third-party" sources that establish the level of acceptance as a viable physics theory. For recent stuff, published after 2004, I see a 2007 Analog Science Fiction & Fact article[16], and a 2009 book Hot to Teach Physics to Your Dog pp.213-214 "(...) even a dog can tell that it's nonsense. (...) Modern physics leave no room for states "below the ground state" in hydrogen. For such states to exist, our understanding of fundamental physics would need to be far so wrong that it would be impossible to achieve the fourthteen-decimal-place agreement between experiment and theory that we see with QED. It seems to be mentioned in a 2005 Nature article Antigravity craft slips past patent officers. Previous articles in Nature are also negative: Space science: Out of this world (2002) and New form of hydrogen power provokes scepticism (2000)

Reliable physics books don't mention Mills' theory, not even to explain why they think it's mistaken. It's not even mentioned in a 2011 book edited by cold-fusion supporter Steven Krivit Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia: Science, Technology, and Applications[17]. A notable exception is a 1997 physics book The Wiley encyclopedia of energy and the environment A theory developed by Mills(2) provides a focal point for an explanation (of cold fusion). However, this theory is controvesial and is not widely accepted by the world's scientific community.

There are old articles rejecting Mill's theory from Time, Forbes and Skeptical Inquirer. I don't see any reason to believe that hydrino is now accepted as a viable theory. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice how cleverly the following quoted statement avoids specifics, "For such states to exist, our understanding of fundamental physics would need to be far so wrong that it would be impossible to achieve the fourthteen-decimal-place agreement between experiment and theory that we see with QED." Now that's what I call a non-sequitur. First of all, realize where this claim about 14 decimal places comes from. http://www.springerlink.com/content/xm7627235rt8171t/ "The unique time coherence and radiation spectrum of femtosecond lasers allowed to make a revolutionary scientific breakthrough in precision measurement of frequency in the optical range, in particular to refine the value of the fine structure constant and to measure the frequency of the 1s–2s transition of the hydrogen atom up to 14 significant figures [2]. The ability to create considerably more precise optical clock became feasible." As it turns out, this 14 decimal place agreement emerges from a part of Quantum Mechanics that is quite old (The Bohr Model from the year 1913), which has absolutely nothing to do with the uncertainty principle and other modernities that we find in the today's particle physics. Also notice the following statement from the Ground state article, "If more than one ground state exists, they are said to be degenerate." My goodness, how can there be more than ONE ground? Obviously one must be below the other. ^_^ It's amazing how the "anti-below ground state"rs seem to overlook something like that. Tsk. Tsk. Tsk.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 14:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, degenerate energy levels have the same energy level, it's not possible to obtain energy from switching between them.

Also, if I understand correctly this lecture, the number of degenerate levels is n². Hydrogen's ground state in mainstream theory has n=1 and 1²=1, meaning that there is only one ground state (i.e. hydrogen's ground state is not degenerate). When you take the spin into account you get two degenerate energy levels: one with the spin up and other with the spin down.

According to Mills, hydrinos have 127 different quantum states where n is a fractional number between 0 and 1 (0 < n < 1). All of them are below the ground state of n=1, degenerate or not.

Mill's fractional values should break many formulas that gave very accurate predictions for non-fractional n values. I don't know about the 14 digits, but Precision tests of QED has several high-precision measurements. See also Lamb_shift#Lamb_shift_in_the_hydrogen_spectrum. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I must stand corrected on that then, but what horrible nomenclature! "Degenerate energy levels have the same energy level"! Crazy. Anyway, the Lamb shift also has a relatively simple formula, and it can easily be treated "classically" outside the context of present QED, if one so desires (Mills has already done this). Precision verification of a prediction can in no deducible way falsify an alternative approach that supports the same value. It amazes me that people think that 14 significant digits of agreement invalidates all other alternatives - an obvious non-sequitur.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 19:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

You are trying to argue the mainstream approach is dismissive but you haven't bothered yourself to learn the very fundamentals. I suggest looking at the high level of accuracy and precision with modern atomic, molecular and optical physics experiments and theory, available throughout the literature. Also, if you think not using QED (or any other field theory) in a work means no quantum mechanics you are also mistaken (Qm without QED isn't the bohr model). IRWolfie- (talk) 20:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Looking at Ground state article again, I can easily see why scientists find it hard to believe that Mills could be right. It's all tied up with their theories of "zero-point energy" and how they think that it is equal to the ground state. It's kind of funny really because the lowest energy state possible can only be when the entire mass is converted into energy. In other words, the lowest energy cannot exist as a "mass", yet the premise the established science takes seems to be that when the hydrogen atom reaches the ground state, that it is somehow the minimum energy level. Yet, if you simply combined one H atom with another, you get a covalent bond that requires energy to separate, implying that H2 is a lower energy state than 2H. Is chemical energy zero-point energy? Apparently it's not seen that way - whatever the reason for that happens to be. Zero-point energy is supposed to be this impossible-to-use energy... Well, where does the energy from 2H->H2 come from? Does one H have to be in an excited state for the other H to bond to it? Or is some of the energy of the "ground state" of each H used up to form H2? Really, shouldn't H2 weigh less than 2H? It seems that the electrons in H2 would be in a lower energy state than the electrons are in 2H.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 19:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

"the lowest energy state possible can only be when the entire mass is converted into energy", utterly incorrect on multiple levels. First, to "convert into energy" is meaningless, surely you mean convert into electromagnetic radiation? Secondly, if you converted an atom into electromagnetic radiation it would have exactly the same amount of energy before and after the conversion due to conservation of energy. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

whatever "side" you are, publish. ORing is not helping the article. WP:NOTFORUM again. am i the only one to think that this discussion does not belong here? — MIRROR (talk) 20:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

1) Semantic difference.... not "utterly incorrect". 2) Lower energy states are attained by emission of energy (in this case, electromagnetic waves). Complete dissipation of energy into electromagnetic waves therefore suggests the lowest possible energy state. 3) Got to end this conversation right now, per what MIRROR said. Not responding after this.</>siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 20:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

This has wandered into Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science territory..... I'll make one last comment, and only because it's relevant to the topic.

The "ground state" of an atom is defined as the state where all of its electrons are on its lowest energy level. You are stretching the definition to include the complete conversion of atoms into energy, which is something completely different. As far as I know, Mills still defines "ground state" in the usual way, he just disagrees on where the lowest level is. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

hmmm, WP:NOTFORUM. thanks — MIRROR (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Am I the only one who realises this is an article about a company? All of the excitement over the theory is largely irrelevant here. The claim above that "Nothng new has been presented" is wrong. The view that " I don't see any reason to believe that hydrino is now accepted as a viable theory" is firstly irrelevant since this article is not about the viability of the theory, but secondly, the theory has been published by peer reviewed journals, which is more important for our purposes here than the view of the author of that comment. The statement that "Reliable physics books don't mention Mills' theory" is irrelevant on two counts: i) who cares?? I'm sure reliable physics books don't mention lots of things, yet. All we need are WP:RS that DO mention the theory; and ii) we aren't writing an article about the theory, but the company, so it is a category error to be looking in physics books for the purposes of this article. The comment "This article is about a bizarre fringe psuedo-scientific topic" is more category error - it is about BLP. BLP is a company, it isn't a bizarre fringe topic - and the fact that there are peer-reviewed articles about the science means that that is neither bizarre nor pseudo-scientific. You may not agree with the theory, you may even think it is bullshit, it may even be WRONG! But it not pseudo-science. That's why I was able to satisfy your request to "Please just give an example here of one peer-reviewed article that claims this magic is real". 110.32.79.50 (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The "bull shit" quote is from physics professor Robert L. (Bob) Park home page at University of Maryland. A professor posting on a university web site. The Village Voice and IEEE aren't blogs either. The category for this article is "pseudo physics". BLP actually doesn't have a product so it's hard to talk about what they do apart from their theories. Also please show us something that says clearly that one of these papers is properly peer reviewed. Even the Rowan paper isn't peer reviewed Bhny (talk) 03:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The bullshit quote is from a blog. As for the article refs I provided: The International Journal of Energy Research operates an online submission and peer review system... (from here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1099-114X/homepage/ForAuthors.html) and [Int. J. Green Energy] uses ScholarOne Manuscripts (previously Manuscript Central) to peer review manuscript submissions. (from here: http://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=ljge20&page=instructions). Personally I don't care whether hydrinos exist or not. I do care whether we are providing NPOV information, and while Bob Park may be very passionate about BLP, his blog views are more likely to be his personal views rather than his professional views - especially when commenting outside his field (i.e. whether people should vote or not, views on fraud at Stanford, and speculations on why people invest in certain companies). It also seems that hydrinos are not strictly his area either, but rather the properties of crystal surfaces. In any case, we should insist on a higher standard for WP and we should be trying to make this article as NPOV as possible. Emotive, unthinking dismissals only pander to the choir, they do not help sway uninformed open minded readers... except, perhaps, in the opposite direction. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 04:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

