Jump to content

Talk:Brilliant Light Power/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Factual statements vs. hyperbole

Hi,

Alexbrn removed a simple sentence which is supported by an WP:RS and which leaves an out of date statement dangling in the lede.

BlackLight has announced several times that it was about to deliver commercial products based on Mill's theories but has not done so to date.<iee ref here> More recently they claim to have publicly demonstrated early prototypes of their technology.<http://fcnp.com/2014/07/29/the-peak-oil-crisis-the-suncell/>

The first bit about having not delivered to date is based on a 2009 article. That's a big gap. The second sentence attempts to remedy the gap with a simple mention of all the demonstrations that have been going on at BLP this year. The ref is not self serving, nor a press release, and is a WWP:RS - so Alexbrn's notion that it is 'unduly self-serving press releases & self-published' is mistaken. Coupled with the throw away line that 'These fringe notions have no coverage in independent sources and so have no place here' suggests Alexbrn misses the point of this article, which is to give an accurate, WP:RSed account of BLP, not push any particular barrow. It is sufficient that the article is tagged as fringe, it doesn't then need to have all content purged! Cheers, Blippy (talk) 05:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

They still haven't delivered anything working, implying otherwise would be wrong. In any case editors should avoid "lede bombing": the lede must summarize content that is in the article body (see WP:LEDE) and not introduce distinct material. The other removals are in line with WP:FRIND - is there some reason those guidelines should be suspended here? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
No, there isn't, and thanks for the recent edits which I just admired. Blippy's comment above seems to suggest that the company's web pages can be copied here to show all the exciting breakthroughs they have almost made, but that is not Wikipedia's role. Johnuniq (talk) 06:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Please justify your claims Johnuniq. I don't see how being snide and inaccurate helps build a good article. Where am I suggesting copying BLP's website? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 00:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Blippy, you have been warned on your talk page and on this page that you are editing under ArbCom's Discretionary sanctions, yet you are edit warring over this one matter. Follow WP:BRD and seek a consensus solution with other editors. Don't restore that content unless a consensus says so. Seek a compromise instead. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Blippy, what is your position at BLP? -- Brangifer (talk) 00:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Since when do baseless accusations and mischaracterisations count as WP:AGF Brangifer? Perhaps you could enlighten me with evidence of your claims, or better still, try to work collaboratively to improve this article. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 00:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Whatever position you hold, the fact is that if anyone had an actual result (as opposed to a possible confirmation of some esoteric detail), the actual result would be trumpeted in every relevant scientific publication. While we wait for almost free energy to be delivered, there should be no attempt to puff up this article with claims that invite the gullible to believe something has occurred. Johnuniq (talk) 01:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
"[I]f anyone had an actual result (as opposed to a possible confirmation of some esoteric detail), the actual result would be trumpeted in every relevant scientific publication." You're wrong because there are people who actually have access to the results. This satisfies the condition of "anyone" having an actual result. However, these "anyones" are bounded to non-disclosure agreements, which means you and the general public do not have access to these results, lest there be a breach in non-disclosure. When they who sign the legal paperwork discover that the technology is real, there is absolutely no reason for them to violate the non-disclosure agreement, because in signing to the agreement, they agree to the consequences of what happens if they violate the agreement, which likely includes loss of rights to do business with BlackLight Power on a privileged basis. Remember, BLP is a company. It is funded by investors, not public science grants, who see intellectual property as value that must be protected from copy cats. The access by the general media was purposefully restricted, and access was allowed for investors and key industry partners. If you can't see the real reason it didn't just pop up in the media (hint: it's not about "lack" of results), what else could I say really? You can choose to understand this or not. That's up to you.
Now that said, the only thing right about your comment is that we can't add it to the article yet per Wikipedia WP:RS. If BlackLight Power wants these primary sources to be justified in the article, it must first publicize to every Joe Blow out there. I estimate this process will take until a year from now. As much as I would like an encyclopedia that focuses on the truth, which would show that BlackLight Power is indeed correct, that approach simply isn't compatible with the Wikipedia model, and arguably, it isn't truly compatible with any model that claims any "worldy objectivity". talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 03:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, so let's stop talking for a year. When the truth is revealed and reliable sources are available, the article can be updated. Meanwhile, there are no published results, and there is nothing to add now. Johnuniq (talk) 04:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
That does sum it up. We'll have to wait for independent reliable sources. Without that, there's nothing more to do. We'll wait. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Kmarinas86, are there any RS describing this "non-disclosure agreement"? -- Brangifer (talk) 02:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Even if a "reliable source" described the NDA, I doubt they would have been there to see the NDA signed. If it were notarized, I'm sure it could be verified, but I doubt most journalists would dig that deep for something like that. talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 05:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Since you have insider knowledge, maybe I should ask you what is your position at BLP? We still need a company representative on this page. You indicate that you have superior insider knowledge, and also that we can stop looking for RS which will help us, since "that approach simply isn't compatible with the Wikipedia model." Without such RS, there really isn't much more we can do until independent RS document something about the company. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, ignoring the fact that you haven't addressed my questions, the simple fact is that I have provided WP:RS's for the additions I made. It's not a question of truth or falsehood, it's a question of reporting what the sources say. Perhaps you could point out how I have not done that? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 07:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Why should Wikipedia post press releases for the company? Or are you talking about the edit where the reliable source was a book written by a journalist for an "underdog inventors" book, and where the information was apparently derived from company press releases? Per WP:REDFLAG, if anyone had a reproducible result, that welcome news would not be hidden in one obscure book about inventions which never seem to produce tangible results. Johnuniq (talk) 09:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
"[I]f anyone had a reproducible result, that welcome news would not be hidden in one obscure book about inventions which never seem to produce tangible results[.]" Non sequitur. talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 23:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
??? That makes no sense. Such sensational results would be so radical and important that they would not be hidden by the discoverers, and in this case the company would not be interested in keeping their success a secret, unless they had some ulterior and nefarious motives. Wishing to maintain a persecution complex is a possibility, but it wouldn't make much sense, since it would be an action which would inhibit the possibility of real success. People who are trying to make money and seek fame don't usually do everything they can to NOT make money and NOT seek fame. THAT would be a true non sequitur! -- Brangifer (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
"Such sensational results would be so radical and important that they would not be hidden by the discoverers[.]" Nonsense. Just because a fetus is going to grow up to be the next Bill Gates doesn't mean it's right to pull it out five months premature. talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 05:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

As I recall this is not a forum. Can we stick to the facts? The main fact that troubles me is that this article is frozen in a timewarp which gives the impression that nothing has happened since 2009. This article should better reflect the current state of affairs based on WP:RS. I provided two such refs - they are not press releases. I'm not suggesting that any undue emphasis be given to them, but they do provide a way to accurately represent some of the more recent developments in the BLP story. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 02:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Repeatedly adding non-actionable comments without engagement with prior discussions is disruptive. What facts? What sources? What proposed text? What about the prior comments? Are you claiming REDFLAG does not apply here? Why? Is there a reliable source independent from the company that could be used to suggest that a breakthrough in science has occurred, or will occur? Is the author of the source an expert in the field who is able to assess the claims and the evidence? Johnuniq (talk) 02:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
My comments relate specifically to the edits I made which have been reverted - perhaps that wasn't obvious to you for some reason? I provided two refs, one to a newspaper article, another to a book - both independent of BLP. None of my edits talked about scientific breakthroughs. How is that disruptive? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 02:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Your edits were rejected. Talking about them over and over without adding better references does not help your case. Your single purpose account and endless "cheers" is wearing thin and sorry to say comes across as trolling. We get that you are a "believer" but you are not making any progress and just wasting everyone's time. Bhny (talk) 03:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh! I mistook this to be a community project where we collaborated to improve articles by discussing the details of sources and how well an article covers the topic in question. I didn't realise that the stock in trade had descended to ad hominem, inuendo, and authoritative rejection by superior beings!! So how about you get over your presumptions and bias, and start tackling the job at hand - which is NOT to preserve the article as it currently stands, but rather to improve it. So, which of my two sources fail the WP:RS test, and in what way? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 04:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
In addition to the two refs I provided previously, I think it is important to at least be clear that the hydrino hypothesis is controversial with both opponents AND proponents in the scientific community. The overwhelming impression in the article, to my mind, is that Mills is a bit of a kook and no scientists support his theory at all. This is clearly not the case, and I think the article would be better if it could strike a better balance. Is that something people are willing to attempt? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 05:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
The article is neutral as-is, and neutrality is a non-negotiable central pillar of Wikipedia. Without better sources, it's not going to attempt to falsely "balance" anything as we have to reflect the established scientific view (i.e. hydrinos are nonsense on toast) as published in high-quality sources. That we do. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Well that is clearly incorrect, the article is not NPOV by any fair analysis, but that isn't my point. I am talking about at least bringing it up to date instead of being chronologically stuck in the dinosaur Park  ;-), and reflecting the state of reality per WP:RS's that, whilst controversial, there are proponents not just people rejecting it out of hand. In other words, there is no clear sense that this in this article that hydrinos are an alternative theoretical formulation which have limited (but existant) support. The article seems to convey your armchair "nonsense on toast" attitude admirably well, but little else. This does not make for a good or accurate article. Are you willing to help rectify that? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 06:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
There is no requirement to be "up to date" - we're not a news source or provider of a running commentary on BLP's doings. We neutrally relay accepted knowledge about BLP as found in quality sources. We do. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Incorrect, Blippy. Hydrinos are a pseudoscientific subject, not an "alternative theoretical formulation," and an article that identified them as anything other than nonsense would violate WP:NPOV. VQuakr (talk) 07:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Correction: Hydrinos are an alternative theoretical formulation, but nevertheless, that puts them under the purview of Arbitration Committee Decisions on Pseudoscience. talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 08:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
WP doesn't say they are a "theory" because that, in adducing the concept of rational thinking, would dignify the notion more that our RS's do, and so not be neutral. "Nonsense" is a neutral term from RS. We follow. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
"Nonsense" is anything but a NPOV term, belied by the fact that there are scientists who take hydrinos seriously. If you think that hydrinos do not qualify as an alternative theoretical formulation, then you might as well discard that category entirely!! Hydrinos are the quintessential ATF. Perhaps this is at the heart of the misunderstanding...? Maybe it would help us progress things if you explained why you believe it is not an ATF? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 10:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

