![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 8 |
I've been trying to track down any indication that the two New Mexico projects that BLPI have saturated the news agencies with are acknowledged in some fashion by the purported customers. They appear to be real albeit small electric utility cooperatives, but their websites don't show any sign of BLPI that I can find. Can someone turn up a reference that isn't based on a BPLI press release? LeadSongDog ( talk) 18:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering why references to Blacklight Power's inability to get patents on their technology have been deleted. Apparently this was done around 29 December 2008. Is there any good reason why this information should not be reinstated? Mr pheasant ( talk) 08:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Can I just point out that Blacklight's UK applications were in fact finally refused after being remitted to the IPO. Can someone more experienced with editing than me add this? More details at http://www.ipo.gov.uk/pro-types/pro-patent/pro-p-os/p-challenge-decision-results-bl?BL_Number=O/170/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.215.229 ( talk) 21:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
The implication of Mills discovery, and I am quite confident it is real based on its consistency with western history and western literature (e.g. mathematics), but across many disciplines, is structurally consistent (i.e. it is among many similar discoveries in our day that have found structure, as well...), and it is changing the tide of history forever. This is, provided formal deduction has any say-so along the way (see Bertrand Russell, Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy, Incompatibility and the Theory of Deduction). So, why would a judge deny a process leading to formal deduction? Why?! Incompatibility, maybe?
In any event, there will be 'forces of nature' in opposition to their own extinction in any process leading to such an altered landscape, one example being the Old Guard, especially if the current process (of the legal system) doesn't lead anywhere to begin with which is too often the case, blocking it if it so chooses. Mills had a similar road block in the landscape or the current paradigm of modern acedemia which is why he went public, for what that is worth. Ward Churchill should have been so lucky. People can't do research for themselves.
In any event, deduction, which comes down to, in this day, a conflict between the unconscious, covert behavior of the psyche of moderns, and the outright rejection of this approach to those who treat science and art with compassion and respect, and with the true intent of learning rather than parroting former behavior, has to be focused on a minimal use of formal relationships to get to what is implied, or deduced, an efficiency. This is not a never ending process! There is something structural being introduced to mankind collectively across disciplines, like a truth-function more important than truth itself, or which will never be found to be greater than its user, the truth that is. But, where are the users in a public forum?
This truth-function must be working in the landscape of civilization, which might be a high hope at this time for the 'value of it' to be distributed. Repeating, there will be 'forces of nature' in opposition to their own extinction in any process leading to an altered landscape, especially if the current process doesn't lead anywhere to begin with. Take the ease of which a calculator in your hand adds 2 plus 2, and understand that this self-same logic, or its ability follows money in electronic form around the planet with equal ease to 2 plus 2, and then you will see who is programming it today. Yes, the Old Guard, not the commonwealth. Why did Viet Nam happen, people?! This is not WWII, nor even WWIII, but a IV of some strange or, maybe, not so strange variety, leaving us as 'the strange.'
One step further, not desiring to digress so much nor able to go into so many far ranging fabulous issues stemming off this single idea having, each, their own proofs, or leaving them aside for the moment, what are some of the hurdles that are being faced with regard to Mills' patents, to which, he himself stated at the Hyatt in NYC recently are far reaching and numerous? The patents, I mean! He seems very satisfied. Why is this UK judge even on this page? What would a UK judge know about paradigms shifting in physics to begin with, or to claim as he does so much knowlege he is certain of based on his interpretation of the current (modern) paradigm of Physics (i.e. not Law), negating any opportunity for attaining professionals in the field to prove Mills' assertions false in the first place, or, for that matter, his proofs? RobertMStahl ( talk) 22:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Rowan university has done two recent (2008) studies which are not listed, these studies claim experimental verification and would offset the overly negative tone of this section. It seems to me that independent researchers fall into two categories, the ones willing to rip apart the mathematics, and the ones willing to actually try the experiments. The first are uncategorically negative since Blacklight flies int he face of conventional wisdom (as did Galileo). I don't think anyone who has performed the actual experiments has reported negative results. DavesPlanet ( talk) 13:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Water Flow Calorimetry Experiments, Validation Tests and Chemical Analysis of Reactantsfor BlackLight Power Inc. Experiments and Analytical Testing Performed at Rowan University, 21 July – 24 September 2008 direct link This report is included in direct link 79.161.33.17 ( talk) 11:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, 'alleged,' is bad English. But it's fine here at WP Discussion Forum, where the self-appointed 'gatekeepers of knowledge' can pick apart a paradigm-shifting discovery in clean, renewable energy. Alleged, is the right term since to them Mills is well on his way to trial and conviction for daring to try to explain (ie., theorize) the basis for something so fantastic (in it's implications if it is confirmed) since it flies in the face of their mainstream science icons (read: religion-of-obsolete-science idols). JRSlack ( talk) 06:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
It seems that BLPI or their agents Hill & Knowlton have some rather unusual publicity practices.