You still don't seem to get that this is a fringe article. There isn't another side to balance here Bhny (talk) 05:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

You don't seem to get that this is an encyclopedia. Rhetoric and personal preference should not be treated as more signigicant than peer reviewed material. Fringe or not, this stuff is being taken seriously by RS and should be dealt with accordingly here... whether YOU (or I) like it or not. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 08:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I also think it is WP:Fringe. History2007 (talk) 10:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Section Break

@110.* it's not clear why you are mentioning some primary sources from low quality journals (one which allows fringe views as well: "Different points of view will be accepted as long as they are logically sound and well balanced in their exposition, until the process of truth searching naturally reaches a stage of a convincing argument in favour of one point of view or the other."). IRWolfie- (talk) 10:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

If you want clarity around this issue, refer back to Bhny's request for peer reviewed refs, then you'll see why I mentioned them. There are several non-primary refs which keep getting reverted, and there is a fixation on the quality or otherwise of the theory. If you look back at what I have been trying to do you will see that it is all about making the lede more encyclopaedic. Surely that should not be such a difficult task! Show me any quality article on WP where quotes such as "bullshit" from a blog appear in the lede. As I've stated before, I have no objection to such quotes happening elsewhere in the article, just not the lede. Why is that such a contentious issue? 110.32.79.50 (talk) 10:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Fringe theories and propenents must clearly be presented as such in the lede. Your "blog" argument is disingenuous, as it is a reliable source by a recognized expert that easily passes WP:PARITY. The non-primary sources you have provided are not reliable. The language is the language used by the reliable sources, and there is no way that this is going to be watered down or buried in the article just because it seems to you to be "emotive". As for the theory, it is the ONLY reason for which the company is at all notable. Any article ablout the company is an article about the theory, too. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you can explain how Several prominent physicists have been critical of BLP's claims and magazine listed BlackLight as a "loser" technology violates anything you have said? My blog argument is not disingenuous - or perhaps that's not what you mean? There is nothing to suggest that Bob Park's blog is subject to the university's editorial control or any peer review process. It is full of his personal views on a whole range of topics, some of which he has expertise, some of which he does not. Please point out his credentials as they relate to his comments on investors, and specifically, the kind of research being conducted by BLP. The blog is explicitly tagged as an opportunity for him to post controversially, and it is - dare I suggest - disingenuous of you to argue that his personal blog should be given greater weight than peer reviewed journal articles and independent validation reports. Please be specific in how the non-primary sources fail WP:RS. In any case, that is a side issue to that of this being a very shabby lede. It is clearly not NPOV, and nobody has yet come up with a lede in a good article that has anything like this kind of imbalance or POV tone, but I would be glad if you could point me to one. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 13:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

If Park called Mills a "naked mole rat", it would be a safe bet to surmise that many people commenting here would consider that to a reliable statement, because, you know, Robert Park is a well noted skeptic and very highly esteemed by his colleagues, so anything he says is encyclopedic (it would seem).... if it weren't for that "pesky" WP:BLP (Wikipedia's rules on Biographies on Living People). If you ask me, it is kind of mixed blessing that it doesn't apply to companies. Companies aren't people, but we do have a need for standards. Not having such standards would give us license to quote an expert in retail who suddenly says in a public statement that "Walmart is f.o.s.." and justifying it because of his expertise in retail. Unfortunately, setting "standards" is an art not a science, so all of this talk about whether this stuff should be included or not is rather subjective. I'm not sure how either of these sides concerning this article's lede could actually prove themselves to be correct.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 14:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The question must be asked. Are you dismissive of Park's statement simply because he is widely known as a leading skeptic on wp:FRINGE pseudoscience, or is there some substantive reason for thinking he's wrong in calling this spade a spade? Remember, pleast, that those pesky rules also apply on talkpages. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

None of the above, clearly.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 16:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

This is all beside the point! Park's blog is for his PERSONAL OPINION. Einstein's personal opinion was that God didn't play dice. Do we put that in the lede of an article on the Catholic Church? Park IS NOT an expert in this particular branch of physics - he has admitted as much himself (apparently). So his personal opinion is even further removed from being appropriate for inclusion - certainly from the lede, and perhaps the article. There is an awful lot of slipperiness going on here and avoidance of the fact that this is not what a quality WP lede looks like - regardless of how you feel about BLP and/or their activities. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 01:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not about what anyone feels. It is about what reliable sources say. And what they say about BlackLight Power is pretty much what you keep deleting. This is also about consensus. The consensus is clearly against you on this one. I would like to see the article be more encyclopedic, but we are not going to get there through whitewashing the overwhelming negative analysis by various scientists. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, perhaps we're getting somewhere!! Could you suggest a more encyclopaedic version of the last bit of the lede that we could work on? 110.32.79.50 (talk) 02:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The lead is the least of the worries in the "non-encyclopedic"-ness of the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's be honest....Wikipedia:Consensus#No_consensussiNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 16:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Let me be clear about one thing; while we might very well tweak the wording a bit, if anyone dreams that we are going to end up with an article that does not say essentially what the current article says -- and especially if they dream of removing negative information -- that simply is not going to happen. Instead we will continue to report what is in reliable sources, and the fact of the matter is that what is in the sources is extremely negative.

Let's look at the big picture here. Energy is a big deal. We drill down miles for it, we expend a huge effort splitting atoms for it, we move mountains to get at it, and sometimes we go to war over it. There are literally thousands of individuals and corporations that all claim to have something that can sit on a tabletop and produce large amounts of energy without needing any pesky oil wells, coal mines or nuclear reactors. If any of them could actually demonstrate such a thing, we would know about it from it being on the front page of every media outlet, followed by a Nobel Prize, the collapse of the Saudi Arabian economy, and Japan shutting down all of its reactors. And we would have no problem finding citations to reliable sources establishing this amazing breakthrough in science.

Also see: [ http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/myths/free_energy.html ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

and Japan shutting down all of its reactors - well, we got that bit. You're right about the rest, though William M. Connolley (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, just saw this reply here too... will copy across my comment from the board:

Good GOD!!! I had no idea I'd stumbled into such a moral panic!! I am amazed that so many people seem to think that making an article more accurate and encyclopaedic would be seen as akin to trying to set up some kind of paedophile ring! I get it. Protect the innocent. If it were true we'd all be in hover-cars. Randall Mills is probably evil. Currently accepted scientific theories are TRUE and INVIOLABLE!! Ok, ok, I promise to repeat this litany of faith each and every night before I go to sleep. NOW can we get back to making the article better? And by better I just mean two simple things: as accurate as we can, and as encyclopaedic as we can. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 04:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

No moral panic, just frustration with an unending stream of true believers. We work from the best quality reliable sources we can identify. Bring some and we'll have something to talk about. Otherwise, please stop the sniping.LeadSongDog come howl! 04:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

No sniping from me - any sniping has been directed at me, not from me. Oh, and unlike many on here, I'm not a true believer - of either side. I just want a quality article. Are you seriously suggesting a blog is an example of best quality RS?? 110.32.79.50 (talk) 04:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should take the time to read wp:BLOG. The relevant bit is "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable 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." In this case, pseudoscience is the relevant field. Park's publications such as Voodoo science : the road from foolishness to fraud have bee so well accepted that excerpts made it into After the science wars and into The best American science writing 2001. LeadSongDog come howl! 06:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Reboot and suggestion

Can I suggest a version that summarizes better and avoids certain words? I can't find "fraudulent" in those sources.