What I (or any editor) "believes" is of no relevance to this article. We follow the reliable sources which, as one, regard the hydrinos notion as so much flapdoodle. Accurately relaying that is the essence of neutrality (you need to absorb WP:NPOV I think: the word "nonsense" has no intrinsic non-neutrality as you suggest). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Well I wont bother arguing about beliefs with such a true believer! My point is that hydrino discussions appear in dozens of peer reviewed journal articles in reputable physics (and other) journals - both pro and con. This is emblematic of scientific proposals which challenge received paradigms - some try to prop them up, others try to shoot them down. In the end one or t'other triumphs. You can't seriously say that Mills & co. aren't engaging with, AND as part of, the scientific community!?! Cheers, Blippy (talk) 10:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM. In lieu of fresh sourcing this conversation is exhausted. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 11:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

New source?

I am not discussing hydrinos, I am discussing the treatment of hydrinos in this article. That is completely pertinent and appropriate on the Talk page - so high handed shutting down of things you struggle to justify is singularly un-wikipedian. Further proof of my claim that this content should be treated as an alternative theoretical formulation:
Despite the reservations about the “hydrino” hypothesis expressed by some members of the scientific community, we decided that, after ensuring that the paper passed all necessary refereeing procedures (review by two independent senior members of the academic community), we should publish this paper rather than silence the discussion by rejecting it. We view this as the most effective way to stimulate scientific discourse, encourage debate, and engage in a meaningful dialogue about what is admittedly a controversial postulate.
This is a quote from an editorial by the three editors-in-chief of the European Physical Journal D in 2011. Notice that it says "reservations...by some members of the scientific community", and that two "independent senior" academic experts refereed the work. Nowhere in the editorial does it say "nonsense". This is not a matter of belief, but rather about simple factual statements requiring the most basic of analytical skills. These experts, plus at least two more, take the hydrino hypothesis seriously. That isn't to say they are convinced, but that they recognise that it is a legitimate alternative postulate warranting further investigation. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Aha, a source. That would be this article, one that has had the opening "clarification" added to it: "The Editors-in-Chief of the EPJ D wish to clarify that the publication of the highlighted paper [...] is in no way an endorsement of the authors’ “hydrino” hypothesis." Note the word "hypothesis". I think we can say hydrinos are hypothetical. In fact - we do! Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Correct. The question, however, is whether it is a nonsense hypothesis or a legitimate alternative hypothesis that has attracted serious scientific consideration. Clearly the editors came down on the latter, wouldn't you agree? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 13:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
That's a meaningless question. Nonsense often attracts serious scientific consideration; there are whole journals dedicated to it. Here though we have multiple high-quality RS's saying Mills' stuff is nonsense (or equivalent, or ... worse) – and, to be neutral, we align with those (I've just added another). We should confine ourselves to discussing how the article can be improved, ideally with specific editing proposals: mis-use of this Talk page is likely to result in a sanction. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I think Blippy has provided some serious, impactful evidence that directly addresses many of the questions that have been raised here. The journal is by no means low quality (impact factor = 1.5), it's in the top quartile in it's area. And the comments are made as a consensus of scientific editors specifically charged with assessing the worthiness of the scientific contribution being made by the paper. This is solid evidence that there is "some support" for Mills in the scientific community, which, as I read the definition for Level 4 category for pseudoscience, seems appropriate - i.e. "alternative hypothesis". What evidence, published since this editorial was written, demonstrates the opposite point of view, i.e. that Mills has no support in the scientific community? Ronnotel (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Endorsement of the "worthiness of the scientific contribution" is what is explicitly disclaimed, we learn (from the "two independent senior members of the academic community") merely that the paper passed the journal's reviewing procedures. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
That's two more than the number of scientists we are told have rejected the paper for publication. Further examination of the editorial reveals that the editorial board's intent in publishing is that it will foster instead of silence discussion. Doesn't that a direct call for more, instead of less, discussion? What's more, that statement declares that the hypothesis has "proponents". Why would the editors choose to include that sentence in the statement unless they are convinced the topic is worthy of discussion. "Profound" is another word they choose to use, referring to the potential impact of the results (i.e. continuum radiation with cut-offs at specific, predicted frequencies. Just to make sure everyone here appreciates the importance of "continuum" radiation, there is known chemical reaction that produces continuum radiation, that's a characteristic of high-energy reactions).Ronnotel (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
"Merely" huh? Well, you could say that the paper's passing of those procedures indicates, at the very least, the presence of tolerance of the Millsian ideas in a relatively reputable journal. talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 16:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I am sure publishers love discussion around their content. But this is beside the point; there is no denying that hydrinos have a few proponents who may be, in some sense, in the "scientific community" - many/most pseudoscientific notions are in the same boat. But for Wikipedia's purposes Mills' stuff needs to be treated as pseudoscience (even though, at the moment, the article is rather indulgent in merely related this type of categorization as a widespread view). Like Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell BLP's offering is a thing which requires accepted science to be wrong, and as WP:FRINGE/PS guides us, this is de facto pseudoscience. Coicidentally, it was in part the "perpetual motion" aspects of BLP's claims that led (even) the USPTO to junk its patents. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
It would be more helpful to discuss the relative merits of the scientific evidence that has been presented rather than rely on the notion that discussing them could somehow endanger someone or something. Three years has passed since this article appeared, and no one has stepped forward with opposing evidence. Quite the contrary, Nick Glumac at UIUC, one of the world's foremost experts in energetic materials, has confirmed seeing the same results in his lab. Other replications have happened with researchers at Harvard and Rowan. It seems everyone who makes a serious effort at repeating the effect, actually sees the effect. Isn't that what typifies science? Ronnotel (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Citations? The only thing I find citing that paper is here, and it is about as dismissive of hydrinos as possible. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Lawlera and Goebel's conclusion is interesting. Hydrinos are "inconsistent with the known Universe". Bhny (talk) 20:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
What's inconsistent is the generation of continuum radiation, hydrino are merely one explanation. There may be other as yet unhypothesized explanations that don't disagree with observations yet still advance science. But how on earth are alternate explanations going to be found if the results are summarily suppressed? It seems like these results would make a good section for the article. Ronnotel (talk) 23:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Nothing is suppressed. We are just waiting for a reliable source to write about it. Bhny (talk) 02:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
So a top quartile scientific journal isn't a reliable source? What would be? Ronnotel (talk) 02:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Primary sources are best avoided. We should wait until a secondary source (e.g. Nature, Scientific American) mentions Lawlera and Goebel's paper before we say Hydrinos are "inconsistent with the known Universe". Bhny (talk) 02:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
(http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q=%2Bhydrino+-author:Mills+-author:Jansson+-author:Wu+-author:Glumac+-author:Phillips+-author:Nowak+-author:Clementson+-author:Ramanujachary+-author:Trunev+-site:blacklightpower.com+-site:newenergytimes.com+-site:93.74.24.136+-site:arxiv.org+-patents+-ether&hl=en&as_sdt=1,48&as_ylo=2008&as_vis=1) There is third-party reception of hydrino theory, but it is mostly centered in the LENR community. talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 09:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The editorial I cited is a secondary source, not a primary source. It explicitly comments on the state of hydrinos in the scientific community in general terms. While the article it refers to is a primary source, the editorial is not. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 09:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
What constitutes an "original material" depends on the context. As a rule of thumb, if the document is dramatically closer to the event than you are, then it should be treated as a primary source. For example, any ancient manuscript will be considered an "original document" by modern scholars. Wikipedia normally treats century-old newspaper reports as primary sources.
Person Simple example
Primary source material
  • An account of an event, written by an eyewitness.
  • Novel conclusions in scientific report.
  • Court filings, legal documents, and patents.
  • Speeches given by politicians or activists about their views and goals.
Secondary source material
  • A magazine article based on previous media reports.
  • A book about a historical event, based on letters and diaries written at the time.
  • A systematic review, or literature review that combines the results of previous research.
Tertiary source material
  • A modern encyclopedia or dictionary.
  • A book about a historical event, based entirely on other people's books about the event.
  • Most history and science textbooks intended for children.
Yes: "Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (no potential for personal, financial, or political gain from the publication)." This describes the relationship of the journal with respect to BlackLight Power. However, note:
Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent
So it is even more nuanced than what you are saying. (Yes, I know. This is dumb, but that's how this place is set up.) talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 13:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the editorial is quite clearly a secondary, reliable source. Insisting that only articles from specific, pre-determined publications are required in order to add material is tantamount to giving those editorial boards the power to censor and in practice will lead to suppression. As long as a secondary source meets the requirements spelled out in WP:RS, then that material must be considered for inclusion in the page. Ronnotel (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Almost right. The editorial is secondary, but written by the same people who decided to publish the primary paper on which that editorial comments. By definition, that is not independent and hence not reliable as a source for statements about the primary source. Further, the most interesting things stated in that editorial are about their reasons for publishing the primary source. Such statements are in fact primary observations about their own motivations. Hang in there, someday someone will find something useable published about these guys.LeadSongDog come howl! 22:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
No, that is incorrect. We agree the editorial is secondary. It is also independent because those who decided it warranted publishing were the two senior peer reviewers. The editors DID NOT unilaterally decide to publish the paper - that is the entire point of peer-review. In any case, even if your view was correct, the part of the editorial that matters here has nothing to do with the article, it is entirely their views on the standing of hydrinos in the scientific community that is the crucial issue. Arguably you couldn't ask for a better secondary source on that topic than an editorial by experts in this narrow field. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 23:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
This is a (probably common) misconception about scientific publishing held by individuals who have (mercifully) avoided spending much time with the process. The decision about whether or not to publish is at the sole discretion of the journal's editors. While they are generally guided in that decision by the comments of the peer reviewers, they are not bound by the reviewers' judgement. It is the editors who decide whether or not to ask for or accept revisions to the manuscript; it is the editors who decide whether to send a revised manuscript back to the reviewers or simply to accept the revised manuscript as-is; it is the editors who ultimately decide whether or not an author's rebuttal overcomes a reviewer's objections. It is the editors who select the peer reviewers in the first place – something which can make or break a paper – and they often do so based on suggestions provided by the authors. If editors don't like the comments they get back from reviewers, they are free to commission additional reviews. The idea of a journal editor being a passive, mechanical broker who simply matches up manuscripts with reviewers is simple, appealing, and mistaken. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
@Blippy: what exactly do you propose to add to this article (the subject of which is BLP), using that editorial as a source? It does not mention the subject. VQuakr (talk) 07:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Well I think there are a number of consequences of this editorial, but perhaps we should start with something in the Commentaries section along the lines of: In 2011 the editors-in-chief of a reputable physics journal characterised the hydrino hypothesis as being worthy of further scientific discussion and debate while acknowledging the "reservations...expressed by some members of the scientific community". Cheers, Blippy (talk) 08:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Is the paragraph quoted above starting "Despite the reservations..." proposed as the source for this claim? Are you aware that the quoted paragraph is the sort of thing that journal editors write when they have to justify a blunder? It would be equally admissible to add text along these lines: "In 2011 the editors-in-chief of a reputable physics journal had to respond to outrage from the scientific community that they had published an inappropriate article on a controversial postulate." Neither of these fanciful conclusions should appear in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 09:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
"-in-chief of a reputable physics journal characterised the hydrino hypothesis as being worthy of further scientific discussion" Ha nice one, teach the controversy eh? Second Quantization (talk) 19:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Neither of these two characterization of the editorials seems at all accurate. The editorial and the article appeared in the same issue. Therefore the editorial can hardly be an apology for the "blunder" of publishing the article when they had yet to actually publish. And the proposed statement is a fair summary of the intent of the editorial, not an attempt to gin up the "controversy" aspect. The editors identified a "profound" result that was worth of "discussion" in the scientific community and pointedly goes on to discourage suppression of the material. If there is a novel effect, surely it is up to science to find an explanation that can reconcile other observations. Someone please explain the parade of horribles that results in including this article in the page. Ronnotel (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Let's wait for the "discussion in the scientific community". As this is so exciting, soon there will be many secondary sources! (yes it is in a primary source, no you haven't found a magic loophole that makes it a secondary source) Bhny (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
As Ronnotel points out, that is far from a NPOV interpretation of the editorial, and even if it was, we can't rely on Johnuniq's telepathic link to the editors as the basis for rejecting it - unfortunately we have to take them at their written word that they are writing to further stimulate the scientific debate around hydrinos ;-) As for waiting for a secondary source, we have one - and a high quality one at that - no magical Bhny loopholes necessary. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 06:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
The editors identified a "profound" result... erm, no, and this is why we don't do one-word quotes. They stated the obvious - that if a source for cheap, effectively infinite energy were produced, the consequences would be profound. Anyways, I do not see anything in that one-paragraph editorial that advances an encyclopedic understanding of BLP. VQuakr (talk) 06:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
While the editors wrote that publishing this stuff is "in no sense" an endorsement, there is a thought here that Wikipedia can - in some sense - use this source as an endorsement of BLP. Even if this source were usable, that would be a misappropriation of it. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
My proposed edit doesn't say that the editors endorsed the hydrino hypothesis. It says they characterise it as worthy of further scientific debate. That is a very neutral statement, neither positive nor negative on the veracity of the claims. So while what you say is correct, i.e. that to imply they endorsed the hypothesis would be inaccurate, that isn't what my proposal does. It merely references their assessment of the scientific merit of the hypothesis, i.e. worth more scientific debate Cheers, Blippy (talk) 11:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
If the proposed edit is merely a statement of the obvious (scientific debate is good), why include it in the article? Johnuniq (talk) 12:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Well let me restate what I said earlier. This editorial is a WP:RS by experts in the field who refer to the hydrino hypothesis in two ways: i) that some members of the scientific community have reservations about it; and ii) that the hydrino hypothesis is worthy of serious scientific debate. The first point rebuts the inexpert opinion expressed here that the hydrino hypothesis is "nonsense on toast" implying it is rejected by all scientists. The second point rebuts the dominant view here that the hypothesis is not scientific. So neither of these things are obvious from the article as it stands, which is why it is important to include it in the article. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
They don't say it's not nonsense. For all we know they thought the thing that makes the hypothesis debate-worthy is that this pseudoscientific nonsense has been allowed to rumble on for so many years! Imputing some kind of value judgement to the editors comments is pure OR, especially in view of their disclaiming comments. What part of "in no way endorse" is hard to understand? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
They also don't say that Mills is a white supremacist leader and the reincarnation of Hitler. They also don't say that BLP is a front for the mafia. And, for all we know, they might think that hydrinos are actually some sort of homeopathic tincture that needs to be exposed after a bit of high profile schenanigans through their journal. The level of thinking on this is really taking a dive. We have a WP:RS which DOES say that some scientists have reservations about hydrinos. It also DOES say that the hydrino theory warrants further scientific debate. This isn't the stuff of scientology or cube world. This is an alternative theoretical formulation that is given considerably greater respect by these 5 experts in the field than by the experts working on this article :-) Cheers, Blippy (talk) 23:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Come off it, do we really think someone whose business is the publication of scientific debate will ever say a theory does "not warrant" further debate? Stirring the pot is just good business for them. One more reason to treat editorials with caution. LeadSongDog come howl! 01:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Come off it?!? You think a 6 year old blog by a non-expert is a better and more accurate source of information on the scientific merit of hydrinos than a 3 year old editorial from experts in the field. Your (and others') ability to impugn the motives of professionals working in the field who you don't agree with, and capacity to promulgate appallingly weak comment from a non-expert you do agree with illustrates the depths of irrationality at play here. In the spirit of AGF, could you have a go at imagining if it were the other way around? Imagine if I was proposing to insert a comment from a spurious blog that trumpets the value of hydrinos and wanted to remove material citing an editorial in a reputable journal that said hydrinos were bunk. Would you be trotting out such glib comments under those circumstances as well? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 11:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Stridency does not help. If there were any verified results indicating the arrival of a major breakthrough in physics, we would not need to tease apart comments from journal editors about why they published a paper. If there were any verified results showing that a new source of energy had been found, we would have a hundred reliable sources to choose from. Per WP:REDFLAG, extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, not the good wishes of some journal editors. Johnuniq (talk) 11:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
And avoiding the question does help? As soon as unreasonable and fallacious thinking is demonstrated there seems to be a tendency to change the subject. If the situation were reversed would you be arguing in favour of a 6 year old blog entry (or even a 15 year old blog!!) or not? I'd say that's quite an extraordinary claim right there! Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