I don't expect to find a WP:RS discussing this behaviour, but editors should still be aware that they are actively spinning the media coverage. LeadSongDog come howl 14:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Spectroscopic observation of helium-ion- and hydrogen-catalyzed hydrino transitions. I have no opinion on the validity of hydrino theory, only that (1) it is totally unexpected from long-established understanding of the ground state for electrons, and (2) it's been getting a certain level of peer-reviewed publication. From other recent news, Mills and Blacklight have either found something very significant, or it is a complex end-game. -- Abd ( talk) 18:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Does that mean that I can alter the Central European Journal of Physics Wikipedia entry to say ... The CEJP is a lowly regarded rarely accepted form of peer review and the highly qualified board members integrity is open to question. Why not? However, if the journal is reputable then Mills has quality peer review and Hydrinos are a verifiable fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.178.38 ( talk) 06:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
This paper seems to be published by Rowan University (it has a Rowan logo on it)and although available on the BLP website, certainly looks to be an independant confirmation of Hydrino existence. http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/RowanHydrinoReport2009.pdf
If you feel it is still not enough to say that the Hydrino in fact does exist then can I do the same for Rowan University Wikipedia entry, that is mention that some Wikipedia articles and contributors do not accept that Rowan is a reputable source of scientific research? Oh, I forgot, Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information either!
Without taking a position on whether the theory is bunk or not, I think the theory section might do a better job of explaining how the Mills model makes use of the non-radiation condition. In particular, Mills links the non-radiation condition explicitly to the ground state by supposedly showing mathematically that the "orbitsphere" that corresponds to the ground state has the smallest radius possible that could contain "light-like" components and therefore is the smallest radius orbitsphere that could emit a photon - as per Haus. In Mills' view, the ground state is only the limit on photonic radiation, but not necessarily non-photonic radiation, which he then proceeds to describe in gory detail as the so-called "Blacklight process". Again, I take no position on whether he's right or not but if we're going to explain the theory, I believe we should make his arguments as accessible as possible. Any objections to making this change to the theory section? Ronnotel ( talk) 18:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I just added the following edit. Does anyone wonder when the Bob Park quote was first introduced into this article? I did just a few minutes ago. After clicking through through much of the history, I found that it was exactly 5 years ago on July 14, 2005 when user User:Theresa knott made this edit. Time sure does fly by. Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 17:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Related Edits ["8 intermediate revisions" by User:Kmarinas86]: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Blacklight_Power&action=historysubmit&diff=373512763&oldid=373496049
Google StreetView is notoriously unreliable about lining up actual numeric address within a block. In this context, I'm not sure the information in the recently added footnote is all that notable. Yes, there appears to be a building with appropriate signage at approximately the location that is stated in various BLP materials. Is there something else we should infer? Ronnotel ( talk) 21:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
This whole article on Blacklight Power is not accepted by mainstream scientists and regarded as pseudoscience. It should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.15.42.91 ( talk) 13:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Replication by Alexander Bykanov of anomalous spectra in the 10-30nm range from pure hydrogen was reported on Nov 29 and new papers were posted on Blacklight Powers website. I am not sure where these papers would fit into the article but it would seem to lend some credibility to Mill's older papers since this paper also reports short wavelength cutoff at 10nm and 23nm without being able to offer any conventional explanation for them. 0WhatWhat0 ( talk) 09:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
This paragraph was added to the "Responses by outside researchers in chronological order" section:
Issues:
1. The article says according to Gen3 Partners, but the only citation is a paper with GEN3 logo on the front of it. So what is the source for "according to GEN3 Partners". The GEN3 Partners website doesn't mention Blacklight Power or this paper.
2. The CEO of GEN3 partners seems to have been at one time Jim Sims and there is a James K. Sims listed as a director of Blacklight Power on their website.
3. There is a minor spelling issue and what appears to be a citation is just a link to the paper.
4. The problems mentioned by Ronnotel and LeadSongDog above with the paper.
I don't know how this sort of thing should be handled. Nothing about BLP research or press releases is exactly what it seems. There are no sources beyond BLP for most of its apparent linkages to other companies. Including the fact of the release of this paper without also mentioning that BLP is the sole source of information about it gives undo weight to the credibility of the paper and the facts surrounding it. -- Davefoc ( talk) 10:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I modified the paragraph in question. The sources of information for the new paragraph are entirely the BLP press release and the associated paper. I removed the information that the research was was done at Harvard CfA. It appears that the only CfA involvement was to lease their lab. This is supported by a letter from a Harvard PR person (posted to a blog) that this was the case . At least some of the research described in the paper was done at BLP. I also didn't mention that in the paragraph as I thought it was excessive detail. I did attempt to balance the claims of the press release by including the information that the study was funded by BLP and that the paper did not seem to have been submitted for peer review. The CV for Bykanov is available on the web and it does not mention this research or any association with BLP. The failure of Bykanov to mention an association with what would be one of the most significant scientific discoveries of the decade in his CV provides further circumstantial evidence that the BLP claims with regard to this are not credible. However, this article is about BLP, and what they claim even if it is not credible is relevant to the article I think. -- Davefoc ( talk) 19:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
It is difficult to determine what of the information in this article does not trace back to Blacklight power as the original source.
