Talk:Brilliant Light Power/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Rathke quote

Pcarbonn just added a large quote from Rathke's debunking of Mills' work, which I have removed (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hydrino_theory&diff=175585448&oldid=175585243). Now, don't include primary sources likely applies, but I also take issue with the quote as being mis-leading. It is a flat-out de-bunking of Mills' work, worded in the appropriate hedging-of-bets tone of a physics paper. However, a casual reader might take it as something other than what it is. It is also long and confusing. So, Pcarbonn, what is your rationale for including the quote, and third-parties please express your opinions. Michaelbusch 22:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Because this is the central hypothesis of the theory, it is critical to say that QM does not exclude the possibility of lower ground state, according to Rathke. Please make a proposal on where to put it if the current statement is not OK for you. Pcarbonn 22:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said above that is not what Rathke said. You seem to be falling into a false dichotomy of dis-proof - thinking that if Rathke hedges his bets, it negates the debunking. Mills' work is falsifiable, and Rathke did so. He could not exclude the remote possibility of a lower energy bound state under exotic conditions, nothing more. That in no way weakens the debunking - and actually makes it stronger, because Mills' claims happen in laboratory conditions. If you may make this error, the casual reader is at least as likely. Thus my statement above. Michaelbusch 22:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Pls clarify the link to WP:Primary source: it doest not work, so I'm not sure what you mean. Also, I'm just reporting what Rathke says: if he said it, it has notability, and it must be relevant. I don't understand why we could not quote him here. Pcarbonn 22:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It has been fixed. Now, Rathke's critique is indeed notable and relevant. However, we should not provide a large and confusing quote when the summary is sufficient (see WP:QUOTE, under 'when not to use quotes', which is what I'm referencing). I have explained why the quote is confusing. Michaelbusch 22:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It is notable, relevant, and critical to the understanding of the subject. I do insist that it be included one way or another, possibly even in the first paragraph of the article. Pcarbonn 22:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not dispute that it is notable and relevant, but a verbatim quote of Rathke isn't 'critical to the understanding of the subject' - the summation does that just fine. As I have explained, the quote you have proposed leads to certain mis-understandings, which are to be avoided. And putting it in the first paragraph is definitely undue weight. To be honest, I don't understand your motivation for including this - it is confusing and adds zero meaning. Michaelbusch 23:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I have proposed a new version of the statement. Let me know. Pcarbonn 23:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Please explain why you consider placing it in the first paragraph "undue weight", when it is about the main feature of the theory. Pcarbonn 23:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I've reworded your version some, if you really want it in the lead. My reading of undue weight is that the lead paragraph should be general discussion of the idea - but that is approximately true of the current version. Michaelbusch 01:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

cold fusion statement

There are 2 versions of the statement:

1. Mills first put forth his proposition of the hydrino in 1991, claiming to explain the purported excess heat reported in 1989 by cold fusion experimentalists[[1]] (the excess heat claimed in that particular experiment was later attributed to systematic errors[[2]]).
2. Mills first put forth his proposition of the hydrino in 1991, claiming to explain the purported excess heat reported in 1989 by cold fusion experimentalists[[3]].

I favor the second version because the quote of the first statement is a link to another WP article (which is not a reliable source), and because the section quoted cannot be summarized as you propose: the 2004 DOE panel was evenly split on the issue of excess heat, so you cannot summarize by quoting only (part of) one side. Please explain your justification before I ask for a Third opinion.Pcarbonn 22:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, Pcarbonn, the Mills' work in 1991 was based on the 1989 cold fusion claims, which were discredited. The 2004 panel isn't relevant here, because it referred to later work. The reference given is to the cold fusion page to avoid a long explanation here - we've had this discussion before. The Wikipedia article is not the primary source - the sources in it are. Michaelbusch 23:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't find the source in it. Please be more specific. Pcarbonn 23:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Quoting from cold fusion, which is citing one part of the 2004 report - not the panel's conclusions, just the literature review:

'..in 1989, Fleischmann and Pons used an open cell from which energy was lost in a variety of ways: the differential equation used to determine excess energy was awkward and subject to misunderstanding, and the method had an error of 1% ...'

This is the admission of systematic errors. Michaelbusch 01:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

All experiment have a margin of error. The way you present it in this article misrepresents the situation.

Furthermore, unless this is quoted in relation to hydrino theory, you are giving notability to a statement that doesnot have it. I have now requested a 3d opinion. Pcarbonn 06:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Finally, you are confusing "error" and "systematic error". The sentence you quote only mentions error, not systematic error (ie. bias). Pcarbonn 15:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, the excess heat observed by F&P was well above the 1% of error, so this is not invalidating their report of excess heat as you imply.Pcarbonn 16:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it wasn't - it was around 3-sigma if I recall. I am quite aware of the difference between random and systematic errors, but an open cell has to suffer from systematics. Re. Rathke - don't try to game the system - he was debunking Mills. Don't try and pick select a quote that might lead to the readers thinking otherwise. Michaelbusch 19:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

Both versions are problematic. Wikipedia may not be cited as a source (WP:SPS). Self-published sources are not usually permitted (WP:SELFPUB). Providing one's own analysis of scientific data is not permitted (WP:NOR). (The version of the article that was linked [it has since changed] makes no claim of "systematic errors".) I would encourage both sides to avoid unreliable sources and stick to what reliable references have reported. Vassyana (talk) 13:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

So, are you proposing that the sentence should be removed, until it has a reliable source ? I could go with that. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge per Wikipedia precedent

In the past, when ONE PERSON advocates a singular theory and that person gains notoriety and notability from that theory, it is traditional for Wikipedia to merge the theory and person's articles into one. I have done so.

Please see as precedent

• CTMU and Christopher Michael Langan

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

-- all very well, but by attempting to re-direct hydrino theory to Randell Mills you have managed to delete several years of contributions by many different authors, both pro and against hydrino theory! if however you were to re-direct the Randell Mills entry to hydrino theory instead, i at least would have no great objection.

Waif (talk) 10:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If you think there are things that are worthy of inclusion at Randell Mills here, please look through the history and include them. However, it is clear that the thing that is notable is the person, not the "theory" which has received no recognition in the places where theories need to receive recognition. See fringe theory guidelines for more on how such subjects should be handled at Wikipedia. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I have gone through the cruft present at the previous incarnation of this article and found some bits that are properly referenced by reliable sources and other bits which can be verified for inclusion at the Randell Mills article. Please direct all other discussion to Talk:Randell Mills. Thank you. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Orthogonality criterion for banishing hydrino states from standard quantum mechanics.

See:

Orthogonality criterion for banishing hydrino states from standard quantum mechanics. Antonio S. de Castro (Coimbra U. & Sao Paulo U., Guaratingueta) . Apr 2007. 6pp. Published in Phys.Lett.A369:380-383,2007. e-Print: arXiv:0704.0631 [hep-th] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.126.201.12 (talk) 11:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"SQM" and "CQM" are not commonly used jargon

I have removed the use of "SQM" and "CQM" from the page. These terms are not in common use by anyone except Millsian supporters; their use gives the appearance of legitimacy that isn't representative of consensus opinion. If you wish to use these terms, please provide examples of mainstream usage. JohnAspinall (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Polite discussion of perceived article bias

I have created this section to encourage polite discussion of WP:WEIGHT issues which are apparently perceived in this article. Please seek consensus before making major edits to the article. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 19:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I am fairly neutral as far as this article is concerned (no interest in the subject whatsoever, and I had never heard about the theory). The most recent edit by TStolper added 3 passages that have since been reverted.

1. Based on looking at the Rathke reference, I would say the first new paragraph is factually correct. I will try to put it in a form that I hope will be closer to consensus. If anyone doesn't like it, please don't revert it wholesale but work towards consensus if at all possible.
2. The second passage is a sentence about Mills' attempt to refute the plagiarism accusation. To me this looks more like an unconvincing excuse than a refutation. However, it seems that the source we are citing here for the accusation is already the best source known to Google. That's bad, because 1) the author avoids using the word "plagarism", and 2) this is not an adequate source. I have asked at the BLP noticeboard for advice, but with no success yet. In the meantime I have found WP:SPS and WP:BLP#Reliable sources, which are both absolutely clear: A blog is never a reliable source for information on anyone but the blog author themselves. The way I interpret WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material, this claim must be removed immediately, even if it should be true.
3. I am not sure that the existence of the "pseudoscience" and "pseudophysics" categories is a good thing. Referring to the categorisation of an article breaks the rule that articles should not speak about Wikipedia or themselves (I can look where it is written down, if necessary). E.g. in a printed version of Wikipedia the categories may not even be present. I also see no need to draw attention to this categorisation, or to make unconvincing attempts at refuting it. Since the categorisation seems to imply that Mills is a pseudoscientist, and since we seem to have exactly zero sources for this negative claim (reliable or otherwise), I see no alternative to removing this article from these categories until a reliable source has been found.

Please, do not reinsert the plagiarism claim without citing a reliable source.

Please, do not add this article to these two categories again without citing a reliable source.

I am not an expert in interpreting WP:BLP. Any BLP expert is of course free to ignore this if my interpretation should be too strict. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

While trying to rephrase the first passage that TStolper1W wanted to include, I realised that when read in context the statement about experimental evidence probably means the following: "It is unfortunate that some people tried to support the hydrino model experimentally, and that peer reviewed journals published the result, before anybody even checked whether the hydrino model is internally consistent. (Which it is not.)" I don't think that such a remark should be included in the article. Neither should TStolper1W's first passage, because it is misleading. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding pseudoscience:

A very nice review amongst others of this particular page: [4] from Cosmos (magazine). There is of course also this (full text can be read [5] (scroll down)).