"Several prominent physicists have been extremely critical of the underlying physical theory, calling it "extremely unlikely", lacking corroborating scientific evidence and a relic of cold fusion, and questioning the wisdom of anyone who invests on it,"

--Enric Naval (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

That's actually pretty good.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 01:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Why avoid certain words. "bull shit" was Prof. Bob Park's description. Dr. Phillip Anderson, at Princeton University says "it's a fraud.", i.e it is fraudulent. Wikipedia is not censored WP:NOTCENSORED Bhny (talk) 05:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Whatever suits you I guess. I'm not editing the lede right now, so whatever....siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 14:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I like Enric Naval's wording, and I am going to be WP:BOLD and make the change. WP:NOTCENSORED has nothing to do with it. it's an editorial decision, not censorship. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I like it too, I think it's a significant improvement. I would suggest a couple of minor changes... I'm not sure "extremely" parses smoothly, I'd suggest "very" or dropping the adjective altogether - but I realise that may run the risk of inflaming sensitivities. I would also suggest replacing "and a relic" with ", a relic" to make it a little smoother, and reworking the investor bit: Several prominent physicists have been critical of the underlying physical theory, calling it "extremely unlikely", lacking corroborating scientific evidence, a relic of cold fusion, and questioning the wisdom of its investors. We should probably leave the refs to Park et al. in too.110.32.79.50 (talk) 08:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Hummmm:

critical: criticizing some aspects
very critical: criticizing most or all of it
extremely critical: criticizing the whole thing in very harsh terms

Remember, we are describing what physicists say about hydrinos.

I'm good for the other changes. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I know this sounds quibbly, which I'm not trying to be, but I think it's just a better sentence without two "extremely"'s in it. I also think it unnecessary to enhance the word "critical" given we then spell out in some detail what those criticisms are - the extra adjective strays toward hyperbole IMHO. Note that I'm just talking about good writing here, I'm not trying to dilute the message. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 12:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I think this is looking good. I would suggest the refs be put back for the criticisms, and I would also suggest that it would be much better to be quoting a financial expert about the investments than a physicist. Do we have a better source for this stuff? I don't recall now whether it is coming from the blogs or the IEEE article. I realise there are strong opinions about this point, but I don't think it is for us to be giving prominence to non-expert opinion - at least, not in the lede. Maybe this is a better source [18], but would require some rewording - although they only seem to talk about a willingness to take risks on experimental technology rather than the fraud angle per se, all the fraud and scam accusations seem to be in blogs or forums (one particularly amusing rant here... http://www. nowpublic. com/tech-biz/blacklight-power-most-incredible-scam ). I'll keep looking, but I think we need something better than these, and what we've got. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 23:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The "fraud" quote is from The Village Voice which is a reliable source. There is no problem in having physicists say this is a bad investment. Bhny (talk) 23:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Bhny. The Village Voice is an impeccable source for the "fraud" addition, and the opinions of physicists are certainly notable here, as it is well within their competency to evaluate the plausibility of the science on which investment decisions would be made, and on the general credibility of the proponents of the scam. Furthermore, as this is a fringe topic, WP:PARITY applies. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

off-topic: Village Voice paper

There's always (at least) two sides to a story. (http://www.prefixmag.com/news/village-voice-cover-controversy/9376/) (http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/12273/making_sex_workers_visible_in_the_online_ad_controversy/) (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/19/boycott-village-voice-senators-push-for-action-on-backpage-com.html) (http://betabeat.com/2012/06/hey-ho-backpage-protesters-hit-village-voice-on-the-hottest-day-of-the-year/) (http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/morning_call/2012/09/phoenix-new-times-village-voice-to.html) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/07/village-voice-sex-trafficking_n_1495225.html).

“

The son of Norman Mailer, Village Voice co-founder, joined hundreds of protesters in March to demonstrate his opposition to the adult ad section.

"This was once a progressive paper, a people's paper, and to see it lose its credibility is heartbreaking," John Buffalo Mailer, 33, told The Associated Press. "He would not have approved of this at all."

”

The More You Know....siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 02:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

That is extremely off-topic. Post to WP:RSN if you have a problem with a source Bhny (talk) 02:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's a previous discussion on village voice so you don't waste more time [[19]]

The word "impeccable" is not a word I would choose. "Credible" is okay. "Impeccable" is not.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 03:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Two things. First, impeccable/credible, whatever - as long as it's WP:RS. Which it is. However, it is only reporting the financial views of physicists, it isn't making any analysis or claims about those statements - so we're back to citing physicists outside their area of expertise. That's a major problem in my view. Second, WHAT AN AMAZING ARTICLE!!!!! Have you actually read that thing?!? I think it contains some incredibly important information which should have a major impact on this article. I'm happy to unpack this slowly, but I encourage interested editors to take the time to read it. I count at least nine independent practising scientists who claim that Blacklight is onto something. This article provides strong evidence for at least two important suggestions I would like to explore: i) Blacklight Power should not be classed as pseudoscience, but rather at the very least Questionable Science, but probably more accurately as an Alternative Theoretical Formulation. ii) that there is an element of suppression within physics as it relates to BLP. I realise ii) sounds a bit conspiracy theoryish, so I'm happy to put that to one side, but I think that i) is a pretty reasonable proposition. I'm happy to paste extracts here if people would like that, but I really think that it is useful to read the article in its entirety. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 10:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

BlackLight is based on ideas that contradict physics.They make money from people investing in these ideas. Any investment advice would have to include interviews with physicists for due diligence. I don't think you understand what "advice" is. Bhny (talk) 13:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

"BlackLight is based on ideas that contradict physics." I'm pretty sure that this claim is one step above saying that BLP's claims violate all the laws of physics, as some physicists have asserted.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 16:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

what is your point? Bhny (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion of issues here. BLP is clearly Fringe. However it is not pseudoscience. I am increasingly convinced that it is attempting to formulate an alternative theory - which, by definition, clashes with mainstream accepted physics. BUT that does not make it pseudoscience, in fact that is exactly how science progresses. As for the money bizzo, I don't want to get all quibbly here, but I would suggest you are mistaken. Park and co. are not financial or investment experts, so their opinions on those topics are of little value for our purposes. You have also clearly not read the article which points out that BLP is REJECTING private investors. So they are not "mak[ing] money from people". In fact, I haven't seen any WP:RS to suggest that they are financial scammers, and that article has a few things which claim them to be honest. If you can find any credible investment source about BLP being a money scam I'd be keen to see it. Just to be extra clear - investment experts may well see value in investing in something that is unproven or even false, and they may well think that investments in highly corroborated technology is foolish. It's not about technology, it's about investing - these are not the same thing. And clearly there are those who have considerably more experience in that field who ARE investing in BLP, and we have no idea how successful or otherwise they have been (do you have any RS's on that point???), so without the sources we should not speculate or insert our best guesses or rely on inexpert opinion. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 07:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

It's pseudoscience because what they're proposing isn't simply against the mainstream, it would require completely changing our understanding of atomic theory and physics. And they've provided no such mechanism, nor even a framework from which to begin. Further, they're not providing any evidence, nor are they detailing their experimental process which means it is not reproducible. Not reproducible == not science. It's a money scam because they are still taking investments on a technology that has zero evidence of functioning as advertised. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