The claim that Blacklight Power has contracts with any utilities for power generation is suspect. No entity that Blacklight power claims to have a contract with seems to have published an acknowledgment of that contract. One of the utilities that BLP has announced a relationship with is Akridge Energy LLC. Akridge Energy does not seem to be a functioning business. Akridge Energy seems to be associated with the Akridge real estate company which does not publically acknowledge the existence of Akridge Energy on its web site.
The claim that Blacklight Power has raised any money does not seem to be independently verifiable. It is a claim repeated in various articles that do not provide any source for the information.
The claim that there is any independent validation of any Blacklight Power results does not seem to be verifiable. On closer inspection, alleged independent test results are only published by Blacklight Power and rely on people that have or have had relationships with Blacklight power.
The article contains this sentence: "A small group of experimental scientists from NASA and the US Navy research labs have expressed mild support for the claims of Blacklight Power.[2]" Who are these scientists? The article that is a source for this statement lists only Shelby Brewer who seems to have been on the BLP board and seems to have served as president of BLP for a time although the BLP site does not list him in either capacity today.
In general, it does not seem to be possible to find independent verification of any information concerning BLP and what independent information there is available concerning BLP is of a nature that tends to make BLP claims look even more suspicious. As such, I think that consideration should be given to a complete review of this article with an eye to eliminating statements that are based on sources that seem to be just repetitions of data from BLP press releases.-- Davefoc ( talk) 17:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, I'm sorry I wrote this. When I first read the article, I noticed a lot of stuff that seemed to trace back only to information posted by BLP and I thought I'd mention it. Now that I have become more familiar with the article and the discussion I realize that much of the article is written in such a way as to deal with this issue. I believe questionable material still remains in the article, but I think the appropriate way to deal with that is on a case by case basis in the discussion section. -- Davefoc ( talk) 23:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
According to the article, BLP claimed that they would deliver a 50KW plant in 12 to 18 months - and that was back in 2008. So did they deliver something - or did they default on that contract?
Seems like it should have made news either way. Does anyone know who they claimed to be delivering this system to?
SteveBaker ( talk) 19:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
There have two recent efforts by anon users: 79.36.206.98 and 95.245.215.94 to add a reference to the Joe Shea CNN iReport (which is not a true CNN report - more like a blog entry). Anything you see in Wikipedia that is promoting anything written by Joe Shea is almost certainly the man himself doing a bit of shameless self-promotion. He's wannabe journalist and a repeated violator of COI rules who typically uses the approach of first trying to post something under his own name - then resorting to widely-separated (and hence hard to block) anon IP accounts. This time is no different User:Joeshea modified the article on Jan 15th and is (in all likelyhood) behind these two anon efforts to do the same thing. Revert on sight folks. SteveBaker ( talk) 21:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Is there really a need to publish every press release this company sends out? I suggest we remove most. There's only so much "The company claims that..." that an article should have.. Guyonthesubway ( talk) 03:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
"iReport is a user-generated section of CNN.com. The stories here come from users. CNN has vetted only the stories marked with the "CNN" badge. " Guyonthesubway ( talk) 17:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
The article contains this statement currently:
May 1, 2008: Hans-Jürgen Kunze suggests "that spectral lines, on which the fiction of fractional principal quantum numbers in the hydrogen atom is based, are nothing else but artefacts."
The referenced article seems to be one of the most relevant critiques of the techniques used by BLP to detect novel spectrum lines for hydrogen. As such I thought some expansion of the information about it was justified. However, I would like to get responses from others before I made any change to the article in this area. The change I propose is below:
May 1, 2008: An article by Hans-Joachim Kunze was published that criticized the techniques used to observe novel spectral lines reported in a 2003 paper authored by R. Mills and P. Ray, Extreme ultraviolet spectroscopy of helium–hydrogen. Hans-Joachim Kunze is professor emeritus at the Institute for Experimental Physics V Ruhr University Bochum, Germany. The abstract of the article is: "It is suggested that spectral lines, on which the fiction of fractional principal quantum numbers in the hydrogen atom is based, are nothing else but artefacts."