(undent)So here we are arguing over an editorial statement by a high quality journal calling for scientific debate on Mills' findings. At the same time, the article's lede is dominated by a 15-year-old throw-away comment attributing these findings to "fraud". The tone of the article is clearly at odds with the evidence and significantly violative of WP:BLP. Can we at least agree on that? Ronnotel (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

When the scientific debate happens and is reported in a reliable secondary source then we will gladly update the article. Bhny (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
You are arguing, against policy, to maintain the status quo pending additional sources to appear. However, the harm being done by the existing, flagrant WP:BLP violation is real and ongoing. What possible justification is there for unfairly besmirching legitimate sources in order to perpetuate an unfair besmirching of someone's reputation? Ronnotel (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
What "legitimate sources"? There is no "flagrant WP:BLP violation". And nothing "unfair". In accordance with the WP:PAGs, we are obliged neutrally to reflect the overwhelming mainstream, reliable, well-sourced view: this hyrdrino stuff is bollocks. If and when that changes, WP will follow. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
"Bollocks" is a strong term Alexbrn, and certainly not an accurate summary of the views expressed by the journal editors. The editorial is a legitimate source, and it is unfair/biased to pretend it doesn't exist whilst giving so much prominence to weaker sources in the article. I am not advocating removal of mainstream views, but I think recognition of how hydrinos are received by the experts in the field - who by definition are not exactly mainstream - is important to maintaining accuracy. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 09:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
In the last nine months, your contributions have been entirely focused on this article, except for a single talk page comment elsewhere that you removed. Persistence can be good, but in a fringe topic under discretionary sanctions, such persistence is unhelpful as responses from other editors require too much time and trouble—such time and trouble would be fine if there were any commensurate benefit to the article. However, it has been explained that the editorial cannot be used as a source to confer legitimacy on the subject, and persisting with such a flimsy source in a WP:REDFLAG area is disruptive. Johnuniq (talk) 11:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Other editors agrees the editorial is a secondary source, and it is hardly flimsy. So while it supports a view not covered by mainstream sources, it does represent a significant one for this article i.e. the view of experts in the field in question. It isn't clear to me how suggesting an inclusion along those lines is being disruptive? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've taken this to wp:RSN where it belongs. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

erroneous reference in second paragraph

New to Wikipedia so excuse my lack of knowledge. Wanted to point out that there is a clear error in the reference in the second paragraph to a comment by Steven Chu. Footnote(8) which is the cited source for the quote is an article published in 1999 not 2009. Steven Chu's comment was obviously made sometime before the article was published in 1999 so the indication in the article that it was in 2009 is obviously incorrect. From the article, it is clear that Chu's quote was in response to an inquiry from the media about a novel idea (lower energy hydrogen)and was not based on any direct experimental results or detailed analysis by Chu. In the very same article, there are quotes from qualified individuals who claimed to have actually conducted experiments that obtained results that were consistent with BLP results. There is no explanation as to why the outdated quotes from Chu are worth citing while supportive comments from other experts in the very same article are ignored even thought the supportive comments were based on viewing experimental reports whereas the Chu comment was not. 216.162.154.41 (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)smenton

You can blame this Bull Rangifer right here, yer see? talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 01:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

"Loser" technology

I question whether it is necessary to use the phrase "'loser' technology" to describe IEEE Spectrum's characterization of this company. Although it is an accurate description of the article, the term in not really meaningful out of context. Either more context should be added, e.g. "IEEE Spectrum characterized BlackLightPower as a 'loser' technology on a list of best and worst emerging technologies for 2009", or the phrase should be removed entirely. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The IEEE magazine commented on a number of technologies categorizing them as "winner" or "loser" for that year (2009). I don't think this is entirely clear from our text as it stands. "In 2009 IEEE Spectrum Magazine picked that year's 'winners' and 'losers' and placed BLP in the 'loser' category" maybe? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
It's fine and literally what they said. People can look at the ref if they need more details. Bhny (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
In summary, the phrase is not necessary but the dynamics of Wikipedia will cause it to stick there in the article for sometime. talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 04:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
The phrase is there because that is what they said. It stays there because it is reliable resource and one of the few high profile publications that wrote about the topic. Bhny (talk) 04:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not disputing that it's a useful source, I just don't think that quoting that specific phrase is helpful or even meaningful without context. I'll just go ahead and add the context I suggested above, and if someone has a better idea they can go ahead and implement it. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 07:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually I can't fix it because the page is protected. It looks like there is consensus to keep the phrase, so could someone with the ability to edit the article add some context? Thanks. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 07:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
There's no consensus to fix anything. It already gives plenty of context considering it is in the lead. It doesn't need more- a "loser" technology because "[m]ost experts don't believe such lower states exist, and they say the experiments don't present convincing evidence" and mentioned that Wolfgang Ketterle had said the claims are "nonsense" Bhny (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Everyone who has commented except you has agreed that it should be improved. But I guess if you own the article, then you have the final say. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes you have a point, I'm the only one that said do nothing. I think Kmarinas86- "the phrase is not necessary" was arguing for deleting it entirely. Bhny (talk) 23:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Whether or not the phrase "loser technology" should remain has been hashed out a number of times before. See the archives. I also say "loser technology" should remain in the article. There is no evidence that hydrinos exist, that there is any evidence of hydrino formation. "Loser technology" is sourced by a reputable journal. Given the lack of evidence it seems to be a fitting description. Jim1138 (talk) 07:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree that this is a thoroughly discredited technology, that IEEE Spectrum is a reliable source, etc. I disagree that the phrase has any meaning without context. It's clear that the technology is being denigrated, but the precise meaning is unclear. A little context such as I have suggested above would help clarify the intended meaning: a technology that has no future, that is notably a failure, as contrasted with "winner" technologies that show great usefulness and promise. Its placement on a list of winners and losers also demonstrates that it is being singled out as an especially bad technology, out of the numerous failed ideas in any given period .67.188.230.128 (talk) 07:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

If you have an idea for a rephrase that would not be WP:SYNTH, etc., and maintains the intent, please suggest it. A "from" / "to" would be the recommended format - see WP:Edit requests Jim1138 (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jim1138: Thanks, see below. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

Current text: In 2009 IEEE Spectrum magazine characterized it as a "loser" technology because ... and mentioned ...

Proposed text: IEEE Spectrum magazine characterized it as a "loser" technology on a list of winners and losers for 2009, stating that ... and mentioning that ...

The elided parts would remain the same. See above discussion for rationale. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Note that the text as proposed is a little cumbersome. Suggestions for better phrasing are welcome. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EoRdE6 (talk) 02:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

deletions for debate

exclusion of Rowan University Research grants

From 2007 to 2010 Rowan University receaved $647,315 in Research grants from BLP.

[1]Alexbrn : Rmv. improperly-sourced; wd need secondaries.

Sources used: Rowan University annual reports

  • 2007-2008 - $35,000 [2]
  • 2008-2009 - $381,146 [3]
  • 2009-2010 - $231,169 [4]

It seems fine to me Alex. University annual reports may be expected to be excessively vetted. I cant think of any mechanism by witch the information could be doctored by outsiders or why their final revision would have mistakes in them. How do you imagine this to be possible?

84.106.11.117 (talk) 09:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

If the Rowan grants were significant they'd be covered by independent secondary sources. Are they? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
You are to explain how they are inaccurate. I'm just documenting their involvement. 84.106.11.117 (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
ok great, so no independent verification and no secondary sources to help us see that these grants deserve any WP:WEIGHT. The matter stays out until we have sources that help us with that. Jytdog (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
The notability of the relationship was already established, there is No original research. Neutral point of view is distorted by your intend to portray events as if they happened 12 years ago. This is demonstrably inaccurate. The annual reports demonstrate Verifiability that BLP granted research funds to the university.
I will grant you these CONSPIRACY THEORIES that the university professor in the company lab[5] is actually CGI with high tech voice over, that BLP is elaborately lying about funding research all over their website for 12 years and that they paid CBS news[6] and New Jersy Business News[7] to further propagate "THE BIG LIE".
But where you suggest that Mills also doctored the University Annual reports, there your story really gets a bit to much even for Wikipedia. I could use less polite terms. 84.106.11.117 (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
at this point i have no idea what you are talking about. sorry. Jytdog (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm suppose to explain to you how the relationship between Blacklight Power and Rowan university is relevant to the section about Rowan University on the Blacklight Power article? This is what you are asking? Seriously? 84.106.11.117 (talk) 23:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
The editor, Alexbrn, is asking for a secondary source. Please read WP:PRIMARY. Facts aren't included in articles just because they exist and are true. Things need to be notable enough to be written in a secondary source. Your writing here is very difficult to understand. I'm guessing you are trying to be sarcastic, but it comes off as incomprehensible. (CGI professors?) You'll get further if you state things plainly. Bhny (talk) 02:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
"PRIMARY" is a redirect to the No original research policy. This policy only concerns it self with how reliable sources are. It aims to exclude materials if, and only if, the sources are not reliable enough for the statement.
While you guys just sit there I provide links to 3 annual reports and 2 news publications:
  • Rowan University annual reports
  • 2007-2008 - $35,000 [8]
  • 2008-2009 - $381,146 [9]
  • 2009-2010 - $231,169 [10]
"Neutral point of view", specifically the section "Due and undue weight" where "WP:WEIGHT" redirects: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, DEPTH OF DETAIL, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."
I added 10 whole words and 3 numbers to the section: "From 2007 to 2010 Rowan University received $647,315 in Research grants from BLP." There is nothing excessive about this. I'm not going to further entertain such argument.
On "NOTEWORTHY": You will find there that the term "Notability" is used on Wikipedia to describe the criteria if an article should or should not exist. It does not apply to content within an article.
Reading Reliable sources will give you all the wisdom required to go search for some sources yourself. That way you wont have to ask other editors to do it for you. Who knows, you might one day make a constructive contribution to this article yourself?
Do try to restrain yourself from making up further excuses why this sentence must be excluded. Either way, it is going back in the article until you do.
84.106.11.117 (talk) 09:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I'll put it simply. An annual report is a primary source. "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources" not primary sources. I'm not talking about your other links, just the annual reports. (I have no opinion on your other links) Annual reports aren't something we use because as the WP:PRIMARY link says we use secondary sources. The link goes to a section that explains what primary, secondary and tertiary sources are. I think you may have missed that section. Bhny (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY is a shortcut to the section "Primary, secondary and tertiary sources" of the No original research policy.