It is enough that it is against the mainstream - the level of impact is less important. Yes they're proposing something that would be very significant, but that doesn't of itself mean that it's pseudoscience. The demarcation between science and non-science is methodological, not content based. I assume you haven't looked at their output very carefully because they do propose a mechanism and framework which they claim they are actively using. They are providing evidence - we might say it isn't evidence of their claims, but they are certainly providing evidence, and there seem to be over a dozen laboratories that concur with some aspect of what they are claiming. Their experimental process has been outlined in patent applications in unusual depth (according to one source), and as I just mentioned, there are a number of people claiming to have reproduced some of their effects - including NASA - so their intent is clearly to encourage reproduction of their claims. People keep pushing this money scam thing - please provide a credible expert source for this claim. I'm no financial expert, but turning away private investors seems the antithesis of a scam... no? If professional investors are pouring millions into it, then it's not for us to take the word of amateurs that it's a scam. I'd be very keen to see something solid on this point - surely it can't all come from the dismissals of a couple of scientists??? 110.32.79.50 (talk) 22:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's not renew the arguing over why it is or is not correct. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Here is an example of why it is pseudoscience. The GUT-CP book asserts in Chapter 1 that an electron in the hydrogen atom is a solution to the wave equation. It then proceeds to specify a function for the electron which cannot possibly be a solution to the wave equation, even if you interpret the function to be a 'generalized' function (a.k.a. a distribution). A classic case of proof by assertion.George.whipple (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be doing the very thing you say is the reason why this is a pseudoscience. Saying that the model "proceeds to specify a function for the electron which cannot possibly be a solution to the wave equation" demonstrates nothing and proves nothing. One attribute of your comment that stood out for me was that you lacked any details about the wave equation is. Let me to be first one to be specific regarding this point. For the case of the electron of hydrogen atom, the wave function of interest is that for a spherical electromagnetic field, with vector spherical waves that can be expressed by a spherical harmonic function. I could go on with details, but first we need to at least understand the first steps concerning what boundary conditions are used on the classical wave equation to derive a special case wave equation of the electromagnetic field (consistent with the classical wave equation) that Mills uses in his model for the electron orbitsphere. Regards, siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 19:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

In the case that one wishes to challenge my point with some specifics, here is an example of a flawed attempt to demonstrate inconsistency of Mills' model:

( http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/7/1/127/fulltext/ ) "CQM assumes that the dynamics of the electron are described by a classical wave equation for its charge-density function, ρ(t,x), Equation (1) where v is the phase velocity of the wave. Already this starting point is troublesome, in view of the fact that this wave equation is not Lorentz-invariant for any other phase velocity than the speed of light. Hence we find, in contrast to the claims in [24], that the theory can at best be the non-relativistic limit of a broader theory, but more probably is inconsistent already from equation (1) of [24]."

Mills states in his book ( http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory-2/book/ ): "The boundary condition, Eq. (1.15) and Eq. (28.6), precludes the existence of the Fourier components of the current density function of the orbitsphere that are synchronous with waves traveling at the speed of light. The nonradiative condition is Lorentz invariant because the velocity is perpendicular to the radius. However, the constancy of the speed of light must also hold which requires relativistic corrections to spacetime. The Schwarzschild metric gives the relationship whereby matter causes relativistic corrections to spacetime that determines the curvature of spacetime and is the origin of gravity. Thus, the creation of matter causes local spacetime to become curved. The geometry of spacetime is transformed from flat (Euclidean) to curved (Riemannian). Time and distances are distorted. At particle production, the proper time of the particle must equal the coordinate time given by Special Relativity for Riemannian geometry affected by the creation of matter of mass

m_{0}

where the metric of spacetime is given by the Schwarzschild metric. This boundary condition determines the masses of the fundamental particles."

As you can hopefully see, the rebuttal by Rathke basically ignores the implications that the direction of the phase velocity has on whether Mills' application and boundary conditions on the classical wave equation allows for a solution that obeys Lorentz invariance.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 21:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Pseudoscience?

not a forum

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I thought this is an important discussion that has sprung out of the Village Voice article, and would seem to be corroborated by some other sources too. I think it is clear that BLP is at the very least Questionable Science, and most likely an attempt at an Alternative Theoretical Formulation. I wont rehearse my arguments from above here, but I would be keen to progress this line of discussion since I think it is fundamental to a lot of the miscommunication/misunderstanding/confusion (pick your favourite!) that has been going on here. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 02:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I changed the heading above. Headings should be neutral, not editorializing.

Please do not confuse "understanding" with "agreeing with": The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to understand it. The overwhelming consensus (which is based upon several editors examining the sources) is that BLP is not an Alternative Theoretical Formulation, Nor is it Questionable Science. It is Pseudoscience. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. The facts of the matter are that BLP are claiming to have made extraordinary 'scientific' advances which would turn physics on its head, while failing to conform to the necessary procedures to enable these claims to be verified - by publishing the necessary information in recognised peer-reviewed scientific journals, enabling such results to be replicated. The is not how science is carried out. This is not 'science', it is not 'alternative' anything.It is pseudoscience, or old-fashioned bullshit. If BLP wants to claim to be doing science, it will have to do it properly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The way I understand it, if something that was "pseudoscience" later becomes science, then it wasn't pseudoscience in the first place. A pseudoscientific idea cannot become science, ever - it does not how much peer review there is. By definition, a psuedoscientific idea has to be wrong (Why? Because that's the connotation. Psuedoscience is bullshit, and bullshit is never correct, neither in approach nor in relation to fact.). So if hydrinos eventually do become peer reviewed and accepted in science, then the assertion that something is pseudoscience was incorrect after all. Similarly, it makes no sense to call something "fake" if it turns out the be real all along. Something that is real cannot be unreal. It does not wait to be accepted to become "real". The reality of the thing didn't changed. The attributes that change are of those making the assessment, not the thing being assessed. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing whether or not the category tag "Pseudoscience" should stay there. I think that it the prerogative of the majority editing the article, who apparently believe that the "pseudoscientific" nature of the "pseudoscience" directly implies non-existence of the physical entities claimed by the "pseudoscience".siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 15:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

You understand wrong. Pseudoscience refers to the methodology used to gain knowlege about a suject, not to the actual subject matter. The idea that the world was created by Vogons five and a half billion years ago is clearly pseusoscience, but that does not mean that the earth is not five and a half billion years old. Hydrinos themselves are not pseudoscience. The assertion that they exist was arrived at by pseudoscientific methodology. Whether they exist or not is anyones guess. As for something that is pseudoscience evolving into science, we have a perfect example: astrology, which evolved into both astronomy, a real science, and astrology, the premier example of a pseudoscience. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting analysis. I am trying to figure out what doesn't fit. For example, a demonstration of Hongcheng Magic Liquid actually doing what it claims to do would prove that Wikipedia's assertion that Hongcheng Magic Liquid is pseudoscience was incorrect after all. But until such evidence appears, both Hongcheng Magic Liquid and BlackLight Power share two important attributes: first, neither has a working model despite repeated promises to . Second, both go against the known laws of physics. That puts them both firmly in the pseudoscience category. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Per DV, pseudoscience is a verb. It is all about how the work is done, with the touchstone being falsifiability - not whether there is a working model, nor whether it clashes with currently accepted "laws", but whether it can potentially be shown to be false. BLP's work can be shown to be wrong i.e. it is a testable theory. Despite this, the majority of assertions I've come across simply claim to know that it must be wrong (Park et. al) because it clashes with currently accepted physics. HOWEVER, clashing doesn't make something pseudoscience - in fact, it is the clashing which MAKES IT a candidate for being science! If it didn't clash then it couldn't be tested. For instance, astrology doesn't clash with astronomy - there's nothing in cosmology that speaks to whether my personality is disposed a particular way because of the relative alignments of the Earth and Sun against the backdrop of distant stars. It is precisely because there is no clash that astrology is not testable and therefore non-science or pseudoscience. BLP has a theory - and it may be right or wrong - but the point is that they, and others, are ATTEMPTING to show whether it is wrong or not. The process of attempting this is what we call science. I have found an interesting series of articles in peer reviewed journals debating the viability of the BLP work - see [20] and here [21] for instance. There are other similar debates about Hydrogen lines etc. and this IS science at work. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 22:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