Btw. Since Robert L. Park is an authority on the subject of physics (and also on pseudoscience/voodooscience)- his blog comes under the exceptions specifically stated in WP:SPS. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This case, however, seems to be covered by the exception to the exception - Park's newsletter, as he is a recognized relevant expert, may be used to say that hydrinos are inconsistent with modern physics but not whether or not Mills (a living person) committed plagiarism. At least, that is my reading of WP:SPS. I do not remember if in Voodoo Science he treats Mills' book at all or just his ideas. If Mills' alleged academic improprieties are really relevant to the article, we may need to dig up Skeptic (magazine) 8(4) - "Bigger than Fire? A scientific examination of Randell Mills’ “Hydrino”" Theory by Aaron J. Barth. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 22:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers! Okay, the following sentence from Nature would certainly be enough if this article wasn't so much tied to a single person: "This vagueness, together with the ridicule heaped on hydrino research by figures such as Robert Park, the American Physical Society's director of public information and a keen observer of pseudo-science, makes some NIAC officials nervous about having funded Marchese's work." But as it is, it only convinces me (even more) that it is pseudoscience, but not that we are allowed to say so in this particular article. The statement is a bit too indirect for my taste. Oh, and I agree with Eldereft that the exception to the exception applies. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The article starts out by calling the idea a "pseudoscience" and at this point that seems too extreme. I realize that the concept isn't supported by current knowledge, but as of May 28th 2008 the company reports that it's ready to go with a reactor. They're a privately owned company who doesn't seem to have the hallmarks of a typical scam. That means more time and exploration is needed before ruling the entire concept out. This article should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.247.185 (talk) 00:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Look at WP:PSCI for how Wikipedia treats pseudoscience. I agree that it could be phrased better (to say maybe "is seen as a pseudoscience by the majority of scientific community" or something, still in the intro, but a little later than the first sentence), but it still is a pseudoscience, and it should be mentioned somewhere in the lead. Deamon138 (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, it richly deserves the label pseudoscience. If his theory were true, then there would be more hydrinos in the universe than helium atoms. Paul Studier (talk) 01:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Uh, take a look at this - evidence that dark matter is actually cold, "hard to detect" molecular gas. Sounds familiar? Just sayin' is all. Wackyhohos (talk) 04:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

From Dark matter At present, the most common view is that dark matter is primarily non-baryonic, made of one or more elementary particles other than the usual electrons, protons, neutrons, and known neutrinos. Hydrinos are an electron and a proton, which is a baron. Paul Studier (talk) 04:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

But the whole point of the paper I cited is that dark matter must be baryonic. Otherwise it couldn't exist in dwarf galaxies - any non-baryonic dark matter would be swept away in the collision that formed the dwarf. Here is a more easily accessible summary of the paper. In particular, please note the use of the phrase "cold Hydrogen molecules that are extremely difficult to detect". All I'm saying is that here is evidence to refute your assertion - i.e that hydrino theory must be wrong because hydrinos are not observed in nature. Bournaud's work is pretty clear evidence that we need to understand the nature of baryonic dark matter before we can dismiss hydrino theory entirely. Wackyhohos (talk) 12:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Crap point. Study some astronomy and get back to us. Baryonic dark matter is an interesting problem, but it is an open question as to whether it really exists -- and there are those who remark in the literature that it's basically been accounted for. That's not evidence for the existence of hydrinos at all. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Mills claims to have hydrino spectra. Spectra = easily seen. Contradiction. - mako 13:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a cornerstone policy of wikipedia call "Verifiability". We cannot state that Hydrino theory is pseudoscience without sources to clearly demonstrate that it is so, especially when articles supporting the field have been published in peer-reviewed scientifi journals. We are facing the same issue on cold fusion: feel free to contribute to the request for comment. Let's build a better wikipedia based on facts, not on unsourced opinions. Pcarbonn (talk) 09:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have an axe to grind about Mills or hydrinos, but I have read parts of his book and his site, and feel that this article is biased. it currently states:

Andreas Rathke of the European Space Agency has shown the existence of a hydrino is impossible even within the framework of Mills' model.[1] A 2005 evaluation by Rathke, found "severe inconsistencies" in Mills' theory, including a lack of "solutions that predict the existence of hydrinos." Rathke also shows that Mills' equations were not Lorentz invariant, a requirement of any theory that explains the behavior of particles moving close to the speed of light.[3] Mills responded to Rathke with a lengthy article, claiming Rathke made seven major errors in his analysis [4].

This gives the impression that Rathke has irrefutably proved the impossibility of the existence of hydrinos. To be truly unbiased, it should read something like:

Andreas Rathke of the European Space Agency claims the hydrino is impossible even within the framework of Mills' model.[1] A 2005 evaluation by Rathke, claims to have found "severe inconsistencies" in Mills' theory, including a lack of "solutions that predict the existence of hydrinos." Rathke also claims to show that Mills' equations were not Lorentz invariant, a requirement of any theory that explains the behavior of particles moving close to the speed of light.[3] Mills responded to Rathke with a lengthy article, claiming Rathke made seven major errors in his analysis [4].

--JohnCee99 (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a good suggestion. For neutrality, all claims (by Mills or by his critics) should be considered "claims" that are rigorously referenced.

Holversb (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Mills' explanation has met with criticism in the literature[1] and is not accepted by scientists, especially those who specialize in Quantum Mechanics.

Science is full of controversy and "not accept by scientists" is both an inappropriate standard, and vague. What? All scientists? It isn't accepted by, say, chemists? So does a theory have no merit until it is accepted by "scientists"? At the least, it should say something like, "not yet accepted by [some|many|most|etc.] physicists who specialize in Quantum Mechanics" AND that comment would need some kind of substantiation -- how do we even know how many physicists know about the theory, and how many of those agree with it or consider it plausible? The sentence seems like a knee-jerk reaction from someone with a serious QM axe to grind.

The Rathke objection seems to be given a lot of weight in the article, yet Mills demonstrated how error-riddled it was, and his most damning critique is that Rathke is basically saying, "conventional theory predicts this is nonsense" yet Mills retorts, correctly, that empirical evidence trumps theory. You cannot invalidate a new theory based on its inconsistency with existing theory -- we'd still be in the Dark Ages if that was true -- empirical evidence always trumps theory, and so if new evidence invalidates old theory AND the corresponding new theory accounts for previous evidence and the new evidence, then science should discard or amend the old theory and adopt the new one. Historically, this process was ALWAYS opposed by the status quo -- it is only in retrospect that we trick ourselves into believing that new truths somehow effortlessly replace contemporary erroneous ones.

This theory is unlike very many fringe science ideas that come and go, because it is substantiated with a great deal of peer reviewed physical observations, and the company developing its products has been well funded and has many respectable and appropriate people on its board of directors, such as an ex chairman of Westinghouse. The article deserves to be written in a neutral respectful tone, correctly acknowledging that this is a new theory, but also fairly acknowledging the amount of theoretical and empirical evidence that has been advanced in its favor.

Bradaisa (talk) 02:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sosovic paper refuted

Mills has soundly refuted the paper referenced in footnote 15 here: http://www.blacklightpower.com/papers/TestsFeaturesFieldAccerlationModels062405.pdf It should be removed as it is no longer a viable refutation of Mills' theories.Peteryo (talk) 05:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no indication that this is a peer reviewed publication or that it otherwise has the support of physicists. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 05:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Possibly so. However, wouldn't it be more fair to include a reference and link to Mills' paper since it specifically addresses this paper which is presented as a refutation of Mill's theories? Otherwise, we leave this hanging as the last word on the subject. Those trained in physics could then judge for themselves from the data presented. This is the best way to address a controversial subject. Also, the following sentence referencing the electron distribution function does not have a footnote. A specific piece of information presented as a direct refutation on a very basic level should at least be referenced.Peteryo (talk) 04:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

"The last word on the subject", for our purposes, must be the paper most recently published in a reliable source. That's our policy. It means we do not attempt to get involved in reviewing papers ourselves, much less let our readers "judge for themselves". We report what reliable sources (i.e. sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy) have said on the subject. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 06:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Concur with SheffieldSteel. Peteryo - which sentence is unreferenced? The one following the Šišović sentence is cited (currently note 16) to a paper in Reports on Progress in Physics, an IoP journal. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 08:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Dark matter

The following comment was moved from the article. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 04:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

– —By definition, ordinary matter does not interact with dark matter, except though gravity. Hence hydrinos cannot be dark matter, since they are created in a chemical ion-plasma. Also, since hydrinos are atomic, they are not dark matter. Dark matter is not made up of atoms. Mr, Mills does not understand that dark matter is invisible. If it reflects light or refracts light, it is not dark matter.Minofd (talk) 03:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

SCQM messageboard

The article cited a rebuttal written by Mills himself. KimDabelsteinPetersen removed this information from the article, claiming it is not a reliable source.

The Wikipedia content guideline says that the author of a reliable source "is generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Well, when the subject at hand is Mills' rebuttal, there is no one more authoritative than Mills himself!