You claim it says:

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources" not primary sources.

While the actual text of the policy sub section is:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources.

Unaware that they may be used, you are certainly unaware how one should go about doing that.

And what is "I have no opinion on your other links" suppose to mean? Please remove yourself from this talk page if you are not going to address the topic. 84.106.11.117 (talk) 08:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

exclusion of peer reviewed papers co-authored by Mills

Publications in Journal of Molecular Structure & Journal of Applied Physics by R.L. Mills, P. Ray, B. Dhandapani, M. Nansteel, X. Chen and J. He and Jonathan Phillips.

[11]Alexbrn : We prefer independent secondaries per WP:SCIRS. Kindly discuss on Talk rather than edit warring.

That depends entirely on what the source is used for. Even WP:FRINGE makes it clear that primary sources may be used carefully. Even if a theory lacks all mainstream support and has few supporters it shall be included IF the Wikipedia article is about that topic or the author. Even the subjects own website may be used to source his or her statements, provided you do it carefully and within consensus of course.

[12]Jytdog : remove content based on WP:PRIMARY sourcees per WP:OR

Linking twice to the same guideline doesn't change that it says at the top of the page:

The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.

The Journal of Molecular Structure and the Journal of Applied Physics are notable published sources. I'm not using them for statements of fact, I'm merely documenting that these publications exist and what they describe. I will eventually, for example, add a selection of granted patents to the page[13][14], not as scientific evidence but as proof of the existence of patents.

If the issue is that I've listed the study under experimental result (I'm guessing here) perhaps it would be appropriate to have a list of Randell L. Mills published papers at the end of the page, the way we usually do with scientists, inventors, economists and story tellers. Like so:

Papers by Randal L. Mills

84.106.11.117 (talk) 09:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

In addition to the issues raised by Alexbrn about independence, every content policy (WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:VERIFY) strongly urges us to secondary sources. There are many reasons for this but the main two, are that secondary sources allow us to avoid problems with UNDUE and avoids WP:OR in the selection by an editor of particular primary sources - in cherry-picking sources that please some editor's POV. On top of that, in science, there are many many publications of research. Many of those turn out to be dead ends, and are not marked as such in any way in the actual literature. The way that we know where a field stands with regard to any theory or on a smaller scale, hypothesis, is in review articles - secondary sources. And WP:controversial articles also urges editors to use the best sourcing possible in such articles. We could maybe cite those papers in additional reading or the like, but we shouldn't be generating content from them. Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Of course we cant mention peer reviewed studies co-authored by the subject of the articles, we should pretend those dont exist, that is why we link to their website and mention Mills book. Because such things are out of the question. The topic is simply not relevant to the topic. Thanks for clearing that up! Or wait... 84.106.11.117 (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Getting to the point, there's no need to have the funding details in the article, but they do demonstrate, for purposes of source vetting, that Rowan's investigators were not independent of BLP, as BLP has repeatedly claimed. Normal practice at reputable journals is to have the investigators explicitly state any such COI in their papers. Did they? LeadSongDog come howl! 17:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

This section is to debate exclusion of papers co-authored by the subject from the experimental results section of the article. It is not about the exclusion of investors from the funding section.
That said, you are correct that omitting the University involvement distorts objectivity. If you want to defend the idea that there would be reasonable doubt that they've been involved over the last 12 years, that should go in the section right above this one. 84.106.11.117 (talk) 12:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
There's no need for debate on this. We never rely on primary sources for the support of wp:REDFLAG incredible claims like free energy, perpetual motion machines, antigravity devices, virgin birth, karmic flying, etc. There is no reason for this article to be a special exception to the rule. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view :"Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."
WP:Controversial articles: "An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant."
WP:FRINGE : "In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal." 84.106.11.117 (talk) 09:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Exclusion of investors from investment section

  • [15] Alexbrn :"rv. content deletion, puffing-up & watering down"
  • The accusation of "puffing-up" refers to: "private investors like James T. Lenehan who was president of Johnson & Johnson"
  • Source used: http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/loser-hot-or-not/0
  • Exact citation: "All the while Mills has proved himself a terrific salesman. He has raised capital from various sources, including utilities Conectiv Energy Supply and PacifiCorp and private investors like former Johnson & Johnson president Jim Lenehan."
  • businessweek: "Former director of Blacklight Power" [16]
  • Forbes profile [17]

If there is something wrong with mentioning him you need to do better than "puffing-up". 84.106.11.117 (talk) 12:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

We don't need an exhaustive list; there's quite a lot already and adding more risks being undue (i.e. puffy). Also not mentioning Mills' salesman prowess that's in the source is probably a bit selective too. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
What we need is for you to stop deleting all of my contributions.
  • The argument that "there is quite a lot already" is nonsense.
  • Rambling about some irrelevant part of the source will be ignored.
  • IEEE Spectrum magazine being selective will also be ignored.
You've provided no valid excuse, my contribution will now be restored. 84.106.11.117 (talk) 08:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Exclusion of investment advisory

  • [18] Alexbrn :"rv. content deletion, puffing-up & watering down"

The "content deletion" refers to the investment advisory:

  • "In 2008, Robert L. Park wrote that BLP has benefited from wealthy investors who allocate a proportion of their funds to risky ventures with a potentially huge upside, but that in the case of BLP since the science underlying the offering was "just wrong" the investment risk was, in Park's view, "infinite"."

I don't believe we do investment advice on Wikipedia, then he is a physicist and he is cited all over the article: We find his opinion in 1) the "Rowan University" section, 2) the "Legal threats to physicists" section, 3) the "Patent issues" section and 4) he also has his own section. The physicist is a reliable source for criticism in all of these but (even if we entertain the idea that kind of thing would be appropriate to have in Wikipedia articles) he is unreliable for investment advise. His "huge risk" assessment is simply an extrapolation of the "underlying offering" that we've sufficiently covered elsewhere in their appropriate sections.84.106.11.117 (talk) 12:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not "advice", it's expert opinion from a guy who is well-reputed for general commentary in the world of physics. Which is no doubt why he was published in a reputable publication which we quite properly can cite. As an independent commentator his view is particular useful in enabling us to follow the guidance in WP:FRINGE, which applies to this article. We need to be careful to follow the WP:PAGs. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
The section is not about "the underlying offering". The source is an article promoting his own books, it makes no more than a cursory reference to Mills and it is not publicly available.
The citation is: "Companies frequently designate a percentage of these funds for investment in high-risk, high-payoff startups. Most will fail, but it is a hedge against technological obsolescence. Mills had just what they were looking for—except the risk was infinite."
The text was doctored to make it look as if he was talking about Blacklight Power in specific. It should be obvious that Blacklight Power involves a lot more people than just Mills. The text is not talking about investors either, in stead it talks about companies designating funds? What companies? What funds? 84.106.11.117 (talk) 08:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Wait, you're arguing about a source you've not even read? (and which contains a lot of pertinent material we're not using, incidentally). The text here was not "doctored" - Park is discussing BLP and you have erroneously changed the text. The source has:

While the physics community ignored or scoffed at Mills' preposterous claims, a number of power companies saw BlackLight as just the place to invest their cash surplus. Companies frequently designate a percentage of these funds for investment in high-risk, high-payoff startups. Most will fail, but it is a hedge against technological obsolescence. Mills had just what they were looking for--except the risk was infinite.