what hogwash. pseudoscience is psuedoscience and BLP is pseudoscience and this whole section is violation of copyright and WP:TPG. not use this page as a chatforum - What specifically from what sources about BLP do you wish to add? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you could expand on "pseudoscience is psuedoscience" and explain what exactly pseudoscience is in your mind? 110.32.79.50 (talk) 23:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not a forum for debating abstractions. It has been made abundantly clear by multiple contributors that for Wikipedia's purposes, the claims made by BLP are pseudoscience - there is really nothing more to be said on the subject, unless and until BLP starts doing science, rather than promoting hogwash for profit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I deleted this thread at the very beginning because I considered the OP to be soapboxing and using the page as a forum. I agree that further discussion is inappropriate. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

So where is the appropriate forum for this conversation? Surely the talk page is exactly where we should be discussing the categories the article is tagged with? I have no interest in discussing philosophy of science here, but occasionally editors do not understand these things and it is appropriate to cover the relevant concepts. Pseudoscience is a reasonably well defined concept, and so far it has not been used correctly here, but rather as a vague slur. There are numerous WP:RS which refer to BLP as employing scientists, and BLP itself is seemingly engaged in science, so it does not qualify for the pseudoscience tag as it is properly understood. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Where is the place? I dont care where you go, but you cannot do it here. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Tone of the Commentaries section

WQUlrich placed a template suggesting that the tone of the Commentaries section was not appropriate for the tone of a Wikipedia article. At the same time WQUlrich removed this parenthetical expression: "(not to be confused with Erik Baard, the Randy Mills' apologist)" from the quote of Robert L. Park that followed the mention of Aaron Barth in Park's quote.

While I agree with WQUlrich that the tone of this section is harsh, I disagree that it is inappropriate. The tone of the Park quotes is typical of the tone expressed by prominent physicists that have been quoted publically about their view of hydrino theory. In fact, Parks commentary might be seen as a bit mild compared to what Nobel Laureate Physicist, Dr. Phillip Anderson had to say about hydrino theory.

The second issue is whether it was appropriate to modify the direct quote of Park's by removing the parenthetical expression. I don't know. Is it acceptable practice to delete part of a quote without making any indication that the quote has been edited? Even if it was appropriate to delete a section of a quote without indicating that this was done, should this parenthetical section have been removed? The problem is that it includes criticism by Park of an individual not directly related to this subject. I think it should have been left in but I might change my mind depending on a discussion of the issue.

--Davefoc (talk) 06:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem with that section is the quotes are too long. They should really just be summarized. Removing the aside about Baard seems a good edit. I added an elipsis. Bhny (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The ellipsis seems like a good idea to me and satisfies my objection to modifying a direct quote without indicating that to the reader. The issue remains however that a template indicating that the tone of the section is inappropriate for an encyclopedia was added to the section. I think the tone of the section is OK and the template should be removed. However, before I did that I would like to see that this is the consensus view and that the person that added the template has been given an opportunity to explain why he added the template. As an aside, when I created this topic I didn't realize that Phillip Anderson's quote ("If you could fuck around with the hydrogen atom ...") had been added to the section. I wouldn't have put it in, it is a little less than gentile, but it is also a concise summary, I think, of what mainstream physicists think about hydrinos if they think about them at all and as such I wouldn't advocate removing it either. --Davefoc (talk) 06:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Scientific Article Citations

This article is obviously controversial. However, I believe that some editors have done the topic a disservice by making the, prima facie, tenor of this article biased against BlackLight Power researchers. I believe that we ought to proceed from a NPOV, and this process begins with accumulation and consideration of sources.

As Wikipedia guidelines state: "Reliable sources on Wikipedia include peer-reviewed journals; books by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas."

In light of this statement, it is embarrassing to the Wikipedia that the article appears to rely heavily on off-hand remarks by scientists with no involvement in the actual research, whereas, Blacklight scientific journal articles are woefully underrepresented, despite that these appear in a wide variety of respected scientific publications.

I am aware that Wikipedia values secondary sources over primary sources. However, this topic is not a line of research with a great deal of attention by the scientific community and despite the long history of publication, has not yet seen significant review in the literature. I believe that we should avoid, therefore, relying on off-hand remarks by individuals who have failed to substantiate their criticisms with published literature, as an alternative to sound secondary sources.

Below, I have painstakingly compiled a list of scientific journal articles published by Randell Mills and BlackLight Power researchers and collaborators. There are about 90 in all. I will add this list to a box at the end of the article unless I hear substantial reason why I should not. At the very least, it ought to be a starting point for flushing out the article with more details as to the claims, categories of evidence, and technological proposals of BlackLight Power.

Sidereal-Inverter (talk) 23:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

"scientific journal articles published by Randell Mills and BlackLight Power researchers and collaborators" will come firmly within the remit of the Wikipedia:Fringe theories guideline, and as such there is no way whatsoever that such a promotional list could comply with policy. You are wasting your time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I ask AndyTheGrump which policy in Wikipedia:Fringe theories allows the suppression of 90 published research papers? Our purpose here is to provide complete information with a neutral point of view. To do otherwise amounts to scientific censorship. I would like to enlist your help in coming to an agreement on the best way to summarize and report these research efforts, which have been sanctioned by the independent editorial boards of two dozen scientific journals.Sidereal-Inverter (talk) 03:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely with AndyTheGump here. It is possible to get highly speculative theories published in low impact journals. This does not constitute evidence or Wikipedia reliable sources that BLP hydrino theories are anything but fringe. I also agree with AndyTheGump that you are wasting your time here if you think that you are going to be able to change the general tone of this article. BLP theories are fringe in the extreme. Mainstream interest in these theories peaked many years ago when BLP managed to get some gullible news organizations to report on them. Now all that is left for BLP in the way of media visibility is the republishing of its news releases on miscellaneous alternative energy web sites and a little internet chatter when a true believer pops up on a blog here or there. All this would change, of course, if genuine independent test results in support of either BLP theories or the claims it makes for its gadgets could be cited. But so far nobody has identified any sources like that for this article. This article treats BLP appropriately as a company that has made unsubstantiated claims for over twenty years without ever gaining a scintilla of support in the mainstream Physics community.

This doesn't mean that you might not be right that there is something to BLP theories, but as of right now there are no sources that would meet a Wikipedia reliable source criteria to support a view like that and until you can find some reliable sources, any changes to the tone of this article in the direction you suggest would not be justified. --Davefoc (talk) 04:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The list below contains papers published in the following journals: J Plasma Physics, Eur. Phys. J. D, Cent. Eur. J. Phys, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys, Electrochimica Acta, J. Plasma Physics, Materials Chemistry and Physics, Thin Solid Films, J. Opt. Mat, European Physical Journal: Applied Physics, J. Mater. Sci, Chemistry of Materials, Thermochimica Acta, Applied Physics Letters, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Plasma Sources Science and Technology, J. New Materials for Electrochemical Systems, and the New Journal of Physics, among others. What journal will you not dismiss as a "low-impact" journal that is a forum for "highly speculative theories?"Sidereal-Inverter (talk) 05:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Some editors seem to be under the impression that once something gets published, it magically becomes "science". They forget that independent analysis, replication and confirmation are also part of the process. As Sideral Inverter admits, "this topic is not a line of research with a great deal of attention by the scientific community and despite the long history of publication, has not yet seen significant review in the literature". The parsimonious explanation for that is that other scientists have found little in those 90 odd papers worth commenting on or exploring further.