Futhermore -- if you want to call hydrino theory a "fringe theory" -- the Wikipedia content guideline explicitly says individuals that promote fringe theories may be used as sources "to detail the views of the proponents of that subject." That is exactly why Mills' rebuttal was cited in the article. Case closed: Mills' rebuttal is a reliable source. 71.221.125.66 (talk) 04:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there any indication that this post is actually by Mills? WP:Biographies of living persons is very clear on the matter of citing to someone opinions that they do not hold. Iff blacklightpower or similar indicates that Mills posts under this ID and we can be reasonably certain that it is as it appears may we cite this source. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 16:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no doubt the cited rebuttal is a genuine post by Dr. Randell Mills. At the Society for Classical Quantum Mechanics messageboard, he has been interacting with members of the public for nearly the past three years under his Yahoo ID, "drrandellmills".[6] 71.221.125.66 (talk) 03:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

That does not address my concern - why do we have any reason to expect that that Yahoo! ID belongs to Mills? Incidentally, the IP removing your most recent additions was not me, though I agree with their rationale. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 16:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Now you're getting preposterous. At the Society for Classical Quantum Mechanics (SCQM) messageboard, people have posed questions to Dr. Mills for the past three years, and "drrandellmills" has answered them. SCQM is moderated by a colleague of Mills. Do you actually believe the moderator would allow some impostor to post in Mills' name? There are a great many portions of this article that could be deleted on the same grounds ("how do we really know that the author of the cited source is who they claim to be?") but you are selectively applying this reasoning in order to suppress the fact that Mills and Phillips wrote cogent rebuttals to Rathke. A neutral POV would not be interested in suppressing this fact. 71.221.125.66 (talk) 04:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no general vetting of identities for such forum postings ("PLEASE NOTE: The list owner cannot possibly verify the identities of all list members and posters ..."). I could register User:DrRandellmills here and start answering questions, but that would rightly be completely unciteable. Is this rebuttal reproduced on Blacklight's website or do we have any other reason to expect beyond any reasonable doubt that this ID is in fact registered to Mills? - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 17:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have supplied more evidence for the authenticity of this source, than anyone else has for any other source in the article. But fine, have it your way. Attention all article contributors: Eldereft says that if you can't verify the identity of the author of the cited source, the information must be expunged from the article! 199.46.245.232 (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

"We cannot possibly verify the identity of the authors of the cited source"

What does that mean ? Which wikipedia policy are you applying when deleting these statements [7] [8]? They come from reliable sources according to WP:RS (except for the arxiv search, which I agree should be deleted). Pcarbonn (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ask Eldereft what it means. The source that I cited was also reliable according to WP:RS, but Eldereft kept insisting that because he couldn't verify the identity of the author, it had to go. Finally I got sick and tired of arguing with him, and I am now enforcing his policy consistently throughout the article. 199.46.245.232 (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

New Journal of Physics (which is a reliable source) verifies the identity for us. Yahoo doesn't verify it for us, in fact it specifically states that it cannot do so. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

To be more specific: If its in a reliable source (NJoP), then the reliable source is considered to be the vetting agent. If its not in a reliable source (Yahoo), then we need some other agent to provide the vetting of identity. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I can agree with that. The NJoP quotes can stay, the yahoo ones should be deleted (for selfpub). Pcarbonn (talk) 19:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That sounds in accord with my reading of policy, thank you. If anyone wants to link to the actual rebuttal instead of just an unverified borderline-crankish statement that Mills disagrees with Rathke, here is a link to the pdf (2 MB, 165 p.). - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 21:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Suspect edit

I noticed that an edit (the last one so far as I type) by a user called Bourgoinr changed a mention of a paper by someone known as Bourgoin. This also happens to be the only edit that user has made. This seems a little dodgy. Who originally added the name and info on Bourgoin to this article? Was it an IP? Or an established user? I'm worried that this Bourgoin person is self-promoting. It could of course be perfectly innocent, but it's slightly disconcerting. Deamon138 (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I have added the ref to BOurgoin's article. Pcarbonn (talk) 06:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah that's okay then. Still find that edit by Bourgoinr a little strange, however since it was you that added that article in, it is merely a peculiarity now rather than being suspect. Cool. Deamon138 (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Huggle Misused to Rollback Non-Vandalism Related Edits

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:HG, "Huggle is a tool for dealing with vandalism." According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_rollback, "The rollback feature allows intentionally nonconstructive contributions (vandalism) to be reverted more quickly and more efficiently than with other methods... Rollback should not be used in content disputes". I am working to make constructive edits to this article and to add references to journal articles. If you disagree with specific edits I am open to discussion about how best to improve this article. Tedmund, please do not indiscriminately roll back all the edits I have been working on, unless you have reason to believe they constitute vandalism (which is certainly not my intent).68.164.228.115 (talk) 09:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Unreasonable roll-back in July 2008

Any article in Wikipedia which purports to present a controversial theory ought to present it. It is quite reasonable to include remarks explaining that most scientists consider the theory to be pseudo-science developed by some crank. BUT it is going too far when items explaining details of the theory, and refences to published papers, are deleted. People wishing to investigate a topic, using Wikipedia, should be permitted to see both sides of the controversy and, if they wish, to look into it more deeply and decide for themselves. Strong opponents ought to, rather, have a page called "Hydrinos are Nonsense" and it would be fair to link to that page quite prominently in the introduction to the Hydrino Theory article. A historical note: Maxwell's equations needed to introduce a concept of "displacement current" and many eminent physicists of his day could never accept that. (Sorry, am travelling so I don't know my log-in. Peter W. ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.84.11 (talk) 09:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Most of the "published papers" were not subject to the typical standard of peer review needed for the introduction of a extraordinary claim and served only to soapbox. Note that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and we cannot make any claims as to the "historical parallels" between Mills' nonsense and Maxwell's equations. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to Hydrino Article

Move to hydrino

It is very debatable as to whether this is a legitimate scientific theory or not. Most of those in the physics community would scoff at the idea of calling it a "theory". So I moved the article here. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Undo redirect to hydrino

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory: in a science generally, a theory is "a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation" - and in physics specifically, "the term theory is generally used for a mathematical framework—derived from a small set of basic principles (usually symmetries - like equality of locations in space or in time, or identity of electrons, etc.) — which is capable of producing experimental predictions for a given category of physical systems."

It is not debatable whether Mills' "hydrino theory" meets these two definitions. Mills' theory of hydrinos, which he calls "Classical Quantum Mechanics", factually meets both definitions: It is both a mathematical framework and a testable model of physical phenomena (for example the behavior of electrons in atomic orbitals), which makes specific experimental predictions for a given category of physical systems - predictions which can be readily verified or falsified through empirical observation. Indeed, in the latter respect Mills' model meets a more stringent definitional standard of scientific theory than some other models of physics, such as supersymmetric string theory.

ScienceApologist, please substantiate your claim that most of those in the physics community would scoff at the idea of calling Mills' model of physics a "theory" - (as opposed to the more supportable claim that most of those in the physics community would scoff at it as an incorrect or poor theory). 68.164.228.115 (talk) 23:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The existence of hydrinos is controverted by vast bodies of experimental evidence, and one of the most wildly successful models of reality humanity has ever constructed would need to be fundamentally flawed for them to occur. Moving the article from hydrino theory to hydrino might reduce the endless sniping in both article-space and discussion-space regarding how to present an idea with social but not scientific notability. The fact that the idea exists is uncontroversial, and omitting theory from the title might help editors focus on describing the construct rather than endlessly recapitulating the arguments. - Eldereft (cont.) 00:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

At the very least, can we leave this as one article until such a point as consensus may emerge as to the necessity of having an article under both titles? - Eldereft (cont.) 00:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

One article is reasonable, it should be about a particular topic, e.g. "Hydrino Theory", or "Hydrino" or "Classical Quantum Mechanics" or "Randell Mills". I believe that "Hydrino Theory" is the right topic based on the current content of the article. I want to help improve the quality of the article, following the three fundamental Wikimedia principles WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. I believe the quality of this article (in format, organization, referencing) is much worse than the quality of other articles about contested science, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion. I am willing to work constructively and cooperatively with others to make this article of better quality.

Eldereft, I would be interested to learn more about the vast bodies of experimental evidence by which the existence of hydrinos is controverted, I am not aware of such evidence. I am not sure that I agree that the Standard Model of Physics would need to be fundamentally flawed in order for hydrinos to exist - [e.g. papers by Jan Naudts, Ronald C. Bourgoin, Jean-Pierre Vigier and perhaps others aiming to show that hydrino / hydrino-type state(s) of hydrogen are possible under standard quantum theory] - although Mills certainly would. I am not sure what the social notability of Hydrino Theory is, I don't think Hydrino Theory merits a Wikipedia article on the basis of its social notability. But most importantly, I wholeheartedly agree that the focus should be on describing the construct rather than endlessly recapitulating the arguments.

Please tell me how I can safely make this article better in quality and richer in verifiable information, without a big risk of having my changes wiped out by other users who have strong negative opinions of Hydrino Theory. 68.164.228.115 (talk) 02:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

68.164.228.115, it is good that you are already familiar with the core policies of Wikipedia and interested in editing in accord with them. Perhaps "social notability" is not really a good term. My contention is that this topic satisfies the notability requirement despite having had no impact in the scientific community. To skip to your final point, the best way to avoid having your work dismissed is to adhere strictly to those policies. You may also wish to peruse the guideline on treating fringe theories. Please note that we should only deal with those aspects of Mills' conjecture that have attracted independent notice; exhaustive detail is available at the linked website. We also, as noted at the top of this page, should avoid the temptation to debate the topic amongst ourselves. There are plenty of online fora where people debate the merits of the topic, here we should confine ourselves solely to issues of inclusion and presentation. Please bring major proposed changes (defined broadly) here first, but in general article clean-up and improvement is welcomed and lauded. - Eldereft (cont.) 06:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Level of acceptance

Recently, several changes have been made to the article which significantly alter the presentation towards credulity and reduce the weight given to sources indicating a dismissive attitude on the part of the physics community. Please discuss and achieve consensus on these and other significant changes here or elsewhere on this page before enacting such edits. Thank you. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

List of References Regarding Hydrino Theory (Reliable Sources?)

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FRINGE, "...it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant theories... Other well-known, reliable, and verifiable sources which discuss the theory first are required so that Wikipedia is not the primary source for such claims."