Kunze stated that it was impossible to detect the novel lines below 30nm reported by Mills and Ray because the equipment they used did not have the capability to detect them as per the manufacturer and as per "every book on vacuum-UV spectroscopy" and "therefore the observed lines must be artefacts". Kunze also stated that: "The enormous spectral widths of the novel lines point to artefacts, too."
Link to Kunze paper: http://iopscience.iop.org/0022-3727/41/10/108001/pdf/0022-3727_41_10_108001.pdf Link to information about Kunze: http://www.ep5.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/en/emeriti_en.html
Small issue: I don't know why the article uses Hans-Jürgen Kunze. His name seems to be Hans-Joachim Kunze.
Thanks for the response Kmarinas86. What is the source for the criticism of Kunze's critique of the Mills/Ray experiment? I couldn't find a response to Kunze but I did look over the issue that you raised a bit. The minimum detectable wavelength of the spectrometer used in the experiment (Model 302 Vacuum Ultraviolet Monochromator) is specified an 30nm (as Kunze says) by the manufacturer ( http://www.mcphersoninc.com/spectrometers/vuvuvvis/model234302.htm). I did not find any information on line that this range could be expanded by using a channel electron multipler. Perhaps the most significant point that Kunze made was that the observations of the novel lines were done with the normal incident spectroscopy equipment that he claims was inappropriate for the detection of sub 30 nm wavelengths but that the control observations of helium emissions were done with a grazing incident instrument that he felt was appropriate for detecting the sub 30 nm emissions. That strikes me as very strange. Why was the control experiment done with a completely different experimental setup? Regardless, this is just my non-expert musings about all this. Kunze is an expert and his article is relevant to this article as would a published critique of his article by another expert or BLP.
My main question is with regard to the summary I proposed of Kunze's article. Is the proposed summary too long, incorrect or could the wording be improved? Is there a published response to Kunze's article that would be appropriate to mention? -- Davefoc ( talk) 19:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Dr. Melvin H. Miles was quoted as a source of mild support for BLP technology presumably as an example of support from the US Navy research labs. He also seems to be a supporter and was at least previously an investigator of cold fusion. Is this an appropriate fact to mention in the article if Miles is going to be quoted? It is also interesting that despite his support for BLP in 1999, Blacklight Power is not mentioned on his website today.-- Davefoc ( talk) 08:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the response Guyonthesubway. Did you mean you favor removing the Melvin Miles quote entirely? If that was what you meant, I tend to agree. This seems like an offhand comment by Miles in response to his belief that BLP claims of having an actual product were true (although he expressed skepticism about the BLP theory as to why their product worked) and that put the BLP research ahead of cold fusion research at the time. I was not able to find any other connection between Miles and BLP. -- Davefoc ( talk) 21:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Regarding these three sentences,
they now appear in two places in the article, which is not a sign of a quality article. If my fellow editors insist on keeping them in the lede, please delete them from the "Reactions from various scientists" section.
I continue to maintain that inconsistencies with quantum theory are not sufficient reason to criticize the theory. This theory has its own set of successes, separate and distinct from quantum theory's successes (such as the Millsian software's uncanny ability to closely predict experimental results). Mills intends it as a replacement for quantum theory, and if it had no inconsistencies with quantum theory, it would make for a poor replacement indeed.
199.46.245.231 (
talk)
21:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
These sections should be combined. Now should the combination be notably ahead of the "Rejection of mainstream particle physics"? The company has higher order relevance to this article. Zulu Papa 5 * ( talk) 22:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
"Theory" mind as well be orders with "rejection"
Zulu Papa 5 * (
talk)
22:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
William M. Connolley hath decreed, "A ref to two newsgroup postings, neither by connett, isn't even close to good enough"
Yes, but in fact this statement was made by Jeconnett
William M. Connolley deleted the following ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Blacklight_Power&curid=452779&diff=415484861&oldid=415480386):
“ | Dr. John E. Connett, one of BlackLight Power's most vocal critics on the now-defunct Hydrino Study Group forum, issued the following statement in August 2010:
|
” |
Hydrino.org discussions in text files.zip (256 KB) 12/3/10 by Kmarinas86 https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B4C1RIYfRPYtNmM5OGUzYTAtYmFkZC00MDM3LWIyYTctMjNiNmJjY2IwNzIy&sort=name&layout=list&num=50
Hydrino.org discussions in htm.rar (3 MB) 12/3/10 by Kmarinas86 https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B4C1RIYfRPYtYjg3YWIxMjctZGEyMC00MzIxLTg2YzMtMzllMzcyZTYyNjU3&sort=name&layout=list&num=50
Meeting of the Johns.txt
My comments are highlighted in blue. The rest are Jeconnett's quotations and commentary.
[quote="jeconnett"][quote][b]John EB quoted Randell Mills' post in SCQM: [/b]
It is improper to integrate the time-averaged power over time as insisted on by Dr. Connett. It is a number not a function of time. There is nothing to contest here and Dr. Connett is clearly wrong.