I also agree that the tone of the article accurately reflects the point of view of the mainstream scientific community, and conforms well with WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE.

Also, some advice to Sidereal Inverter: if you want your arguments to be taken seriously here on WP, strenuously avoid using words like "suppression" and "censorship". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Dominus Vobisdu, to omit the scientific research papers BLP has produced, and published through mainstream scientific channels, from the very wikipedia article on BLP, is censorship in the most genuine sense of the word. Imagine if Darwin's writings were omitted from the wikipedia article on evolution. I really don't care about the tone of the article, that is not my purpose here, so long as the existence of these publications is acknowledged in some way. Perhaps we can work together to find a way to discuss and summarize BLP's claims and lines of research while acknowledging the fact that their results are not widely disseminated or accepted among the scientific community.Sidereal-Inverter (talk) 05:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, WP is not a soapbox. And there's a darn good reason why we strongly prefer secondary sources. Why should we acknowledge the existence of these papers? What evidence do you have that any of these papers has had an impact on mainstream research in the field? How many have been extensively discussed and cited? How many have stimulated further research? How many of the primary studies have been replicated and confirmed? On what basis would you assign them any WP:WEIGHT. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree this is not a soapbox, but we are concerned not with whether BLP's research is notable enough to be included in, say, a general article about quantum mechanics, but whether BLP's research is notable enough to be included in an article about BLP. WP:WEIGHT states: "In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space."

You make a good point that we would prefer secondary sources, papers that are heavily cited, and that have made a wide impact in the field. The key word here is prefer. I don't think can omit BLP's papers on the basis that there aren't more heavily-cited ones. There simply isn't good secondary literature yet, so that's out. And there is an obvious double-standard here, the article makes extensive use of off-hand remarks by prominent physicists to contradict twenty years' worth of peer-reviewed scientific data.

In many topics that might be called 'fringe' it is difficult to find research of the caliber that BLP has performed. Wikipedia:Fringe theories states: "The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources... offering of self-published material as references, are unacceptable." Here we have 90-odd scientific journal articles that have successfully passed peer-review and together comprise an argument for the existence of hydrino states. We need to be more careful in this article about acknowledging that, while continuing to acknowledge that this research has not been accepted by the scientific community. This is what Wikipedia means by neutrality.

There do seem to be a number of confirming studies of BLP's research that (if you check the talk discussions above) have also been omitted from this article. Per your suggestion I will put together a list of these and create another box below to stimulate the conversation.Sidereal-Inverter (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no possibility whatsoever of our article including the material you are proposing. Find somewhere else to promote this nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Andy that you are going to find it nigh impossible to get consensus for adding the material you propose. You certainly aren't going to win anyone over with your "prefer" argument. That reduces your credibility even more that the "censorship" argument you used above. There are better ways of spending your time on WP. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

If Dominus Vobisdu and AndyTheGrump are unable to overcome their own biases with regard to this topic to participate constructively on how to neutrally represent published scientific literature on the topic of BLP, I suggest they remove themselves from this discussion.Sidereal-Inverter (talk) 23:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggest what you like, it isn't going to get your nonsense into the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Most of these journals are also known for their poor standards. Bottom rung sources. Physics Essays (speculation is specifically what they wish), CEJP, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, etc etc... The very act of including this primary source list would violate neutrality as it makes no effort to contextualise them; the only logical reason that someone would wish to include them is to make the topic appear to have more legitimacy than the independent secondary sources give it. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it is fringe or not. Articles on much more notable and much more established topics do not have such lists. Wikipedia is not a bibliographic service, and no article should have such a list. To include it here is non-encyclopedic. That such a list can be compiled may help establish notability, but does not represent appropriate content. Agricolae (talk) 00:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Like any other organisation/company that publishes things (scientific, pseudo-scientific or otherwise) we generally don't include a list of every publication from that organisation. That would be like including a list of every paper, study or book published by the Harvard University Press in the article, Harvard University Press. Wikipedia is not a web hosting service or online library for every organisation that prints or publishes. Can you imagine if HUP demanded we publish such a list and then claimed "censorship" when we refused? That's a bit silly. Best to have a chat to an online repository or to Amazon.com. Stalwart111 07:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone's comments. I am not unwilling to compromise, perhaps we should find an option that does not swamp the wikipedia article with references nor perpetuate the myth that BLP has not substantiated their hypothesis. I apologize for jumping into this article with guns blazing but, alas, this topic needs work. I propose the following:

BLP has pursued mainstream avenues for publishing their research. Since 1991 they have published 80 experimental papers and 10 theoretical papers in two dozen scientific journals defending their hypothesis. Among these, BLP has published most heavily in journals with lower standards (Int. J. Hydrogen Energy) and journals open to speculative content (Physics Essays). As few citations exist to BLP's papers from outside researchers, the wider scientific community has yet to confirm or deny the validity of this evidence or the weight it gives to the hydrino hypothesis.

One question I have is how we ought to substantiate the standards of a journal such as IJHE. Is there a reliable source that we can cite for this info?Sidereal-Inverter (talk) 17:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Whether you are willing to 'compromise' or not is irrelevant. Per multiple Wikipedia policies, your proposed material will not be included. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a secondary source that says BLP has tried this approach? To simply conclude this to be the case based on the existence of the publications is WP:OR. Agricolae (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, and nothing short of rock solid secondary sources will do here. Primary papers mean very little in science until they are independently replicated, confirmed and widely discussed in the mainstream secondary literature. Agree that what you are trying to do is OR, and contrary to a whole slew of our policies. If "few citations exist to BLP's papers from outside researchers" and "the wider scientific community has yet to confirm or deny the validity of this evidence", then it has no weight at all. Your proposal is unacceptable, not even as a starting point for further discussion. No compromise is possible. You're totally barking up the wrong tree. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

90 papers is kind of sad. Just one with something reproducible would have been enough. Anyway, as has been said this is all original research and you should try to publish it somewhere else Bhny (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that Sidereal-Inverter is right in that the fact that BLP has published numerous papers in scientific journals is an important fact about BLP and deserves a mention in this article. However the problem is what to make of that fact and it is here the guidance of published secondary sources is critical. People editing this article could examine the papers and list the ratings for the journals that the papers were published in, they could do research about how many of those papers have ever been referenced by the mainstream physics community and some of the people editing this article might even be capable of analyzing the claims in those papers and comparing them with main stream views. And when all that research was complete all we would have would be the results of original research and synthesis which would be inappropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. The problem with any Wikipedia article about BLP is that it has not been high profile enough to attract very much serious coverage by credible authors writing for credible publications. So while I think the BLP story might be interesting and worthy of more detailed coverage than this article provides there just aren't enough reliable sources to support that kind of article. What is possible within the Wikipedia constraints on articles has largely been accomplished by the editors. If a credible book or article is published about BLP the situation would change and more information about the activities of the company might be appropriately included in this article. Until that happens this general overview of the company and the general overview of what the mainstream physics community view is about their theories is all that is possible for an article with the constraints that Wikipedia imposes. --Davefoc (talk) 22:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I have found a secondary source that summarizes BLP's publication history. In the UK IPO Decision BL/O/114/08, dated 17 April 2008 (already cited on the wikipedia article) the hearing officer P. Marchant reports the following: "BlackLight provided me with a collection of 114 reference papers shortly before the hearing and a further two at the hearing. Of these, 79 have Dr Mills as the principal or another author. ...Of the 37 remaining papers I have identified 15 that contain relevant experiments, results, and conclusions."