The source goes on to how Morgan Stanley wanted patent protection for the IPR before it would emark on taking BlackLight public, and the patent/legal wrangles that followed ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you can extend the Park section with some more Park opinion. I still don't see why we are citing a physicist in the funding section. You do understand that "Fraud in science" is quite different from "Fraud in finance"? 84.106.11.117 (talk) 08:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
We don't want too much Park. Excessive criticism of BLP would be undue. As a former information director of the APS and a prominent skeptic, Park is well-qualiied to talk outside the confines of hard science, which (to repeat) is no doubt why his piece was published in a respectable academic journal, which gives the basis for its use on Wikipedia. In the light of that, your personal opinion on whether Park is qualified or not is of no consequence. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Why not? If he wrote extensively about BLP it seems worth having his criticism. While it is true that we may cite him in the funding section that doesn't change it is a poor choice to cite him outside his area of expertise. His section has very little about physics? Is there nothing better? 84.106.11.117 (talk) 09:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Risk is a measure of the probability of an adverse outcome, or that probability times the amount at risk, such as the number of jobs or a sum of money, etc.. There is no infinite risk because there is no infinite probability, and there is nothing infinite at stake. talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 23:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Restoring broken template?

Resolved

It is all very nice to accuse me of edit waring, bad editing, lack of consensus, promotional editing, getting me blocked for 72 hours and having the article locked away from my contributions. Now, if it is not to much to ask I would like some explanation why this contribution was reverted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BlackLight_Power&diff=639586938&oldid=639585622

I kindly request to have it explained to me if this edit is either 1) Bad editing, 2) a lack of consensus or 3) edit warring I ask this so that I may avoid repeating such mistakes in the future. Alternatively, if you perhaps want some explanation what "not supported in citation template" means. I can explain that too, all you need to do is ask. 84.106.11.117 (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

fixing references

Resolved

I was banned for 72 hours for edit warring, sorry about that. One of my offending contributions (if not the) was removing 8 out of the 9 wikilinks to Park.[19] Here is the relevant guideline.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#What_generally_should_not_be_linked

  • 'Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead.

The first occurrence of Park would be in the funding section. Plastering the reference section with Park wikilinks is not necessary. That said, I do encourage you to plaster the article with park citations. I'm not here to promote BLP but if you want to promote Park here I wont be the one to raise issues with that. As long as you do it within policy, edit and style guidelines. 84.106.11.117 (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Right. "Footnotes" includes the reference list. That said, the refs have many problems to fix before overlinking needs consideration. How about tackling the basics like ensuring each has an author, title, and date first? LeadSongDog come howl! 18:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
There is no formal working order. This section is redundant as the links have been cleaned up. Ill make a "fixing references" section for the author, title, and date fixes "debate". 84.106.11.117 (talk) 10:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2014

The following sources need templates.

  • Erik Baard (Tuesday, Dec 21 1999) "Dr. Randell Mills says he can change the face of physics. The Scientfic Establishment thinks he's nuts." Quantum Leap
  • Baard, Erik (Dec 21, 1999). "Dr. Randell Mills says he can change the face of physics. The Scientfic Establishment thinks he's nuts". Quantum Leap.
  • {{cite web | author=Baard, Erik | date=Dec 21, 1999 |url=http://www.villagevoice.com/1999-12-21/news/quantum-leap/| title=Dr. Randell Mills says he can change the face of physics. The Scientfic Establishment thinks he's nuts. |publisher=Quantum Leap}}
  • can be removed
  • Matt Marshall (January 4, 2006 7:47 AM) "Blacklight Power gets $50M; but is it profound, or utter nonsense?" VentureBeat
  • Marshall, Matt (Jan 4, 2006). "Blacklight Power gets $50M; but is it profound, or utter nonsense?". VentureBeat.
  • <ref name="mattVB">{{cite web | author=Marshall, Matt | date=Jan 4, 2006 |url=http://venturebeat.com/2006/01/04/blacklight-power-gets-50m-but-is-it-profound-or-utter-nonsense/ | title=Blacklight Power gets $50M; but is it profound, or utter nonsense? |publisher=VentureBeat}}</ref>
  • same article as above, have to chose or combine?
  • Matt Marshall (January 4, 2006 7:47 AM) "Blacklight Power gets $50M; but is it profound, or utter nonsense?" SiliconBeat
  • Marshall, Matt (Jan 4, 2006). "Blacklight Power gets $50M; but is it profound, or utter nonsense?". SiliconBeat.
  • <ref name="mattSB">{{cite web | author=Marshall, Matt | date=Jan 4, 2006 |url=http://www.siliconbeat.com/entries/2006/01/04/blacklight_power_gets_50m_but_is_it_profound_or_utter_nonsense.html | title=Blacklight Power gets $50M; but is it profound, or utter nonsense? |publisher=SiliconBeat}}</ref>
  • Camille Ricketts (December 11, 2008 9:57 AM) "BlackLight Power lands first license agreement for electricity from … water?" VentureBeat
  • Ricketts, Camille (Dec 11, 2008). "BlackLight Power lands first license agreement for electricity from … water?". VentureBeat.
  • <ref name="camVB">{{cite web | author=Ricketts, Camille | date=Dec 11, 2008 |url=http://venturebeat.com/2008/12/11/blacklight-power-lands-first-license-agreement-for-electricity-from-water/ | title=BlackLight Power lands first license agreement for electricity from … water? |publisher=VentureBeat}}</ref>
  • Blacklight Power press release "BlackLight Power Inc. Announces First Commercial License with Estacado Energy Services Non-Exclusive License to produce up to 250 MW of continuous power"
  • "BlackLight Power Inc. Announces First Commercial License with Estacado Energy Services". Blacklight Power. Dec 11, 2008.
  • {{cite web |title=BlackLight Power Inc. Announces First Commercial License with Estacado Energy Services |url=http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/Press%20Releases/BlackLightProcessEstacadoPressRelease121108.html |date=Dec 11, 2008|publisher=Blacklight Power}}
  • Lloyd Nelson (Dec 20, 2013) "20 Middlesex companies receive part of $60 million state grant" New Jersey On-Line LLC.
  • Nelson, Lloyd (Dec 20, 2013). "20 Middlesex companies receive part of $60 million state grant". New Jersey On-Line LLC.
  • {{cite web |title=20 Middlesex companies receive part of $60 million state grant |url=http://www.nj.com/middlesex/index.ssf/2013/12/20_middlesex_companies_receive_part_of_60_million_state_grant.html |author=Nelson, Lloyd |date=Dec 20, 2013|publisher=New Jersey On-Line LLC.}}
  • same as above
  • <ref name="camVB"/>
  • Blacklight Power management
  • "Blacklight Power management". Blacklight Power.
  • {{cite web |title=Blacklight Power management |url=http://www.blacklightpower.com/business/management/ |publisher=Blacklight Power}}


  • First ref <ref name="parkorigin"> has broken links that can be replaced by archive links. (It can be found in the Claims section.)
  • <ref name="parkorigin">{{cite web |title=What's New Friday, 26 April 1991 Washington, DC |author=Robert L. Park |url=http://wayback.archive.org/web/20131030085050/http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN91/wn042691.html |date=April 26, 1991}} and {{cite web |title=What's New Friday, October 31, 2008 |author=Robert L. Park |url=http://wayback.archive.org/web/20141217104334/http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN08/wn103108.html |date=October 31, 2008}}</ref>


84.106.11.117 (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Done --Mdann52talk to me! 15:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Was Rowan Unversity involved after 2002 or not? part II

It is all very nice to accuse me of edit waring, bad editing, lack of consensus, promotional editing, getting me blocked for 72 hours and having the article locked away from my contributions.

But since you've asked for sources right here:[20] and my contribution did include 2 additional sources as per your request right here:[21] but you still chose to revert it right here:[22] I kindly request to have it explained to me if this edit is either 1) Bad editing, 2) a lack of consensus or 3) edit warring. I ask this so that I may avoid repeating such mistakes in the future.

Let me provide a 3rd source for good measures:

http://venturebeat.com/2008/10/21/blacklight-power-bolsters-its-impossible-claims-of-a-new-renewable-energy-source/

In total you now have BLP claiming to be working with the university, the University claiming to be working with BLP, 3 news sources and numerous youtube videos showing Rowan university people in the BLP lab. The later isn't a source but a clue. Just for shits and giggles I will also cite park 2008:

An engineering team from Rowan University in New Jersey, headed by Peter Jansson, reports that, following BlackLight's procedures using material supplied by Blacklight, it has confirmed the energy production. But they are silent on the hydrino explanation.[23]<ref name="parkorigin"/>

Thus, notable skeptic reports? no? This is again a clue not a source of course.

Note: It cant have been the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts investigation he is referring to because they list a certain Marchese, Anthony J as the Principal Investigator: [24]

I will try find more sources assuming other editors are still (magically) unsure about post 2002 university involvement. 84.106.11.117 (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

My recollection from previous investigations about the Rowan work (you'll have to check our archives for details) is that BLP handed them a 'black box' and some research funding. Their instructions were to pass electricity into it and to measure the amount of heat and electricity coming out of it. They did that - and reported back that they did indeed measure more coming out than went in. Hooray!
However, since they only worked on it for a relatively short amount of time - and since they were not allowed to dismantle it and look inside, we have no way to know whether the device was (for example) stuffed full of AAA batteries! Since this was clearly a totally flawed/rigged study with zero scientific merit, it really doesn't deserve much mention.
In science, reproducing an experiment means reproducing the equipment required to do so. To make that happen, BLP would have to have allowed Rowan to build a "black box" of their own, from the same specifications, so they could verify that no cheating had gone on in the process. BLP's demand for secrecy prevent that from happening, and that lack of true reproducibility makes their wild claims less than believable.
SteveBaker (talk) 03:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Did Roosevelt County Electric actually buy anything in 2008, and did BLP actually deliver?