Also "Theories should receive attention in Wikipedia in proportion to the level of detail in the sources from which the article is written... a level of detail which is greater than that which appears in [these sources] is inappropriate"

Thus, the below is a list of references that could be found regarding hydrinos / hydrino theory, which also appeared to meet (or at least possibly meet) the threshold of being from a reliable source.

Please comment on which of these references do NOT qualify as being from a reliable source; and how the rest of them (which ARE from a reliable source) could be incorporated into the Hydrino Theory article in the best possible citation format. (Could someone link me to a guide which shows the best practice format for adding citations / list of reference resources to a Wikipedia article?)

I am especially looking for feedback from people who are concerned about the "Hydrino theory" article becoming overly favorable in its portrayal of the theory. ["Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community."]

My personal bias towards Hydrino theory is favorable, but I wish to make appropriate, verifiable edits that do not just get wiped out by other Wikipedia editors/users with different views, or lead to protracted fruitless debate.

---

.

A catalytic role of atomic oxygen on anomalous heat generation included in proton conductive ceramics under hydrogen atmosphere. Yamamoto, H. JCF2 Abstract #25 2000

A Comprehensive Study of Spectra of the Bound-Free Hyperfine Levels of Novel Hydride Ion H.(1/2), Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and Air Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, Vol. 28, No. 8, (2003), pp. 825-871. R. L. Mills, P. Ray

A critical analysis of the hydrino model Rathke A NEW JOURNAL OF PHYSICS , 2005 , Volume: 7 (MAY 19) , Page: 127-127

An Explanation of Earthquake Lightning by Cold Fusion Hiroshi Yamamoto The 8th Meeting of Japan CF-Research Society JCF8 ABSTRACTS November 29-30, 2007 http://dragon.elc.iwate-u.ac.jp/jcf/JCF8/jcf8-abstracts.pdf

ANOTHER EXPLANATION OF PIPE RUPTURE INCIDENT AT HAMAOKA NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNIT-1 FROM VIEWPOINT OF COLD FUSION Yamamoto, Hiroshi http://dragon.elc.iwate-u.ac.jp/jcf/file/jcf4-13.pdf

Argon-Hydrogen-Strontium Discharge Light Source R. Mills and M. Nansteel, P. Ray IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Vol, 30, No. 2, (2002), pp. 639-653.

Author's response to "Hydrino atom: novel chemistry or invalid physics" International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Volume 26, Issue 11, November 2001, Page 1233 Randell L. Mills

Author's response to "Hydrino theory - a proposed amendment" International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Volume 26, Issue 11, November 2001, Pages 1229-1231 Randell L. Mills

Bright Hydrogen-Light Source due to a Resonant Energy Transfer with Strontium and Argon Ions New Journal of Physics, Vol. 4, (2002), pp. 70.1-70.28. R. Mills and M. Nansteel, P. Ray

Catalysis of Atomic Hydrogen to New Hydrides as a New Power Source, submitted. R. L. Mills, J. He, M. Nansteel, B. Dhandapani

Catalysis of atomic hydrogen to novel hydrogen species H-(1/4) and H2(1/4) as a new power source R. Mills 2007 International Journal of Hydrogen Energy Volume 32, Issue 13, September 2007, Pages 2573-2584

Classical Quantum Mechanics Phys. Essays 16 4 (2003) 433 R.L. Mills

Commercializable Power Source from Forming New States of Hydrogen R.L. Mills, G. Zhao, K. Akhtar, Z. Chang, J. He, Y. Lu, W. Good, B. Dhandapani - 07/02/08 http://www.blacklightpower.com/papers/WFC052708webS.pdf

Comparison of Excessive Balmer Alpha Line Broadening of Inductively and Capacitively Coupled RF, Microwave and Glow-Discharge Hydrogen Plasmas with Certain Catalysts Mills, R.L.; Ray, P.C.; Nansteel, M.; Chen, X.; Mayo, R.M.; He, J.; Dhandapani, B. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Vol. 31, Issue 3, June 2003, pp. 338-355

Comprehensive Identification and Potential Applications of New States of Hydrogen R.L. Mills, J. He, Y. Lu, M. Nansteel, Z. Chang, B. Dhandapani Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, Vol. 32, (2007), 2988–3009.

Condensed Matter Nuclear Science: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Cold Fusion (2004) Jean-Paul Biberian World Scientific Publishing Company 2006

CW HI Laser Based on a Stationary Inverted Lyman Population Formed from Incandescently Heated Hydrogen Gas with Certain Group I Catalysts IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Vol. 31, No. 2, (2003), pp. 236-247. R. Mills, P. Ray, R. M. Mayo

Direct Plasmadynamic Conversion of Plasma Thermal Power to Electricity R.M. Mayo, R. Mills IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, (2002), Vol. 30, No. 5, pp. 2066-2073.

Emission in the deep vacuum ultraviolet from a plasma formed by incandescently heating hydrogen gas with trace amounts of potassium carbonate Plasma Sources, Science and Technol. 12 (2003) 389 H. Conrads, R. Mills, Th. Wrubel

Energetic Catalyst-Hydrogen Plasma Reaction as a Potential New Energy Source, Division of Fuel Chemistry Session: Chemistry of Solid, Liquid, and Gaseous Fuels 227th American Chemical Society National Meeting, March 28-April 1, 2004, Anaheim, CA. R. L. Mills, Y. Lu, M. Nansteel, J. He, A. Voigt, B. Dhandapani

Evidence of An Energy Transfer Reaction Between Atomic Hydrogen and Argon II or Helium II as the Source of Excessively Hot H Atoms in Radio-Frequency Plasmas R.L. Mills, P. Ray, B. Dhandapani, J. Plasma Physics Vol. 72, No. 4, (2006), 469-484.

Evidence of Catalytic Production of Hot Atomic Hydrogen in RF Generated Hydrogen/Helium Plasmas Jonathan Phillips, Chun-Ku Chen, Toshi Shiina Sep 2005 arXiv:physics/0509127v1 http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0509127

Evidence of Energetic Reaction Between Helium and Hydrogen Species in RF Generated Plasmas, submitted. J. Phillips, C. Chen

Evidence of energetic reactions between hydrogen and oxygen species in RF generated H2O plasmas International Journal of Hydrogen Energy Volume 33, Issue 10, May 2008, Pages 2419-2432 J Phillips, C Ku Chen, RL Mills

Excess Heat: Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed Charles G. Beaudette Oak Grove Press 2002

Excessive Balmer a Line Broadening of Water-Vapor Capacitively-Coupled RF Discharge Plasmas R.L. Mills, P. Ray, B. Dhandapani Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, Vol. 33, (2008), 802-815.

Excessively Bright Hydrogen-Strontium Plasma Light Source Due to Energy Resonance of Strontium with Hydrogen J. of Plasma Physics, Vol. 69, (2003), pp. 131-158. R. Mills, M. Nansteel, and P. Ray

Explanation of Anomalous Combustion of Brown's Gas Using Dr. Mills Hydrino Theory Society of Automotive Engineers (Conference Paper) Yamamoto, Hiroshi Yamaha Motor Co., Ltd. Sept. 1999

Extreme Ultraviolet Spectroscopy of Helium-Hydrogen Plasma R. Mills, P. Ray Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, Vol. 36, (2003), pp. 1535-1542

Formation of a hydrogen plasma from an incandescently heated hydrogen-catalyst gas mixture with an anomalous afterglow duration Randell L. Mills, Takeyoshi Onuma and Ying Lu International Journal of Hydrogen Energy Volume 26, Issue 7, July 2001, Pages 749-762

FRACTIONAL QUANTUM ENERGY LEVELS OF HYDROGEN MILLS RL; GOOD WR FUSION TECHNOLOGY , 1995 , Volume: 28 , Number: 4 (NOV) , Page: 1697-1719

Fuel from Water: Energy Independence with Hydrogen, 11th Edition Michael Peavey Merit Products Inc 1998

Genius Inventor: The controversy about the work of Randell Mills, America's Newton, in historical and contemporary context Thomas Stolper BookSurge Publishing (August 2, 2006)

Global Warming and Energy Policy editor: Behram N. Kursunogammalu Springer 2001

Hadron Models and related New Energy issues edited by F. Smarandache & V. Christianto Info L Q 2008

Highly Stable Amorphous Silicon Hydride R. L. Mills, B. Dhandapani, J. He Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells, Vol. 80, (2003), pp. 1-20.

Highly stable novel inorganic hydrides from aqueous electrolysis and plasma electrolysis R. Mills, , E. Dayalan, P. Ray, B. Dhandapani and J. He Electrochimica Acta Volume 47, Issue 24, 12 September 2002, Pages 3909-3926

Hydrino atom: novel chemistry or invalid physics? International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Volume 26, Issue 3, March 2001, Page 281 A. K. Vijh

Hydrino Theory Blacklight Process http://64.130.13.132/book/Ch05.pdf

Hydrino theory-a proposed amendment International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Volume 26, Issue 11, November 2001, Pages 1227-1228 Itzhak Shechtman

Hydrinos in the Hydro Hotel: what do we know? G.M.W. Kroesen, E.M. van Veldhuizen, R.J.L.J. de Regt, N. Driessen, T.M.P. Briels Eindhoven University of Technology, http://reld.phys.strath.ac.uk/IoP2006-papers/IT3.pdf

Identification of compounds containing novel hydride ions by nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy Randell L. Mills, , Bala Dhandapani, Mark Nansteel, Jiliang He and Andreas Voigt International Journal of Hydrogen Energy Volume 26, Issue 9, September 2001, Pages 965-97

Interstitial H2 in Si: are All Problems Solved? Physica B, 340–342, (2003), pp. 58–66. M. Stavola, E. E. Chen, W. B. Fowler, G. A. Shi