He goes on: "Of the 15 papers, 12 involve experiments. The papers were produced variously by i) Rowan University, apparently on behalf of NASA, ii) one Keith Keefer, iii) Professors Phillips and Kurtz of Penn State University, iv) NASA, vi) Chalk River Laboratories, vii) Messrs Gernert and Schaubach of Thermacore Inc, (in one case on behalf of Wright Laboratory of the US Air Force), viii) Drs. Peterson and Isenberg of Westinghouse STC, ix) Drs. Nesterov and Kryukov of Moscow Power Engineering Institute, and x) Idaho National Engineering Laboratory."

"Much of this work involves BlackLight (or HydroCatalysis Power Corporation as it was called earlier) in some way, and where that is the case, while there is no reason to doubt the work or views represented, it cannot be considered entirely independent. The Rowan University work and Keith Keefer’s paper appear to have been commissioned by BlackLight. Professor Phillips is said in one of his four papers to be contracted to BlackLight. The two statements are in support of a BlackLight US patent application, so were presumably solicited. In other work, the Thermacore report for the USAF relates partly to recommendations and funding for further work so it may have been in their interest to emphasise any “success” in experiments in order to support proposals for further work. In addition much of this is quite old – 12 of the 15 papers are dated in the early and middle 90’s."

Can we agree on something like the following: In 2008 BLP provided the UK patent office with 79 scientific journal articles with Mills as the primary author or coauthor, and 12 experimental studies conducted by individuals or groups solicited or contracted by BLP. These included: "i) Rowan University, apparently on behalf of NASA, ii) one Keith Keefer, iii) Professors Phillips and Kurtz of Penn State University, iv) NASA, vi) Chalk River Laboratories, vii) Messrs Gernert and Schaubach of Thermacore Inc, (in one case on behalf of Wright Laboratory of the US Air Force), viii) Drs. Peterson and Isenberg of Westinghouse STC, ix) Drs. Nesterov and Kryukov of Moscow Power Engineering Institute, and x) Idaho National Engineering Laboratory."

Again, I think mentioning BLP's publication history is important because "are they published?" is the first question anyone, especially an academic, would ask about when first learning about a controversial scientific topic.Sidereal-Inverter (talk) 03:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

You may think BLP's publication history is important. You have failed to demonstrate that anyone else does. Comments made by a hearing officer during the course of a failed patent application merely indicate that evidence has been presented. They cannot be seen as in any way supporting a claim towards them having any academic significance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

A patent application is a wp:primary source. Bhny (talk) 04:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

As Bhny says, it's not a secondary source. And the information is trivial. Primary publications have little significance in the scientific community until they are replicated, confirmed and discussed in the secondary literature. And no, the first thing that an academic is going to ask is not "Have they been published?", but "Has this been independently replicated and confirmed?" Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

BlackLight Rocket Engine Citation

Our citation to the 2002 Phase I study of the BlackLight Rocket Engine needs some work. Here is how it stands:

Around 2002 the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts (NIAC) granted a Phase I grant to Anthony Marchese, a mechanical engineer in Rowan University, to study a possible rocket propulsion that would use hydrinos. NIAC funds research that has little chance of obtaining a result, because the occasional success compensates all the fruitless investments.[37]

I was surprised to find the citation does not go to the actual report, but to an article about the NIAC. I propose actually citing this study and briefly reporting its conclusions, as follows:

In 2002 the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts (NIAC) granted a Phase I grant to Anthony Marchese, an Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Rowan University, to study a possible rocket propulsion that would use BLP's low pressure mixed gas hydrogen plasmas.

The authors performed spectroscopic and calorimeter studies and found evidence for "extremely high random translational velocity as demonstrated by Doppler line broading," in these plasmas. They designed two thruster configurations with the goal of utilizing "directed translational velocity" for propulsion. While they were able to perform the spectroscopic studies they were unable to measure the exhaust velocity of the thrusters. The authors concluded that "Phase II funding is justified" based on the quantitative results of the plasma experiments and the qualitative results of the thruster test firings.

Here is the actual citation:

Marchese, Anthony J.; Jansson, Peter; Schmalzel, John. (2002). The BlackLight Rocket Engine: Phase I Final Report (PDF) (Report). NIAC CP 01-02 Advanced Aeonautical/Space Concept Studies Program.{{cite report}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)Sidereal-Inverter (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Without commenting further at this juncture, I should point out that the document you have linked isn't hosted by NIAC. ~~This is problematic because (a) there is no way of ascertaining its authenticity, and (b) it may well be a copyright infringement.~~ AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I've found a proper link to the document in question: [22] AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The phrase "extremely high random translational velocity as demonstrated by Doppler line broad[en]ing" does not appear to occur in the document, as far as I can see. Could you please provide a page number? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link correction Andy. The quote is on page 30, section 9.6 Summary of Experimental Evaluation.Sidereal-Inverter (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

So you've cherry-picked a random phrase from a single inconclusive study. Please don't waste our time with BS like this. It has no relevance to article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I simply can't get over how biased AndyTheGrump (and others!) are on this forum. I cherry picked that phrase because that is the most important feature of the phenomena under investigation and its application to thruster technology. Perhaps AndyTheGrump should go troll at topic he knows something about.Sidereal-Inverter (talk) 03:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

You cherry picked that phrase because it suits your purposes and gives a misleading impression of the study, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The independent secondary source we use at the moment is Nature and it shows us where the due weight is. This is standard practice on wikipedia. We generally avoid basing article content on primary sources except in very limited circumstances. See WP:OR. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

When you read that study, it basically says this: We at Rowan University do not for an instant buy the fringe theories associated with blacklight. However, you can have a wrong theory and still have a useful rocket motor, and we think that this has enough promise as a rocket motor to justify further study. Of course we would say that, being the folks who would get paid to do the studying. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Its pretty clear that they are strategically avoiding theoretical entanglements while still employing Mills' technology. If it works, it works.Sidereal-Inverter (talk) 03:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The only thing that is 'pretty clear' is that you have failed once again to take heed of what you have been told regarding acceptable content for Wikipedia articles. This paper is entirely irrelevant for our purposes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Inconclusive preliminary studies are dime a dozen and not all that significant in the grand scheme of things. Come back when you've got real evidence published in peer-reviewed publications. Even then, I wouldn't give it all that much weight until it's been independently replicated and confirmed. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

If it works, it works, but it didn't work. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The section in the article about the NIAC research originally mentioned that they were unable to make any thrust measurements and that the research was not picked up for an additional round of funding by NASA. I don't know why that information was removed from the section, but certainly the facts associated with that testing are not supportive of any BLP claims and the information that was removed from the section only made that facts about the testing clearer. The read between the lines information here is that NASA didn't think the research was worth pursuing and the BLP didn't think the research was pursuing otherwise they could have funded it themselves.--Davefoc (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I Call Shenanigans

I Call Shenanigans. Once there is a clear WP:CONSENSUS, it is time for the lone fringe dissenter to drop the WP:STICK and for everyone else to stop wasting time debating someone who will never change their mind. If our lone fringe dissenter believes that I have failed to correctly identify the consensus, he is free to submit a WP:RfC, which will no doubt end up with a WP:SNOW close. Any attempts to push the fringe material into the article against consensus should be reported at WP:ANI, where IMO a topic ban would be appropriate.[23][24] --Guy Macon (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I likewise am detecting a strong odor of WP:NOTHERE, along with a massive dose of WP:IDHT and WP:DEADHORSE. And my WP:AGF meter is running on fumes. I would support a community ban, but an INDEFINITE topic ban would probably have the same effect. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The topic ban would be the preferred solution. If he really wants to be allowed to edit this page, he would have to spend a minimum of six months making productive edits in other areas, then convince an admin that he now understands what got him topic banned and will now follow Wikipedia's rules. That is the ideal, if rarely-taken path. Or he could follow the same boring path others have taken, edit warring, violating the topic ban, railing against the admins who are stopping him from getting his way, appealing to Jimbo, setting up a website complaining about how unfair and corrupt Wikipedia is, joining The Website That Shall Not Be Named and doing same, vandalism, sockpuppetry...Zzzzzzzzz, (wakes with a start) huh? Oh, sorry, I drifted off there because abuse by those who don't get their way is so incredibly dull and predictable. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I actually feel like I am the only one actually trying to put together a wikipedia article here. I have been careful to introduce my suggestions via the talk page so as to not create edit wars. Look at my two suggestions to date: 1) in an article about research group (BLP) we mention that group's research; and 2) in an preexisting discussion of a paper, that we actually cite the paper and mention the conclusions of the study. If the other editors feel these changes are unacceptable, then perhaps we should go through mediation.Sidereal-Inverter (talk) 21:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Meditation makes no sense here. The consensus is against your changes. You were proposing to add cherry picked comments to make the research sound more promising, and it was a primary source you were cherry picking. As has already been pointed out, per WP:FRINGE we base article content off secondary sources. Your comments are at odds with policy. Policy which you don't appear to have read yet, despite us giving you pointers on it. Read WP:FRINGE, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV, then start a discussion in line with standard practice, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