In the section headed "Funding", the article currently includes the statement,

In December 2008, BLP reached a licencing agreement with the Roosevelt County Electric Cooperative for a maximum of 250 MW in heat and/or electricity.[17][18]

sourced to

So we're a little more than six years later, what's happened? Did RCEC (the Roosevelt County Electric Cooperative) ever give any money to BLP? Did RCEC ever actually receive or install or test any equipment? Surely if there were actual equipment running we would have heard something new from RCEC? For that matter, wouldn't BLP be trumpeting their success, if there had been any?

Looking at the sources we have, VentureBeat is a great way to get a puff piece on your new technology-business venture...but it's not really a hard-hitting in-depth news outlet. (Incidentally, that article also mentions Mills' claim that "independent approval of its full 50-kW reactor will come within a year", I presume that's also gone nowhere?) Meanwhile, BlackLight Power's own press release is weak as a source for self-serving declarations, for obvious reasons. Both sources are very light on what the details of the deal actually were, and obviously neither one is able to tell us what's happened in the years since. BLP's press release, I am amused to note, includes the bold declaration that "BlackLight Power is committed to announcing all future progress as it occurs." Ahem.

Checking the archives of this talk page, it seems that SteveBaker did a bit of checking back in 2011, as part of a broader discussion at Talk:BlackLight Power/Archive 4#Deliveries?. It appears that RCEC (a small New Mexico electric utility company) created a wholly-owned subsidiary shell company called Estacado Energy Services which actually had the agreement (whatever it was) with BLP. I can't find any mention of Estacado since the BLP announcement, and a search for it on the RCEC website comes up empty-handed. I'm not sure that the company has any meaningful existence any more, and I suspect that it pretty much only ever existed on paper.

If there's no evidence that this deal ever generated anything but press releases, it should probably be removed from the article as just a little bit more pointless fluff. We shouldn't be implying that BLP has any actual energy-generating products when, well, they don't. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah - it seems like something as major as this would either be successful - and announced everywhere to the amazement of all, the shaming of others, and the awarding of Nobel Prizes to BLP...or Big Important Questions would be being asked, along with lawsuits against BLP...or someone, somewhere getting thrown in jail for misuse of funds, negligence, etc.
The one outcome I'd never have predicted would be complete and utter silence. It's quite puzzling. SteveBaker (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
agreed. i removed it. many deals are signed but what matters is what happens. the absolute silence is a sign that discussing this at all is WP:UNDUE. Jytdog (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I am inclined to suspect there weren't any lawsuits because there probably weren't any significant amounts of money involved. (Heck, it's even plausible that any money might have flowed from BLP to the handful of tiny utilities that participated, rather than the other way around. The little utility would get a bit of cash to cover the cost of setting up a paper subsidiary, and BLP would get their press release announcing the deal. Everybody wins—and nobody has any incentive to make any follow-up announcements.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
The RCEC site (Here: http://www.rcec.org/content/integrated-resources-irp) says that it's required to produce a 5 year report under the Energy Policy Act of 1992. The most recent of which is dated 2012 - you can read it here:
http://www.rcec.org/sites/rcecrcec/files/PDF/2014%20Web%20info/Your%20Co-op/IRP_2012.pdf
It discusses how much energy they sold, how much they bought, how much they generated and how. How they attempted to find new ways to obtain it - as well as how they tried to reduce the amount of energy consumed by their customers. They talk about various plant options that they'd evaluated and detail exactly what money they paid in that regard.
NOWHERE in that entire report does it mention BLP or any kind of revolutionary new power source...NOTHING...zip, nada. Not a word, not a hint about some exciting new development...NOTHING.
Furthermore, their total annual power generation for 2011 was 270 MW...so if BLP's device were remotely operational at 250MW, then it would have supplied almost 100% the power they'd need. This would not have been a small blip. Even if BLP were operating at (say) 10% of claimed output, then it would have been a big-ticket item that would have shown up in their bottom line. They do mention other technologies that they investigate over those 5 years, including a system for burning trash to generate power...but nothing that seems remotely like a BLP product.
This seems to me to be conclusive proof that nothing was ever delivered to them.
I think I'll email them and see if they can shed any light on the matter. SteveBaker (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Nice detective work. Thanks!! Jytdog (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
We can do better. The subsidiary of RCEC that actually licensed the power plant is "Estacado Energy Services Inc." which has registered offices at 309 South Avenue A, Portales NM. Google Maps reveals a cheesy sign outside of that location that reads: "The Historic Traveller's Inn Apartments, 309 South Avenue A."...a very small apartment building, about a block away from RCEC's offices. Since no apartment number is listed, they're probably just using it as a mail drop...which is an odd thing to do since their parent company's office building is about 100 feet away.
CorporationWiki says that Estacado was filed as a "foreign for-profit corporation" in 2005 and that it's currently "inactive". "Foreign" in this case means that it was filed outside of New Mexico...from Texas in this case, not outside the USA. It's reasonable to assume that Estacado was a shell company, probably created for this one transaction. SteveBaker (talk) 03:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure how robust the CorporationWiki information is. You can pull the annual reports for RCEC going back to 2006, though; they're apparently public records in New Mexico: [25]. Estacado Energy Services (EES) is identified as a wholly-owned subsidiary which shares is board with RCEC and has no employees of its own. It was created in 2005, and it has something like $30,000 in assets (mostly a cash balance that doesn't change much from year to year).
I'm not an expert in these things, but it seems that the principal reason for EES's existence is that it allows RCEC to sell the services of its employees to outside companies on a for-profit basis when those employees aren't needed for in-house work. (Say, for example, a neighbouring utility were to undertake a program to upgrade its customers' electricity meters. That other utility could contract with EES, who would then schedule RCEC employees to do the work. The other utility would pay EES for the services and equipment, and EES would return that money to RCEC.) I'm guessing that EES needs to be a separate entity on paper because there's some complicated legal (probably tax-related) reason why RCEC can't directly sell its own services for profit. The income statements for EES and RCEC are consolidated in the annual reports (that is, all the transactions between the two entities have been collapsed together, so that they are treated effectively as a single entity).
Exactly what all that means or implies for a BLP agreement isn't clear. It certainly doesn't seem likely that RCEC/EES would have been putting in any up-front money. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2016

Nothing useful here ...
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Do you guys realize how screwed you are going to be when the SunCell is released this year and the full extent of your continual efforts to defame Blacklight Power is uncovered for the entire world to see? Imagine the opportunity costs of just one year of suppression of the technology behind the SunCell. We are talking literally trillions of dollars; now multiply that by the decades long crusade perpetuated by team sycophant morons here and you will have an idea of the extent of crap that is about to hit the fan. Hope you enjoy going down in history as members of the elite few who tried their darndest to hold back real scientific progress for a couple of decades. We'll look forward to seeing your true identities revealed and plastered all over the news. 50.178.165.9 (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done No edit requested, just a rant. Ravensfire (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 Not done No edit request made. Alexbrn (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Nothing useful here ...
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Of note, Whois gives 50.178.165.9's ISP as Comcast with an location of Mt Laurel, NJ 08054 about 35 miles SW from BLP's given address of 493 Old Trenton Rd. Cranbury, NJ 08512 Jim1138 (talk) 07:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Patent application activity

Checking up on activities at the European Patent Office, I came across an application EP 2966723  and this search opinion filed last month. Paragraph 3 of the opinion is an interesting analysis, particularly 3.3, where the opinion states that "The experimental data given on pages 146-232 of the present application do not appear plausible as many of the experiments are reported to provide an infinite energy gain (see, for example, the first experiment of page 146). This means that energy is generated out of nothing, i.e. a perpetuum mobile has been created. Perpetuum mobiles and infinite energy gains are also contrary to wel-established physics." LeadSongDog come howl! 17:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

BlackLight Power now Brilliant Light Power

The company seems to now be named Brilliant Light Power. Clicking on the Home link on http://blacklightpower.com takes you a page titled "Brilliant Light Power". clicking on the Home link takes you to to http://BrilliantLightPower.com. Time to move the article? Jim1138 (talk) 04:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

While not a usable source, this appears to confirm the name change, effective November 2015. No problem here moving the article. Ravensfire (talk) 15:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
It appears many news sites echoing blp.com's announcement.
Jim1138 (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Moved. Citations may need updating. Jim1138 (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2016

Please add the following at the end of the section titled: == Legal threats to physicists ==


Legal threats were also made against Engineers Australia in 2016 relating to alleged copyright infringements following the publication of powerpoint presentation slides of an independent evaluation of Brilliant Light Power technology claims.