Inverse Quantum Mechanics of the Hydrogen Atom: A General Solution Adv. Studies Theor. Phys., Vol. 1, no. 8, (2007) pp. 381 - 393 Ronald C. Bourgoin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarmani (talk • contribs) 04:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Key to Understanding Interstitial H2 in Si Phys. Rev. Letts., 88(10), (2002), pp. 105507-1 to 105507-4. E. E. Chen, M. Stavola, W. B. Fowler, P. Walters

Low-Voltage EUV and Visible Light Source Due to Catalysis of Atomic Hydrogen, submitted. R. L. Mills, M. Nansteel, J. He, B. Dhandapani

Luther Setzer and John Kassebaum defend hydrino theory Skeptic Magazine 9:4:22 Dec 2002

Measurement of energy balances of noble gas–hydrogen discharge plasmas using Calvet calorimetry R. L. Mills, , J. Dong, W. Good, P. Ray, J. He and B. Dhandapani International Journal of Hydrogen Energy Volume 27, Issue 9, September 2002, Pages 967-978

Measurement of hydrogen Balmer line broadening and thermal power balances of noble gas-hydrogen discharge plasmas RL Mills, A Voigt, P Ray, M Nansteel, B Dhandapani - International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Volume 27, Issue 6, June 2002, Pages 671-685

Modeling the electronic spectroscopy of dinitrogen M.S. , 2005 , The American University Volume: 43/04 of MASTERS ABSTRACTS. PAGE 1276 Pouokam, Alexis Yagaka

New power source from fractional quantum energy levels of atomic hydrogen that surpasses internal combustion Journal of Molecular Structure, Volume 643, Issues 1-3, 19 December 2002, Pages 43-54 R. L. Mills, P. Ray, B. Dhandapani, M. Nansteel, X. Chen, J. He

Novel alkali and alkaline earth hydrides for high voltage and high energy density batteries Mills, R. and Dayalan, E Battery Conference on Applications and Advances, 2002. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=986359

Novel inorganic hydride Randell L. Mills International Journal of Hydrogen Energy Volume 25, Issue 7, 1 July 2000, Pages 669-683

Nuclear Transmutation: The Reality of Cold Fusion Tadahiko Mizuno Infinite Energy Press 1998

Observation of extreme ultraviolet emission from hydrogen-KI plasmas produced by a hollow cathode discharge International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Volume 26, Issue 6, June 2001, Pages 579-592 Randell L. Mills

Observation of extreme ultraviolet hydrogen emission from incandescently heated hydrogen gas with strontium that produced an anomalous optically measured power balance Randell L. Mills, , Bala Dhandapani, Nelson Greenig and Jiliang He International Journal of Hydrogen Energy Volume 25, Issue 12, December 2000, Pages 1185-1203

On the hydrino state of the relativistic hydrogen atom Jan Naudts arXiv:physics/0507193 http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0507193

On the Potential for Direct and MHD Conversion of Power from a Novel Plasma Source to Electricity for Microdistributed Power Applications R.M. Mayo, R. Mills, M. Nansteel IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, August, (2002), Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 1568-1578.

Ortho and Para Interstitial H2 in Silicon Phys. Rev. Letts., 89(21), (2002), pp. 215501 to 1–215501-4. E. V. Lavrov, J. Weber

Orthogonality criterion for banishing hydrino states from standard quantum mechanics Physics Letters A, Volume 369, Issues 5-6, 1 October 2007, Pages 380-383 Antonio S. de Castro

Plasma Power Source Based on a Catalytic Reaction of Atomic Hydrogen Measured by Water Bath Calorimetry Thermochimica Acta, Vol. 406/1-2, (2003), pp. 35-53. R. L. Mills, X. Chen, P. Ray, J. He, B. Dhandapani

Potential for a Hydrogen Water-Plasma Laser R. L. Mills, P. C. Ray, R. M. Mayo Applied Physics Letters, Vol. 82, No. 11 (2003).

Quantization in Astrophysics, Brownian Motion, and Supersymmetry editors: Florentin Smarandache; V. Christianto MathTiger 2007

Raman Spectroscopy of Hydrogen Molecules in Crystalline Silicon Phys. Rev. Letts., 81(2), (1998), pp. 421–424. A. W. R. Leitch, V. Alex, J. Weber

Response to “Comment on ‘Water bath calorimetric study of excess heat generation in “resonant transfer’ plasmas”” J. Appl. Phys. 98 (2005) 066109 J. Phillips

Revisiting Anomalous Explosion of Hydrogen and Oxygen Mixture from a View Point of Cold Fusion H Yamamoto http://dragon.elc.iwate-u.ac.jp/jcf/file/jcf5/jcf5_19.pdf

Role of Atomic Hydrogen Density and Energy in Low Power Chemical Vapor Deposition Synthesis of Diamond Films R. Mills, J. Sankar, A. Voigt, J. He, P. Ray, B. Dhandapani Thin Solid Films, Vol. 478, Issues 1-2, May 2005, pp. 77-90

Rotation of Molecular Hydrogen in Si: Unambiguous Identification of Ortho-H2 and Para-D2 Phys. Rev. Letts., 88(24), (2002), pp. 245503-1 to 245503-4. E. E. Chen, M. Stavola, W. B. Fowler, J. A. Zhou

Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction: A Comprehensive Compilation of Evidence and Explanations about Cold Fusion Edmund Storms World Scientific Publishing Company 2007

Solutions to the 1d Klein-Gordon equation with cut-off Coulomb potentials Physics Letters A, Volume 372, Issue 1, 10 December 2007, Pages 12-15 Richard L. Hall

Space science: Out of this world Tony Reichhardt Nature 420, 10-11 (7 November 2002) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v420/n6911/full/420010a.html

Spectral emission of fractional quantum energy levels of atomic hydrogen from a helium-hydrogen plasma and the implications for dark matter Randell L. Mills, and Paresh Ray International Journal of Hydrogen Energy Volume 27, Issue 3, March 2002, Pages 301-322 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V3F-44TSXJS-5&_user=14684&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000001678&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=14684&md5=353a75cbf12c6bb6b142d42a0a84cb38

Spectral Identification of New States of Hydrogen, submitted. R. L. Mills, Y. Lu, J. He, M. Nansteel, P. Ray, X. Chen, A. Voigt, B. Dhandapani

Spectroscopic and NMR identification of novel hydride ions in fractional quantum energy states formed by an exothermic reaction of atomic hydrogen with certain catalysts The European Physical Journal - Applied Physics , v 28 , n 1 , p 83-104 , Oct. 2004 Mills, R; Ray, P; Dhandapani, B; Good, W; Jansson, P; Nansteel, M; He, J; Voigt, A

Spectroscopic Identification of a Novel Catalytic Reaction of Atomic Hydrogen and the Hydride Ion Product Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, Vol. 26, No. 10, (2001), pp. 1041-1058. R. Mills

Spectroscopic Observation of Helium-Ion and Hydrogen-Catalyzed Hydrino Transitions R.L. Mills, Y. Lu, K. Akhtar - 07/02/08 http://www.blacklightpower.com/papers/Continuum052808webS.pdf

Spectroscopic Study of Unique Line Broadening and Inversion in Low Pressure Microwave Generated Water Plasmas R.L. Mills, P.C. Ray, R.M. Mayo, M. Nansteel, B. Dhandapani, J. Phillips J. Plasma Physics, Vol. 71, No. 6, (2005), 877-888.

Stationary Inverted Lyman Population Formed from Incandescently Heated Hydrogen Gas with Certain Catalysts J. Phys. D, Applied Physics, Vol. 36, (2003), pp. 1504-1509. R. L. Mills, P. Ray

Substantial Changes in the Characteristics of a Microwave Plasma Due to Combining Argon and Hydrogen New Journal of Physics, www.njp.org, Vol. 4, (2002), pp. 22.1-22.17. R. L. Mills, P. Ray

Substantial Doppler Broadening of Atomic-Hydrogen Lines in DC and Capacitively Coupled RF Plasmas http://www.blacklightpower.com/papers/DopplerBroadening033108Web.pdf

Synthesis and Characterization of Novel Hydride Compounds Int. J. of Hydrogen Energy, Vol. 26, No. 4,(2001), pp. 339-367. R. Mills, B. Dhandapani, M. Nansteel, J. He, T. Shannon, A. Echezuria

Synthesis and Characterization of Potassium Iodo Hydride Int. J. of Hydrogen Energy, Vol. 25, Issue 12, December, (2000), pp. 1185-1203. R. Mills, B. Dhandapani, N. Greenig, J. He

Temporal behavior of light-emission in the visible spectral range from a Ti–K2CO3–H cell Randell L. Mills International Journal of Hydrogen Energy Volume 26, Issue 4, April 2001, Pages 327-332

Tests of Features of Field-Acceleration Models for the Extraordinary Selective H Balmer a Broadening in Certain Hydrogen Mixed Plasmas - Response to N. Cvetanovic et al http://www.blacklightpower.com/papers/TestsFeaturesFieldAccerlationModels062405.pdf

THE BLACKLIGHT ROCKET ENGINE A Phase I Study Funded by the NIAC CP 01-02 Advanced Aeronautical/Space Concept Studies Program Anthony J. Marchese College of Engineering Rowan University 2002 http://users.rowan.edu/~marchese/final-niac.pdf

The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics January (2005) Edition posted at www.blacklightpower.com. R. Mills

The hydrogen atom revisited Randell L. Mills International Journal of Hydrogen Energy Volume 25, Issue 12, December 2000, Pages 1171-1183

The hydrino and other unlikely states Physics Letters A, Volume 360, Issue 1, 18 December 2006, Pages 62-65 Norman Dombey

The Lyman bands of molecular hydrogen Can. J. Phys., Vol. 37, (1959), pp. 636-659. G. Herzberg, L. L. Howe

The Nature of the Chemical Bond Revisited and an Alternative Maxwellian Approach, submitted; posted at http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/technical/Hydro 102804Web.pdf. R. L. Mills

The Potential for a Hydrogen Water-Plasma Laser, Applied Physics Letters, Vol. 82, No. 11, (2003), pp. 1679-1681. R. Mills, P. Ray, R. M. Mayo

The Scientist, The Madman, The Thief and Their Lightbulb: The Search for Free Energy Keith Tutt Simon & Schuster UK 2003

Threshold photodetachment of H- Phys. Rev. A, Vol. 43, No. 11, (1991), pp. 6104-6107. K. R. Lykke, K. K. Murray, W. C. Lineberger

Undead Science: Science Studies and the Afterlife of Cold Fusion Bart Simon Rutgers University Press 2002

Vibrational spectral emission of fractional-principal-quantum-energy-level hydrogen molecular ion Randell L. Mills and Paresh Ray International Journal of Hydrogen Energy Volume 27, Issue 5, May 2002, Pages 533-564

Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud Robert Park Oxford University Press 2001

Water Bath Calorimetric Study of Excess Heat in 'Resonance Transfer' Plasmas Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 96, No. 6, pp. 3095-3102. 2004 J. Phillips, R. L. Mills, X. Chen

Water Bath Calorimetry on a Catalytic Reaction of Atomic Hydrogen R.L. Mills, H. Zea, J. He, B. Dhandapani Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, Vol. 32, (2007), 4258–4266.