You being "the only one" is the problem here. We operate by consensus and the consensus is clearly that what you're doing isn't good for the article. I understand that you don't agree with that - but everyone seems to have made an effort to convince you - and consensus doesn't mean unanimity. WP:NOTUNANIMITY says "Editors should make a good faith effort to reach a consensus. That means that the dissenting party has to state how the current proposal fails to meet the interests of the wider group, rather than merely stating they will not accept it. But after a good faith discussion, sometimes the dissenting party must consent to move forward even if they disagree with the specific course of action." ...and that's where this discussion seems to have ended up. So by all means state your position - but it's time to move forward without your input. WP:MEDIATION requires both sides to request it...since there is already a strong consensus, it's unlikely that anyone is going to agree to go through all of that grief just to assuage your concerns. You could file a WP:RfC - but again, this pre-existing consensus will result in a WP:SNOW result - so you'd just be wasting everyone's time. Truly, once a consensus has formed and your best arguments have failed to cause support to flock to your side - there is really nothing you can do but to switch your position to work with the consensus - or find another article to edit (although since your only contributions to Wikipedia to date have been in this article - we must suspect an ulterior motive beyond "improving the encyclopedia", so that's probably not what you want). BLP have brought in sock-puppets in large numbers over the years - sometimes admitting to being related to that company - and other times not. They typically say all of the things that you're saying and (as you can tell), their point of view pushing isn't changing the article in the slightest degree. So I honestly don't think you're going to get the changes you want - the regular editors here have "been there...done that" before and it's simply not going to fly. SteveBaker (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

"BLP have brought in sock-puppets in large numbers over the years - sometimes admitting to being related to that company - and other times not." Nonsense.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 15:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Errors in the lede ...

The lede of the Wikipedia article on Blacklight Power includes the phrase:

"Analysis of the experimental claims in one paper, it was noted that detection equipment reportedly used was not capable of making measurements. "

This is a reference to a 2008 commentary of H.-J. Kunze in J. Appl Phys 41 (10). The quoted sentence is ungrammatical to the point that it is not even a sentence, and its content is clearly wrong. The 'detection equipment' was certainly capable of making measurements. What Kunze correctly pointed out was that the spectroscopic grating employed by Mills and Ray did not have the capability of resolving extreme UV emissions in the short-wavelength range claimed by the authors; therefore the spectral lines in that range reported by them had to be artefacts. The 2003 paper was crucial to the claims that hydrino states, below the accepted ground state of hydrogen predicted by quantum theory, exist. Kunze's article demonstrated that, independent of glaring flaws in hydrino theory, empirical results reported by Mills et al. cannot be assumed correct. No retraction of the 2003 Mills-Ray paper has appeared.

Suggested replacement for the offending text:

Mills and Ray (2003) in a pivotal experimental paper, claimed to have seen spectral lines of hydrogen in the extreme ultraviolet which they attributed to below-ground-state hydrinos. However, it has been noted that the spectroscopic grating used in that experiment was not capable of resolving lines in the range reported by Mills and Ray. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.101.116.194 (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The paragraphs aren't sourced. Anyone have a source? If not, they should be removed. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The arguments are also questionable. I have studied these arguments years ago. Kunze, et. al. do not appear to understand enough of what is going on concerning the work behind these papers. (https://sites.google.com/site/kmarinas86/web-history/hydrino-study-group) (https://sites.google.com/site/kmarinas86/web-history/hydrino-study-group/what-you-didn-t-know-or-remember-about-the-mills-ray-2003-paper).siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 03:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Several comments on this. First, the main article itself references the paper of Kunze, and the journal reference was included in what I wrote. Second, it was not 'Kunze, et al'; Kunze was the only author. Third, Kunze is an internationally recognized expert in UV spectroscopy. Are you? Fourth, you reference your own voluminous website on this, but nowhere do you actually provide a convincing refutation of what Kunze said. Fifth: what the heck is an "Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia" ? A google search on this term yields only references to one person: Kmarina86. Would that be you, and only you?

Bottom line for me is, I am fine with IRWolfie's removal of an ungrammatical and erroneous statement in the lede. He could have left in the first sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.101.116.194 (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

To answer your questions: No I'm not an "internationally recognized expert in UV spectroscopy", and as for your second question, "Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia" simply means that when ever I have the time, I reorganize the sections of an article to suit the greater purpose of the quality of Wikipedia. It's a very efficient approach in that how sections are designed can guide the development of an article in ways very profound and significant in the long run, and when done right, it allows the the context of an article to be fair, balanced, and comprehensive. And the answer to your last question is "yes" because I currently have not seen any case where someone other than me assumed the name "Kmarinas86".siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 00:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

By "et. al.", I was referring to others who were alleging just the same about the spectroscopic measurements, albeit these others have not published these same views in a referred journal (specifically, they were people on the internet who cited Kunze to promote their arguments). I have found some refereed articles which cite Kunze's paper, if you want to take a look (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=1408707199752719551&as_sdt=5,44&sciodt=0,44&hl=en). I'm staying relatively hands off right now on the article, simply making some suggestions and context broadening to keep this topic alive.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 01:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Considering your failed attempts to understand basic physics, your original research means nothing. So keep it to yourself. This page is only for discussion of article issues, not a place to put an ad for yourself. If you want to be taken seriously, go published it somewhere, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

"So keep it to yourself." "If you want to be taken seriously, go published it somewhere," 'Nuff said.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 01:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the following:

Extended content

Analysis of the theoretical claims by physicists has resulted in the conclusion that the proposed theory is unphysical and inconsistent with the highly verified equations of quantum mechanics. Analysis of the experimental claims in one paper, it was noted that detection equipment reportedly used was not capable of making measurements. Independent experiments not funded by or affiliated with BLP have failed to corroborate the claims of the theory.

If can properly source it and thinks it should be restored, please fix and grammar and do so. TippyGoomba (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Often the lead is not sourced because it is summarising other material that is sourced. If you want sources, they are the ones in the analysis section. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It is often better to be safe. For a controversial topic like BlackLight Power, it is a good idea to have sourced material in the lede. The current lede is sourced well enough for the time being.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 00:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The sentence in question may have had grammatical problems but does it belong in the lede at all? It looks like excessive detail in the lede to me. The referenced experiment is only one of many controversial results that BLP claims support their theories. There is already a section in the article that deals with this and selecting a small piece of information about that and attempting to use that to summarize the whole section is not the best approach. The lede without this detail works fine and is overall a pretty good summary of BLP claims and the mainstream physics community's view of this.--Davefoc (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I collapsed the last two paragraphs into one. There may have been a bit too much detail and perhaps some unnecessary repetition. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Keepcalmandcarryon's changes seem good to me and they make the grammatical issues that this section was about moot, since the sentence in question was removed. This issue looks closed to me.Davefoc (talk) 16:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)