[/quote]
I disagree. The expression for a_M(l, m) in Equation (23) of the paper includes an integral with respect to s of cos(m k s).
[snip]
John C.[/quote]
Equation 16.74 of John DJ's [i]Classical Electrodynamics, Second Edition[/i]:
[url= http://books.google.com/books?ei=k5RYTM3xIqO-9gTWqpG5BA&ct=result&id=_7rvAAAAMAAJ&dq=classical+electrodynamics&q=%22am%28l%2Cm%29%22#search_anchor]dP/dΩ[/url] - [b]Summation [u]precedes[/u] squaring.[/b]
Equation 16.89 of John DJ's [i]Classical Electrodynamics, Second Edition[/i]:
[url= http://books.google.com/books?ei=k5RYTM3xIqO-9gTWqpG5BA&ct=result&id=_7rvAAAAMAAJ&dq=classical+electrodynamics&q=j+l+kr#search_anchor]a_E(l,m) and a_M(l,m) (solutions for a source)[/url] - [b][i]Corresponds to Eq. (1.7) and Eq. (1.8) of the August 2, 2010 update of Mills' book.[/i][/b]
Equation 16.47 of John DJ's [i]Classical Electrodynamics, Second Edition[/i]:
[url= http://books.google.com/books?ei=k5RYTM3xIqO-9gTWqpG5BA&ct=result&id=_7rvAAAAMAAJ&dq=classical+electrodynamics&q=%22am%28l%2Cm%29%22#search_anchor]a_M(l,m) and a_E(l,m) (general formulae)[/url] - [b]Integration with respect to [u]angle[/u].[/b]
So which John is correct? Clearly only one John is correct, and that John is John David Jackson.
[b]The link has been updated:
Former title: [url= http://www.blacklightpower.com/papers/21cm-1%20paper072210S.pdf]21cm-1 paper072210S.pdf[/url] (link does not work anymore)
New title: [url= http://www.blacklightpower.com/papers/21cm-1%20paper%20080210S.pdf]21cm-1 paper 080210S.pdf[/url][/b]
[quote="jeconnett"][quote][b]John EB quoted Randell Mills' post in SCQM: [/b]
It is improper to integrate the time-averaged power over time as insisted on by Dr. Connett. It is a number not a function of time. There is nothing to contest here and Dr. Connett is clearly wrong.
[/quote]
I disagree. The expression for a_M(l, m) in Equation (23) of the paper includes an integral with respect to s of cos(m k s). The limits on this integral are clearly closely related to time. A key question is: how did that cosine expression get there in the first place? It is clear that its origin, as seen in Equation (11) of the paper, is in the factor exp(-i omega t) which in this case represents rotation of the sphere, and is similarly in Equation (20), exp(-i omega_n t), where t is [b]time[/b]. The text after Equation (20) shows that the real part of this factor is cos(m*phi + m*omega_n*t). The previous version of the paper indicated this by noting explicitly that s is a function of t, s(t). (In fact by the previous statement, it is clear that s(t) = phi + omega_n*t, i.e. the relationship of s(t) to time is linear.) This description is now omitted, but it is clear that s, the 'angular displacement', is a direct function, essentially a surrogate, of time. The "ds" in the integral in Equation (23) of the paper could easily be written as s'(t) dt.
What is being done in the paper to some extent emulates what Jackson carries out for multipole sources, where there is a factor of Re(exp(-i omega t) = cos(omega t). Jackson however first squares the expression for time-dependent power per solid angle, then integrates. It is the fact that (cos(omega t))^2 is always nonnegative which results in nonzero power. Dr. Mills' argument here is that he first claims to show that the time-dependent power is zero, i.e., a_M(l, m, t) = 0 for all t, so the square of this quantity in the expression for time-dependent power is zero. What I am saying is that in his argument to show that the time-dependent power is zero, he has unwittingly already averaged over time because s as an angle is linearly related to time, and that integrating in Equation (23) with respect to s (hence the "ds" in Equation (23)) unfortunately obscures this fact. The integration in Equation (23) is actually being done over time.
[quote][b]Dr. Mills continued: [/b] Next, as shown by Eq. (11), the magnetic coefficient is derived as an integral over the three spatial dimensions and not time as incorrectly claimed by Dr. Connett. Based on the spherical symmetry of the source current, it was integrated over distance r, angle theta, and azimuthal angle phi, not time.
[/quote]
Despite saying this, there is no indication whatsoever in Equation (23) of the paper that that integration is over any variable other than s. In both Equation (11) and Equation (23), the expression on the left side of the equations is exactly the same: a_M(l, m). As noted in the comments following Equation (24), the integration with respect to s (which is essentially integration with respect to t) is crucial to showing that a_M(l, m) is zero. The problem being, what should be integrated here is the [b]square[/b] of this expression, as is done in Jackson's text.