---

.

(Note: in the interest of full disclosure: this list of references was assembled by a paid expert researcher on a web research site, not by me personally - see http://uclue.com/?xq=2103. I expended money to have such a list prepared because of an intense personal curiosity in the subject of hydrino theory, combined with a lack of time to assemble the list personally. I do not have any personal or financial connections to anyone else who has a strong interest in Hydrino theory, nor do I have a means to benefit financially from changes in the public perception of Hydrino theory. So, while I have a positive bias towards Hydrino theory based on my personal evaluation of its merits, I do not harbor a hidden agenda or have a conflict of interest in this area, and my edits to this article are not intended to or capable of advancing my own personal interests.)

Thanks!

Scarmani(talk) 04:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC) (68.164.228.115)

Dear Scarmani, thank you for your contribution. From my experience with the cold fusion article, I can tell you that you should be ready for a long dispute, but I do encourage you to do it because it is worth it and will improve wikipedia. Here are some suggestions I would make:

• seek to demonstrate that the hydrino concept is fringe science, but not pseudoscience, and then use what the ArbComm unanimously said about significant alternative to scientific orthodoxies : "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience."
• to achieve that, seek reliable scientific sources that are independent from Mills and his team. Storms and Bourgoin are a good start, and you could leverage on them to show that this is an ongoing scientific controversy, not pseudoscience. Other sources would be articles that Mills published in respectable peer-reviewed journals : you'll have to pick only a few from the list you gave, but choose them well, and emphasize that they have been independently reviewed. You can use the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for queries about the reliability of particular sources.
• if someone still pretends that it is pseudoscience, relentlessly ask him for a source for that view, emphasising that wikipedia is based on reliable, written sources. He will keep saying "everybody knows that it is pseudoscience": repeat that this does not meet wikipedia standards. They will come with statements from editorials saying that "most scientists rejects it as pathological science"; respond by saying that "most scientists" does not constitute a verifiable source, because they don't write on the subject in scientific peer-reviewed journal.
• make sure that you prepend each favorable sentence by "proponents say that..." for proper attribution.
• write also for the enemy.

Good luck ! Pcarbonn (talk) 15:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Some more recommendations:

• you may want to check Wikipedia:PSCI#Pseudoscience.
• don't refer to Mills book, because it will be considered self-published, and thus unreliable. Stick to journal papers.
• be perseverent !

Pcarbonn (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your great advice Pcarbonn! I respect the fact that you are speaking from experience, and the great quality of the Cold fusion article surely bears the mark of your efforts. I believe that I can contribute to this Hydrino article in a worthwhile way which would improve Wikipedia, and I am up for a long debate if it ends up being fruitful and the outcome is truer to the principles of Wikimedia as a result. Scarmani (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC) (68.164.228.115)

I'll be happy to support your effort, although I'm no expert in hydrino. Hopefully, skeptical editors will learn from the cold fusion dispute, and we'll be more open to your contribution. Pcarbonn (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Scarmani, you are on a great start ! That's the way to go ! Keep up the good work. Pcarbonn (talk) 07:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The very existence of this list on the Talk page is a boon for a curious and persistent reader. I don't doubt this page will get more traffic after the article in CNN Money; whether or not this constitutes Pseudoscience, the subject has made it to the mainstream press and it's important to have a compendium of claims SOMEwhere, so users can make up their own mind. (Does this constitute NPOV?) (-lovewarcoffee)

This is me signing the above comment. Lovewarcoffee (talk) 11:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe the following article is very relevant and important as it shows how skeptics ought to approach this claim agnostically and not negatively, or else they themselves have a burden of proof to bear. This may help you a lot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskepticism DavidPesta (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's another helpful read. A google search for "pathological skepticism" turned up this article: http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/pathsk2.txt DavidPesta (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The link directly above originally comes from the following site, and WOW! It is a VERY thorough resource on the study of the phenomenon of "Closeminded Science". This one-stop resource should be extremely helpful: http://amasci.com/weird/wclose.html DavidPesta (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think skepticism towards this would count as pseudoskepticism or closeminded science. Deamon138 (talk) 21:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that skepticism toward almost anything doesn't have to be pseudoskepticism or closeminded science. The idea here is to identify the skepticism that does classify as such and then call them on it. DavidPesta (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoskeptics are those who take "the negative rather than an agnostic position but still call themselves 'skeptics. Because part of hydrino theory has been published in respectable peer review journals, as Rathke said, our article must take the agnostic position, not the negative one. Pcarbonn (talk) 07:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience says that the following is an indicator of poor scientific reasoning (and therefore a contender for pseudoscience), "Evasion of peer review before publicizing results (called "science by press conference"). Some proponents of theories that contradict accepted scientific theories avoid subjecting their ideas to peer review, sometimes on the grounds that peer review is biased towards established paradigms, and sometimes on the grounds that assertions cannot be evaluated adequately using standard scientific methods. By remaining insulated from the peer review process, these proponents forgo the opportunity of corrective feedback from informed colleagues." Note that it says "some", so even if a theory has been peer reviewed doesn't make it legitimate science. For instance, ideas about cold fusion were published in peer reviewed journals, as have lots of (now) clear examples of pseudoscience, but this doesn't stop the wikipedia article saying, "Cold fusion gained a reputation as pathological science after other scientists failed to replicate the results." (note that pathological science is not the same as pseudoscience, but this is just an example, and cold fusion being pathological is the very debatable imo, but it's sourced). My point is that we don't go "Hydrino theory is pseudoscience." Instead (as long as it's sourced) we say something like "Hydrino theory is seen by most scientists as Pseudoscience" or similar. This would be taking the neutral point of view, as it's not Wikipedia saying it's pseudoscience, but scientists themselves. My own personal view (which counts for nothing) is that any theory that contains statements like "Most, although not all physicists agree that the existence of hydrino states with the properties Mills attributes to them is incompatible with quantum mechanics" is most likely pseudoscience. Deamon138 (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

15 keV?

The binding energy of an electron is proportional to 1/r according to the Bohr model. The ground state binding energy is the famous value of 13.6 eV, therefore 1/30 r_ground_state would correspond to 408 eV. However, in the Bohr model the energy corresponds to 1/n^2, thus "n=1/30" would yield 900 * 13.6 eV = 12.2 keV. Either this should be made clear in the article or (preferred to avoid OR) a source to the 15 keV figure should be given.--SiriusB (talk) 08:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hydrino without CQM?

So if it is the case that the CQM model does not match observed reality, and does not match hydrinos themselves, does that automatically mean that hydrinos (reduced ground state hydrogen atoms) are false? Probably not.

Ignoring the question of CQM, and assuming that we don't know what underlying cause permits hydrinos, the question is, does the catalytic effect that supposedly creates the reduced ground state atoms actually do so? Has the output been tested to demonstrate that it is or is not what he claims?

It's one thing to say "If they really exist, then lots of other theories are false". It's one thing to say "His claim as to why they exist is bunk"

But have the output products been tested? Keybounce (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Summary of Mills' Theory

As there is very little description of Mills' scientific claims, I would like to start migrating summaries from the following link.

http://knol.google.com/k/brett-holverstott/the-grand-unified-theory-of-classical/32k4ylspoy8k6/2#

I feel that the wiki article should contain two sections: 1) factual summaries of Mills' claims, and 2) criticisms or controversies in Mills' claims.

Currently, descriptions of Mills' claims are intertwined with criticisms of those claims, some authors claiming that his ideas cannot explain such things as atomic orbitals, despite that Mills has an extensive theory of atomic orbitals and multi-electron atoms in the first volume of his book. This is poor authorship by academic standards.

If there is anyone who disagrees, please argue your point here.

Holversb (talk) 19:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Am I correct in thinking that you wish to use a knol that you wrote as a reference, or simply transcribe parts of it as content?LeadSongDog (talk) 20:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong releasing the material to Wikipedia under GFDL - to be ruthlessly edited and torn apart. As a source it does not seem reliable.