Simon brink (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 12:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2016

Hello- I am currently registered with Wikipedia and as this page only requires registration in order to edit I would like to have permission to do so, thank you. Much of the verbage in this article is out of date and should be updated. Leon Gonzalez

LeonGonzalez (talk) 16:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Claims section

The Claims section of the main article is out of date.

There is a substantial history of evolving claims since the "cold fusion" events mentioned in this section. These claims are important to describing the subsequent (and current) activities of Brilliant Light Power, the subject of this article, and its precursors.

I would be willing to propose updates to this section, but I sense that editing is very contentious here and I am not sure what level of citation is expected to support a statement "R. Mills claimed X in year Y". Are direct citations to refereed and non-refereed publications appropriate? Secondary sources like Holverstott's recent book? Blacklight Power and Brilliant Light Power web pages?

What guidance can be offered to a contributor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.40.237 (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:PSCI. WP:BESTSOURCES. WP:POVSOURCE. WP:SYN. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Note: the text below is a work in progress. It was initially introduced 21 November 2016 as "Proposed outline for the Claims section". My intent is to edit it here in the talk page, guided by WP:FRINGE and the sources mentioned by LeadSongDog, to the point where it has enough detail to become a request to "Replace the existing Claims section with this text". 24.17.40.237 (talk) 07:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Replacement Text for Claims section:

Claims

Since the early 1990's, Mr. Mills has presented a large number of claims related to his novel physical theory. These claims may be categorized as

  1. Claims that independently known or reported phenomena are explained by, predicted by, or consistent with the theory,
  2. Claims that laboratory experiments designed to test or demonstrate the theory were performed, and supported the theory
  3. Claims that there are important practical applications of the theory
  4. Claims that commercial equipment exploiting the theory will soon be manufactured and sold

Considering the large number of claims put forward over an extended time period, the following sections are not comprehensive. Representative claims of the four categories are described below. 24.17.40.237 (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Explanatory claims

Mills has claimed that his theory explains early "cold fusion" results as hydrino phenomena[1]; that the theory computes accurate values for atomic ionization potentials[2][3]; and that the theory explains the properties of "dark matter"[4], among other things.

Experimental claims

(Examples: hydrino generation in plasmas, electrochemical cells; detection of light, NMR, etc. signatures)

Few of these experimental claims have been independently replicated. Some have been strongly criticized (see Criticism, below).

Applications claims

(Examples: power generation, hydrino-based materials with special properties)

Commercial equipment claims

(Examples: electrochemical power generators, 2016 "SunCell" generator) None of the claimed commercial equipment has actually become available.

The intent of this section is to describe what Mills has claimed, no more. Thus the typical citation would be to a work, verifiably authored by Mills, which makes the claim attributed to him. Am I on the right track? 24.17.40.237 (talk) 22:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I believe Xxanthippe proposal for massive article restructuring deserves separate discussion from this one, which concerns updating Claims section. 24.17.40.237 (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I am currently looking at WP:FRINGE for guidance.

Under Evaluating_and_describing_claims I see a suggestion to "first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas", which is where I see this going. However, WP:FRINGE also recommends to "avoid hiding all disputations in an end criticism section" and to "avoid excessive use of point-counterpoint style refutations". In light of this, I suggest we place Criticism immediately after Claims, so it is not "hiding" in an "end" section. I think Criticism should lead off with a couple of paragraphs fulfilling the WP:FRINGE-suggested role of referring the reader to more accepted ideas. I would remove the separate Experimental Results section entirely, placing Neidra et al ("NASA") and Marchese et al ("Rowan University") in the Experimental Claims section. Regarding Šišović et al ("European Physics Journal D") it could also go in this claims section, as a response to the relevant claims by Mills; alternatively it could go in Criticism. 24.17.40.237 (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Mills, Randell L.; Kneizys, Steven P. (August 1991). "Excess Heat Production by the Electrolysis of an Aqueous Potassium Carbonate Electrolyte and The Implications for Cold Fusion". Fusion Science and Technology. 20 (1): 65–81.
  2. ^ Mills, Randell L. (September 2005). "Exact Classical Quantum-Mechanical Solutions for One- through Twenty-Electron Atoms". Physics Essays. 18 (3): 321–361.
  3. ^ Mills, Randell L. (September 3, 2016). "Chapter 10. Three- Through Twenty-Electron Atoms". The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics (pdf). Vol. 1 (2016 ed.). BlackLight Power. pp. 305–392. Retrieved 2016-11-27. (Self-published)
  4. ^ Mills, Randell L.; Ray, Paresh (March 2002). "Spectral emission of fractional quantum energy levels of atomic hydrogen from a helium–hydrogen plasma and the implications for dark matter". International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. 27 (3): 301–322. doi:10.1016/S0360-3199(01)00116-1.

The reasons for these edits as indicated by the added warning templates

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brilliant_Light_Power&oldid=770863979 Sincerely, talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 03:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Please follow the WP:BRD rules and explain your reasons for making substantial changes to a fringe article under discretionary sanctions. WP:BRD does not mean WP:BRR. I see that you edit extensively in fringe physics areas. However, that does not mean that your edits to this article are invalid. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2017

Change spelling of "artefact" to "artifact" in 3 locations. 2601:602:9400:5140:7578:B034:8D5B:E22 (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: "Artefact" is a valid spelling and in each instance appears as a quote.See MOS:SPELLING for more information. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Unbiasing the page

There have been several announcements, progress updates, and technology updates from BLP over the last few months, especially the last week. They have published videos showing a sustained reaction that's producing a visible plasma. I will say that this page is going to significantly change over the next few weeks, and hopefully, once and for all, it will become unbiased. By the way, Mills studied at MIT by taking EE classes there, he did not receive a degree. The edit that was made to remove that text was a bad edit. The text quoted the article, and the article correctly stated that he "studied" at MIT. I hope the person who made that bad edit has the sense to revert it. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Eric mit 1992, great! I'm looking forward to some relief from my electric bill. I will gladly rewrite the article myself when my power bill drops.
When will a working model be given to a qualified, reliable group who can verify its operation? Validation would need to be done in the group's own lab and on their own terms. And not being carefully monitored and orchestrated by BLP? Is there any RS information on such an event? That should be included in the article.
Also, when will samples of hydrinos be made available? (Can I get some?) The existence and characteristics of hydrinos were discussed without resolution on Talk:BlackLight Power/Archive 5#Hydrinos - Waste product BLP must have accumulated significant quantities by now. Verification of the existence of hydrinos would go a long way to demonstrating their claim. And, BLP wouldn't even need to give up any technological secrets. Given that the hydrogen to hydrino transition emits copious amounts of energy, hydrinos should be quite stable, safe to ship, and unlikely to deteriorate. Any RS news on BLP making hydrino samples available should be added to the article Jim1138 (talk) 04:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Great news! It's sad that the article has been locked, thereby hindering updates. Mainstream science community does not like being proven wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.93.181.106 (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

This page should not be locked!

I see numerous fixes such as a broken link. Who broke the link because the original still works: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2005/aug/05/hydrogen-result-causes-controversy Also the last update in the article was 2013 when brilliantlightpower.com received a $1.1 million dollar grant from the government. A lot has happened since. 108.93.181.106 (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Calm down. Nobody "broke the link". It just became broken when PhysicsWorld renovated their website.
I've fixed it. ApLundell (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2018

CHANGE The following year, a 2000 patent based on its hydrino-related technology[25][26] was later withdrawn by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) due to contradictions with known physics laws and other concerns about the viability of the described processes, citing Park and others.[27] TO The following year, a 2000 patent based on its hydrino-related technology[25][26] was later withdrawn by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Robert Park had made a call to sound the alarm on Mill's patent with a contact he called "Deepthroat" in the patent office as per his own admission [REF PARKCOLUMN]. The actual reviewers were not involved only the superiors had overuled the patent. In a later court case BLP filed against the PTO Director James Rogan, the court admitted "that no one invovled in the withdrawl had actually reviewed the patent." [REF HOLVERSTOTT]

REF PARKCOLUMN- Brett has written a 5* reviewed book on Amazon.com Holverstott, Brett. Randell Mills and the Search for Hydrino Energy (p. 176). KRPHistory. Kindle Edition. Indeed, Park even gloated about this publicly in his online column. On September 5, 2002, Robert Park boasted: Prompted by an outside inquiry (who would do such a thing?) the patent director became concerned that this hydrino stuff required the orbital electron to behave ‘contrary to the known laws of physics and chemistry. (Park 2002)

Holverstott, Brett. Randell Mills and the Search for Hydrino Energy (p. 176). KRPHistory. Kindle Edition. Nhsadika (talk) 05:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.
There are many problems with this, specifically with WP:NPOV and WP:RS. For one example: a reliable, independent sources would need to explain why an Amazon review score has anything to do with anything being discussed here. Again, gain consensus for this before using the request template. Grayfell (talk) 06:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brilliant_Light_Power/Archive_8&oldid=1188052750"