I have advanced three other arguments indicating that a rotating orbitsphere with a nonuniform charge distribution must radiate. I think the simplest of these is the following:
1. Dr. Mills asserts that the orbitsphere has angular momentum hbar / 2 (nonzero is all that's important) due to his meshwork of great-circle current loops.
2. The magnetic moment of such a system is proportional to the angular momentum (Jackson, e.g.). Hence the magnetic moment is also nonzero.
3. Thus the orbitsphere is basically a permanent magnet.
4. A rotating permanent magnet transfers energy to its surroundings. If there is a pickup coil-circuit nearby with a resistor in the circuit, current will flow in the coil and the resistor will heat up. Ultimately the energy transferred by the changing magnetic field is supplied by the motive force that is rotating the magnet. This is why for example hydroelectric power generators work. There need not be a coil in the vicinity; electrons in conducting materials will move, and atoms nearby will be caused to jiggle a bit by the changing magnetic field, and the energy for jiggling them again comes from the motive force that is rotating the magnet. The changing magnetic field is propagated through space at the speed of light.
5. Therefore the rotating orbitsphere loses energy to its surroundings. Whether this constitutes 'radiation' may be a matter of definition. It does qualify as radiation according to the definition given by Wikipedia:
In physics, radiation describes any process in which energy travels through a medium or through space, ultimately to be absorbed by another body.
Another (intuitive) way of viewing this: a rotating orbitsphere with a nonuniform charge, in many configurations, is highly
similar to a rotating dipole. This is made clear by a number of color illustrations and movies in the BLP presentation
materials. As such it will exhibit ED (electric dipole) radiation. This is not necessarily identical to classical EM radiation.
The important thing is that a transfer of energy occurs and the orbitsphere must lose kinetic energy. The orbitsphere
in this configuration cannot be stable.
[quote][b]Randell Mills continued as follows: [/b]
If Dr. John Connett, University of Minnesota, is academically honest and is not acting in malice, he will admit these indisputable facts, retract his false conclusions, and apologize for his unprofessional conduct and personal insults. Some recent examples are given below.
[/quote]
I am not acting out of malice. I remain convinced that the a rotating orbitsphere with a nonuniform charge density (as depicted in a number of BLP presentations) must, according to classical laws of physics, radiate. My arguments are sincere. It would not be honest of me at this point to retract the views and arguments that I have expressed here on this.
At times I have been intemperate and uncomplimentary in my references to Dr. Mills. I sincerely apologize for this. I will strictly refrain from such characterizations in the future.
John C.[/quote]
The retraction
Hydrino Study Group Forum • View topic - Question about Delusions and GUT-CP 1.htm
Hydrino Study Group Forum • View topic - Proposal for a New Section 1.htm
Hydrino Study Group Forum • View topic - The Hydrino Spectrum.htm
Hydrino Study Group Forum • View topic - What Would Reverse Your View.htm
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg39812.html
Re: [Vo]:A prominent CQM (BL) critic capitulates
OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson Mon, 09 Aug 2010 07:46:54 -0700
The original retraction from John Connett appears to be out at HSG Hydrino Study Group Forum, maintained by Luke Setzer (my apologies for misspelling Luke's last name):
http://forum.hydrino.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=312&sid=851e1815295c5d93648887358ed4869f
Luke replied:
"I am locking and stickying this topic to make it a standalone document."
;-)
Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 +
talk
12:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Blacklight_Power#Theory has an indented section of text that looks like it's trying to be a quotation. Since it has neither quotation marks - nor any indication of who said it and where - it tends to look like a part of the article that we've written - which is bad because it's really complete nonsense.
We need to either attribute this carefully - or remove it.
SteveBaker ( talk) 15:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Fixed
LeadSongDog
come howl!
17:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I just noticed that their latest claims include a direct to electricity conversion, getting rid of that pesky steam generator. Plus a claim that they anticipate getting 1500 miles to the litre of water. Holy shades of Meyer! [ [3]] I would strongly support inclusion of this claim in the article. Guyonthesubway ( talk) 17:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't see a good explanation for [4] William M. Connolley ( talk) 18:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
[Mill's paper], which involves a nowadays widely discredited 'hydrino' model that was proposed in 1991 to account for the excess heat observations in 'cold fusion' studies. (...) [the notion that there are electron orbital states that are less energetic than the ground state], is contrary to conventional quantum principles and unacceptable to me or to the general theoretical-physics community.
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randell Mills. Randell Mills has been redirected here, so this is the proper article to discuss his theories. other pages redirecting here are "Hydrino", "Hydrino power", "Hydrino theory" and "Randell Mills' Classical Quantum Theory" ( what links here).