On the issues: We have an article on Hermann Anton Haus. There does not seem to be anything on a G. Goedecke (George H. Goedecke?). What we should have is an article on nonradiation conditions. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am thinking about transcribing parts of it as content. The goal is to separate the article into a section factually summarizing Mills' claims, and another section factually recording criticisms and controversies in Mills' claims. I am curious if other editors of this page agree with this type of format. Holversb (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is what I think should be done. There are however other editors who feel that critisism should be integrated with content. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. - If you study the article history, you will see, that any extended presentation of Mills theory will regularly get pruned from this article. The last major deletion happened here. This clone of Wikipedia that uses material from last year is more extensive. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The knol is presently under CC-BY 3.0. Either it would have to be relicensed to be GFDL compatible, or you'd need a full rewrite.LeadSongDog (talk) 02:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand that User:Holversb is the author of the knol, so he can of course use the material as he pleases. ...But as I said above, copying the material to Wikipedia, without adding tons of references. will not stand a change against mainstream deletionist scrutiny. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The owner of the copyright can, as Petri says, copy the material to WP, thereby releasing it under the GFDL. However WP cannot assume that User:Holversb is the owner of the CC-BY licensed copyright material on knol, despite the similarity of usernames. The simplest approach is to amend the license on the knol to a dual license. See WP:CLeadSongDog (talk) 03:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I am the author of the knol article, but I will amend the license if necessary. I am also the author of substantial portions of text that have been deleted in the past. To avoid this, I invite critics of Mills' theory to comment on the restructuring proposal. They might also benefit by a clearer presentation where criticisms are cleanly organized, instead of constantly fighting to insert critical comments in the main section. 24.18.198.85 (talk) 01:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I left you a message at User talk:Holversb. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

That is a good idea, and you are free to use material from the paper. Should probably cite it?

Holversb (talk) 19:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Mills himself gives extensive coverage of his claims in his book, a free download from the Blacklight site that is also available at Amazon. I would direct you in particular to pp. 36-44 of vol 1. A summary from p. 36 of vol 1, "The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics" states:

---

OUTLINE OF THE RESULTS OF THE UNIFIED THEORY DERIVED FROM FIRST PRINCIPLES

To overcome the limitations of quantum mechanics (QM), physical laws that are exact on all scales are sought. Rather than engendering the electron with a wave nature, as suggested by the Davisson Germer experiment and fabricating a set of associated postulates and mathematical rules for wave operators, a new theory is derived from first principles.

FOUNDATIONS

Start with first principles

– Conservation of mass energy – Conservation of linear and angular momentum – Maxwell’s Equations – Newton’s Laws – Lorentz transforms of Special Relativity

Highly predictive– application of Maxwell’s equations precisely predicts hundreds of fundamental spectral observations in exact equations with no adjustable parameters (fundamental constants only).

In addition to first principles, the only assumptions needed to predict the Universe over 85 orders of magnitude of scale (Quarks to Cosmos):

– Four dimensional spacetime – The fundamental constants that comprise the fine structure constant – Fundamental particles including the photon have ¥ of angular momentum – The Newtonian gravitational constant G – The spin of the electron neutrino

---

Perhaps one could begin summarise his claims as something like:

Mills' aim is to provide a unified theory that overcomes what he sees as the limitations of quantum mechanics based on wave/particle duality. In attempting to do so, he starts from first principles - mass-energy and linear/angular momentum conservation; Maxwell's equations; Newton's laws and Lorentz transforms of Special Relativity. He adds a handful of assumptions that include four-dimensional spacetime, the fine structure constant and Newton's gravitational constant. He claims this leads to consistent theory that accurately predicts phenomena at all possible scales from atomic to cosmological (p.36).

He opines that modern physics has become too divorced from reality, being based on often conflicting mathematical models. He seeks to reframe it in a more classical setting which provides interpretations indicating phenomena at the atomic scale can be understood in physical, intuitive terms (para 1 of his preface). He outlines what he terms the "misinterpretations of observations" of Quantum Mechanics, and for each, gives an interpretation from the viewpoint of "atomic scale classical physics" (Box I.1, p. 5 -8). Hence he gives reinterpretations of such things as the double-slit experiment; accelerating expansion of the universe (which he claims to have predicted before mainstream physics accepted it) due to "dark energy"; the nature of the chemical bond; supercurrent being able to go in both directions at once; and so on.

His model of the free electron is that it is a planar disc, and of the electron bound to a hydrogen atom, that it forms a spherical shell ("orbitosphere") around the nucleus. In the stable state, at quantum radius 1, it is non-radiative. Quantum mechanics predicts that there can be other, non-stable integer radii (2,3,4 and so on) which radiate to the stable state, but denies the possibility that there can be radii of 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 and so on. Mills' model allows this, however, and a hydrogen atom in which the electron is at such a lower level is termed a hydrino (pp. 27 et seq.) He claims that it is possible to catalyse, non-radiatively, the conversion to a hydrino using, for instance, lithium. The process is claimed to be a potential source of energy at levels intermediate between chemical and nuclear reactions, and since the source of terrestrial hydrogen is virtually limitless, he claims it could be a solution to global energy problems.

Moreover, he claims that it should be possible to produce chemical compounds with novel properties using hydrinos rather than hydrogen atoms. He claims that he has used classical physical laws "in exact closed-form equations" using only fundamental constants, to predict and "solve" the main building-blocks of chemistry; predictions which he claims are accurate for many molecules for which data is currently available (see his site).

In short, his claims are extensive and all-encompassing, and if true, would overturn much modern physics and chemistry. It is not hard to see why this would be controversial. Whether or not his energy devices work and are commercially viable, his theory would need to be tested. However, it does appear to be testable and predictive, and so could perhaps be said to be fringe science rather than pseudoscience.

I am a new contributor to Wikipedia, and so it's entirely possible I have indavertently taken the wrong approach here. If so, apologies, and I would welcome guidance.

--JohnCee99 (talk) 04:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This is really good. Much more informative than what is in their now. Accurate too, I trust? All you are missing is citations to your sources. You can figure out the format by following examples. Put your material in the article, make changes required to preserve (or create) flow, and delete any material that you have made redundant.

My suggestion is that when you write something that you are at least fairly certain is better than what was written before, go ahead and put it in the article. If it turns out you were off the mark, no worries, it is extremely easy to revert edits. In a case like this, however, I am have a hard time imagining how an editor would defend his decision to undue your improvements. ~Paul V. Keller 06:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I am glad that there are others interested in this new format. I would like to see descriptions of the theory broken down into a series of subsections, i.e. "free electron" "bound electron" "nonradiation condition" "interpretations of quantum phenomena" etc, each section being referenced to Mills' book or papers. I started to do that in the google knol article. If we further divide each subsection into "claims" and "critical responses" then hopefully the text of the descriptions will be less adulterated.

Holversb (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm very impressed with the clarity of your version. It sounds like a great idea to separate the objective information from the skeptical comments, but I doubt that some would be willing to allow a complete description of the theory without littering it with disclaimers or debunks after every claim. I'm new to this venue but one thing I have gathered is that Mills is definately the underdog in that his support is minimal due to the stigma threatening anyone that supports him or gives him credit. I was stunned when I came here to read up on this topic and was presented with such bias on a normally neutral site. After giving both sides of the argument due attention I'm now convinced only that we don't know anything.

"We can know only that we know nothing. And that is the highest degree of human wisdom." — Leo Tolstoy (War and Peace)

Thank goodness we don't still burn witches... Mrstewart1 (talk) 23:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

New articles for Mills, BlackLight Power

Some time ago, material from an individual wikipedia article on Mills was merged with the Hydrino Theory article. Now, material on Mills (or BlackLight Power) is being deleted from the article. We need to decide whether to form independent articles on these topics, or keep these subjects together because they are closely linked. Holversb (talk) 21:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:CFORK, only one article at a time, please. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If I understand the policy right, BlackLight Power need to gain a place in history or popluar culture to be entitled to its own page. The material I removed was advertising content, not historical records. ~Paul V. Keller 01:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me like the confirmation is a selected point from a selected article. Why not quote:

"The company has been around since at least the early 1990s, and appears to have been promising various breakthroughs Real Soon Now the whole time."

http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2008/10/22/blacklight_power_what_on_earth.php

and, http://www.devhardware.com/forums/science-69/black-light-power-54654.html (1999)

"And he claims to be just months away from unveiling his creation" (2005)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/nov/04/energy.science

Presenting the latest in a ten year series as something new and exciting is misleading. ~Paul V. Keller 02:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention a violation of WP:Recentism. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The deletions I am primarily concerned with is the deletions of the independent validation by Rowan University scientists of Blacklight's 50KW reactor, and Blacklight's recent press releases. For anyone following this topic, these announcements are extremely important in that they provide confirming evidence for the hydrino hypothesis. Even critics ought to admit that this material belongs in an encyclopedic article on the hydrino theory and its history and controversy. Holversb (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Rowan was not tasked to observe whether the BlackLight charlatans were producing neutrinos, only whether they were producing output power. So they paid a midrange university desperate for cash to measure the energy output. Whoopdee do (sorry for the sarcasm). Like most cold fusion claims, the mechanism is left completely uninvestigated. We can certainly mention Blacklight's ongoing attempts to provide the veneer of legitimacy, but to make this out to be a "confirmation" is ridiculous. A single sentence will probably do the trick. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

My goal with this thread is not to eliminate criticism. My goal is to decide whether detailed information on Mills and the efforts of Blacklight Power ought to be part of this encyclopedic article. That includes any scientific study or claim by Blacklight, its collaborators, its replicators, its relative importance; and any criticisms of those studies.Holversb (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