Note that the company success completely depends of the success of Mill's ideas and on the existance of hydrinos, so we should cover them in enough detail.
Also, we need to cover well the mainstream acceptance of hydrinos. It affects the abilities of getting private funding, getting published in journals, and having other scientists replicate your work and posting confirmations that should bring in turn more acceptance and funding. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 12:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I've undone the chop, still not seeing why it was done. I think the anon had largely done so, but in a different order, and it seemed cleaner to just revert to the pre-chop version, keeping only the fusion -> fuse fix William M. Connolley ( talk) 12:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
These sections can be merged.
They are about the same thing, just presented differently. They could be merged to better attribute with less confusion. Zulu Papa 5 * ( talk) 18:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Zulu Papa 5 * ( talk) 14:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
The company series of sub-sections is far too long, and needs to be trimmed William M. Connolley ( talk) 19:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
The reorg seems to be going well to me. Zulu Papa 5 * ( talk) 02:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I prefer BLPI to BLP (ala Bio. Living Person, confusion). Zulu Papa 5 * ( talk) 18:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
The "Incorporated" part is almost never incorporated into the initials of a company.
siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 +
talk
21:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Blacklight_Power#Alleged_experimental_findings .... seems like this section should be earlier in the article, at least before all the outsiders huff and puff. It's the insiders huff and puff right? Zulu Papa 5 * ( talk) 14:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
My reading between the lines, is that the Mill's process excess heat is highly dependent on the the hydrinos finding a new home in some yet unclear chemical process, else they go back from whence they come, with no net energy gain. I would like to research and include content on the likely chemical processes which have been proposed for these hydrino things. My view, if there is a sham, it is in assuming the dependent chemical process has the market scale to support wide spread energy benefits. Zulu Papa 5 * ( talk) 02:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
This source seems relevant [5] for a note in this article. Zulu Papa 5 * ( talk) 22:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
{{
press}}
added at the talkpage header. See
WP:PRESS for details.
LeadSongDog
come howl!
23:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
In the article, did anyone notice Mr Park's good faith in Wikipedia openness? Seems like he had as much faith as he has in Mills. It would be worth a mention in his criticisms, that Wikipedia may have gone to far .... back then in 2007. Zulu Papa 5 * ( talk) 03:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
This is now 4 months old yet I do not see it reflected on the wiki page here at all:
GEN3 Partners and Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) Scientists have confirmed the light signature of hydrino formation, high-energy radiation emitted as the electron of the hydrogen atom undergoes a transition below what was previously considered the lowest energy state. Read the results in the GEN3 and CfA Report "Validation of the Observation of Soft X-ray Continuum Radiation from Low-Energy Pinch Discharges in the Presence of Molecular Hydrogen." 96.44.175.206 ( talk) 00:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
BLP claims production of electricity in at least two places on their web site:
However, none of the BLP reports reference any form of electric generation. Apparently the only information about the electrical generation is the fact that BLP claims that it has happened. The BLP text seems like it was written to be intentionally misleading, however based on a careful reading of the text, it seems that BLP is not actually claiming that they are providing any reports about the generation of electricity.
I don't know what, if anything, the article should do with regard to the above. Some people have interpreted BLP releases to mean that direct generation of electricity has occurred in a meaningful proof of concept way. There is zero evidence from BLP, other than their misleading claims, to suggest that anything like that has happened. However this conclusion is bordering on OR and may not be appropriate for the article.
The deceptive use of Rowan University, CfA, GEN3 partners as indication of independent verification, the dodgy claims of electric utility contracts and the misleading claims about electric generation create the suggestion of a pattern that is an important part of the BLP story, but perhaps the article has gone as far as it should in describing this aspect of the story.
As an aside, it seems like BLP is claiming that a new report, dated November 2010, was generated to support their 2010 claims of independent validation by Rowan: http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/Rowan2010.pdf The new report is titled:
The title and listed authors are very similar to the third of the four Rowan reports that were put forth to support their 2009 claims of independent validation by Rowan.