If the detailed information on Blacklight Power is better than that on the theory, USE IT! The past reports on the company's history don't change. Those are verifiable. The Hydrino "theory" (and even more so its parent "theory") also appears to still being added to account for things just now or soon to be explained (alleged) by the theory, while critics of the idea still continue to say there "is no missing link" to be found here. The changes to a theory occuring at this rate suggest more should be done to incorporate information that is relatively more stable and consistent. Omitting the organization and paying only attention to the ideas would be like having a encyclopedia that had an article on the Articles of Confederation without any mention of the past or present historical context.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 01:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No consensus Parsecboy (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hydrino theory → Hydrino — As discussed in #Redirect to Hydrino Article, the appropriate location for this article is hydrino because it is not universally accepted that Mills' idea is a legitimate "theory" in the scientific sense. — ScienceApologist (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support per my comments in the above-linked section. - Eldereft (cont.) 03:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a theory. Moving it to Hydrino would in my judgement require proof of its existence. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support Is there even such a thing as "hydrino theory"? I don't think so, just Mills' all encompassing theory, which is best manifested by the way investors keep giving him money. Given the reported sums and how long Mill's has been able to string them along, the theory part probably goes as a corollary (or counter example) to the theory of evolution. ~Paul V. Keller 17:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Hydrinos represent one important, but relatively minor element in Mills' theory. If the article were retitled as hydrino, then it would justify deleting all other elements of Mills' theory (i.e. cosmological accelerated expansion, superconductivity, molecular modeling, multi-electron atom solutions, particle production, etc). Remember that "hydrino theory" is a colloquial name for Mills' theory, which is properly titled "Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics" or "Classical Quantum Mechanics." Regardless, something does not need to be accepted as a theory by the scientific community, theories need to be accepted as fact or rejected. Holversb (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose predictions made by this thing is testable, is it not? So it'd be a theory... Hydrino hypothesis, Hydrino conjecture. As well, the article covers more than the supposed hydrino. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 08:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The theories are not testable and cannot be disproven any more than intelligent design. The hydrino was made up by Mills back around 1990 to bolster his claims that he had cold fusion figured out and was going commercial soon:

``Basically, we have both the theoretical and practical aspects solved,`` Mills' owner, Randell L. Mills, said in a telephone interview Wednesday

He said the company has built cells that have produced up to 40 times as much energy as was put in.

http://ftp.wayne.edu/ibiblio-academic/physics/Cold-fusion/fd91 (April 26, 1991)

In his 2007 review, Storms gives credence to the hydrino as a "possible" explanation for cold fusion, which speaks to the utter lack of decent theory to explain cold fusion. More to the point, Storms, who gives every cold fusion researcher the benefit of the doubt, frankly states that no theory exists to predict when cold fusion will occur. You cannot test Mills' theory in a cold fusion experiment because there is no condition under which Mills guarantees you will get hydrinos and success. If an experiment fails, it fails for unknown reasons, with the "theory" unaffected.

This article is being used to help perpetrate a fraud. The only response I am suggesting is to limit the content to material that is not misleading and is backed by reliable sources. WP:Reliable sources

I note that at least one editor of this article introducing content based on sources that are not reliable is an author on a paper sponsored by Mills. ~Paul V. Keller 10:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rename to "Blacklight Power, Inc."

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was Moved to Blacklight Power Aervanath (talk) 13:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

---

There is more reliable information about Blacklight Power as a company than there is about the theory it uses. Also, it would make more sense to describe the history of the claims within the context of the company's formation. If enough information was found about Randell Mills himself, then material describing events prior to the formation of Blacklight Power can be moved over there. In the mean time, the company is signficantly more notable than the theory itself. If there was enough accurate verifable information about Randell Mills, then there would be a seperate article for him. However, the current title "Hydrino theory" will not serve this purpose. It assumes that Hydrino theory is more notable than the organization advocating it. This is clearly not the case. Therefore I Support this Move.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 00:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Further Information: Compare "blacklight power" -zpenergy -"zero point" - Google News Archive Search: with "hydrino" -zpenergy -"zero point" - Google News Archive Search: "zpenergy" and "zero point" were removed from the results because they do not count as reliable sources.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 00:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a clear winner here per the search results (as far as notability goes). Also attention surrounding the hydrino concept is more unreliable than reports of the actions of Blacklight power. I can't even get rid of the fringe results (a higher fraction of "hydrino" search results than the fraction of "blacklight power" search results) using Google commands which are supposed to work!Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 00:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Excellent solution. I support it totally. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support I actually really like this idea. When you put it like that, deuced if I know why we have kept this article instead of the company all this time. - Eldereft (cont.) 02:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Though just Blacklight Power would be better, as noted below. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support if Hydrino_theory is salted after move.LeadSongDog (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment It seems like the name of the company changes depending on the current form of technology being pursued. The first incarnation was "Hydro Catalysis Power" when Mills was experimenting with water-based cells. It changed to "Blacklight Power" when he moved on to plasmas. Now's he's pushing a solid fuel setup based on Raney-Ni - could indicate another change in the company name is pending. On the contrary, the term "Hydrino" has been constant throughout. I'd probably stick with that. Ronnotel (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • That's been tried already, and the result was no consensus.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 18:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Search results on Hydrocatalysis Power. These would be appropriate sources even for an article called "Blacklight Power, Inc." One could begin the intro with, "Blacklight Power, Inc. formerly called Hydrocatalysis Power....".
• Comment. It is not necessary to include ", Inc." in the name of the article. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • searching for articles with "inc." You find things such as "Apple, Inc.", "Monsters, Inc.", and even "Visa, Inc.". Apple? Monsters? Visa? Likewise, Blacklight Power? The "Inc." should be distinguished from "not Inc.", in the situation that "Blacklight Power" is found to be real process that produces blacklight from "hydrinos". This is a matter of foresight, and explains why there is an article on "Valero Corp." with a "Corp." while Microsoft has an article with the title "Microsoft" without "Corp." there. In other words, corporation names which were neologisms upon their founding do not need the abbreviation after it while those names that are redirected to disambiguation pages may end up needing them. The problem here is if one wants to speak generically about "blacklight power" as being a "type" of power, it will need its own article, whether or not it is synonymous with the process patented by "Blacklight Power, Inc.". Therefore, the "Inc." is not absoutely necessary, but it is still preferable.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 21:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
    • The intent at Wikipedia:Name#Companies is clear. Only use the Inc. in the article name if it is necessary to disambiguate. LeadSongDog (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It is necessary to use "Inc." because blacklight means "ultraviolet", and UV power is something that is not this corporation. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support, but preferably without the "Inc". Andrewa (talk) 02:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. According to WP:NAME#Companies, the legal status should not be included. — 3247 (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Question would you support a move to Blacklight Power? - Eldereft (cont.) 21:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Question. I was just wondering, mostly because I'm fairly new to the mechanics of wikipedia, if a search of "Hydrinos" would still pull up the article under the proposed name. Thanks guys. Mrstewart1 (talk) 02:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Good question. Yes, it would. A move creates a redirect to the new article name, and both the article by the new name and the redirect would show up in the search. For example, I recently moved an article from Ramírez Company to Ramírez Guitars. Search on Ramírez Company (note the accent... best to copy and paste to the search box) and see what you get. Andrewa (talk) 08:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ref needed for lack of qualification

With regards to this text:

• Mills has no degree in theoretical physics.

I want to make sure that we cite this to a source. We shouldn't be stating this simply because no source says that he has the degree. Rather, we should find a source which clearly states outright that Mills has no degree in theoretical physics. In essence, I don't want this to be a situation where we could also state that Mills has no degree in architecture, he is not a plumber and he has never been to the moon. Basically, we can't verify a negative unless we have a source stating this negative. Make sense? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 05:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Or just make the statement that you can source: Mills' degree is in medicine.LeadSongDog (talk) 05:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I performed a cursory search and was unable to find a C.V. I did find this article ([9]) which hints at his education. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly published on a WP:RS, but here's a CV: [10]. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this Harvard Crimson article can be taken as a RS on the question of his Harvard medical degree.LeadSongDog (talk) 06:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It is important to note that the argument Levine2112 gives above about architecture, plumbing, and moon-traveling is essentially a red herring strawman argument. Mills is making claims that require vetting by physicists (not physicians). His lack of credentials in that area is relevant, but his lack of credentials in unrelated areas is not and no one is arguing for including such content. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That's your opinion that that his lack of such a degree is worthy of mention in this article. Rather than relying on your opinion, please just provide a source which discusses this lack of degree. Otherwise, we should remove such a remark from the article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a little ridiculous to point out my opinion when you yourself are offering your opinion as to what sources qualify for a discussion of a "lack of a degree". We need not remove the remark from the article on your say-so anymore than we need include it on mine. The point is that there is a legitimate argument for pointing out a lack of credentials due to the subjects discussed in this article. That's an opinion, of course, but it's one based in thinking about what is most useful for the reader instead of being based on hypotheticals that stretch the imagination. We all are allowed to offer our editorial opinions on the subject and, in my opinion, your proposals in this regard are jejune. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Using your argument to include the text violates WP:OR and will be removed thusly. Please provide a source which explicitly states that Mills does not have the degree or else please do not reintroduce the orignal research. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 08:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we really should just follow the sources here. Plenty of usable references mention what Mills' formal education has been (an important point to the article), but I have found only one remotely reliable source (Hydrino Study Group; note that potentially reliable is used in the sense of for this particular claim) who bother to mention his lack of a physics degree. Let us just say what he has and move on. - Eldereft (cont.) 04:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The lede is too large

I have one question. The lede is several paragraphs long when the body of the article itself is not that big, so why shouldn't some of the material in the lede be moved to the body so that the lede is a better summary of the article?Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 15:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

External links -> General Media

The links under "General Media" should be incorporated as footnotes and sourced appropriately. Articles not specifically referring to Blacklight Power or Randell Mills should be reviewed for relevance.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 16:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Mills Bio

There is some controversy over whether the official CV of Dr. Mills as stated on the BlackLight Power Inc. and Millsian Inc. websites is considered "reliable." I believe so, and this material has been covered by the popular press, and is well known to the point of becoming common knowledge. There is no reason to exclude Mills' undergraduate degree and MIT work from his CV except to make is qualifications appear weaker than they actually are. Holversb (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)