The Wikipedia article is not quite correct with regard to this and it should be updated to be precise on this point I think.-- Davefoc ( talk) 20:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
With regard to Zulu's question above "Heat goes to electricity, how trivial and misleading is that?" Very misleading I think. The press release suggests that BLP has a functioning prototype that produced electricity from a continuous reaction in excess of that predicted by standard physics. Validation of their claims would be trivial with such a device but beyond the title of the press release BLP did not produce any evidence for such a device. The reports cited by BLP claim that a pulse of heat has been detected in excess of what can be explained by standard physics. This is essentially the same claim that BLP has been making for years and there was nothing new in that. There are at least three possible problems associated with this evidence: 1. The experiments may be flawed. 2. The analysis may be flawed. 3. Even if a previously unknown reaction was detected it is not clear that it could be exploited for useful energy generation. So without the claim of electricity production they had nothing to claim except the same sketchy stuff that they had been claiming for years and, in fact, they didn't supply any information about their electricity production so despite the implication of the press release title the information released was nothing new and it was at least as problematic as what had come before. -- Davefoc ( talk) 17:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
“ | Dr. K.V. Ramanujachary said, “The chemicals used in CIHT technology are similar to those used in thermal and chemical cells that were separately, thoroughly and diligently validated over the past three years by a team at Rowan University that included myself. Since the measurements on CIHT are electrical versus calorimetric, there can be no dispute over the power and the energy balance. With further optimization, there is no doubt that this technology will present an economically viable and environmentally benign alternate to meet Global energy needs. If advanced to commercialization, it would be one of the most profound developments ever.” Completion of Thermal Energy Balance and Chemical Characterization of Solids Fuels at Rowan University .... Light Signature of Hydrino |
” |
The type of content in the papers is not all that new, however Blacklight Power seems to be disclosing some details years after the fact. Check out
http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/GEN3_SolidFuel.pdf. It's a 2009 paper in connection with GEN3 Partners. The file was uploaded/modified into
http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/ on March 10, 2011.
siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 +
talk
18:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I guess misleading is in the eye of the beholder. The only thing significantly different in this press release from what BLP has been claiming for years is the claim of electrical production. There are no details on this other than some unsubstantiated blathering, so essentially there is no new information here from what has gone on before and that seems to be pretty misleading to me. If BLP has a device that generates electricity in a way that provides a simple validation of their claims all they need to do is send it to a local independent lab, release the reports and they're done. They can just start spending the billions of dollars that will flow their way. If they have that device no tricky press releases are necessary. The fact that they are still producing tricky press releases strongly suggests that they don't have such a device.-- Davefoc ( talk) 19:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC).
I contested your prod [6]. Please note that crackpot theories also get their own articles (just take a look at Category:Pseudophysics). They just need to be notable. I think that the lead of the article already makes it clear that mainstream science just plain out rejects Mill's ideas. About being a scam, you need reliable sources to make such a claim about a company in a wikipedia article. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 08:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Well okay, here's how I see it. The scientific content of the article is exactly zero, so on this ground it does not make a positive contribution to Wikipedia. However, as Enric pointed out, crackpot ideas can get their pages if they're notable enough. Which brings us to the notability issue. Apart from some media brouhaha around 2005-2007, I really don't see any notability this idea has. Their company may of course put out press releases every once in a while on their website to try and keep interest alive, but just because they make enough noise doesn't mean they should get their own Wikipedia entry. This was my reasoning behind proposing the article for deletion, and I still stand by it. However, in the meantime I realized there is a good reason for not deleting the article - to provide some information to those who may occasionally run across this company. I guess this is also some form of notability, albeit a different one from the one I had in mind when proposing the article for deletion. Which brings us to the quality of the article.
I think the article is very poorly written/potentially misleading. Yes, it does state at the beginning of some sections that the ideas presented are not mainstream physics, but this is not further explained in the body of the sections. In other places sections of criticism are mixed with sections defending the theory, and with legitimate buzzwords/institutions, so that a casual reader may be confused into believing the legitimacy of the crank concepts. The same is true of the references - papers which are legitimate but have nothing to do with these crackpot ideas are cited alongside crackpot papers, creating a mishmash in which it is hard to discern what is legitimate and what is not. Etc.
So in conclusion, I think the article should stay. But with significant rewriting. Crackpot ideas do belong on Wikipedia if they're "notorious" enough, but they should be clearly labeled as such. I'm going to stick a couple of templates in until my concerns are addressed. Bstoica ( talk) 21:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
This article is good in that it shows how scammers can gain $ for idiotic and completely Wrong ideas.. But.. There needs to be clear demarcation about what is real and what is pseudoscience (fantasy-fiction).. This article is TOO NEUTRAL and needs to be clearer about the fringe-fantasy-idiocy aspects of the 'theory'/BS.. As the person says above, Wikipedia is complicit and encouraging FRAUD by publicizing this BS .. MAKE THIS ABSOLUTELY CLEAR or delete the article.. PARTICIPATE IN FRAUD or make ABSOLUTELY CLEAR IT'S FRAUD - only ONE OR THE OTHER Phoenix-antiscammer ( talk) 23:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Bstoica said above: "Perhaps it would be better to state in a more elaborate manner at the beginning of the article that it's not dealing w/ mainstream physics. I don't think the one sentence that is currently there quite cuts it, and going into the company section one can be left with the idea that this is legitimate science."
I see two related issues here:
1. Does the introductory sections makes it sufficiently clear that BLP theories are generally rejected by mainstream physics?
2. Should the "Company" section be more explicit about the fact that Mills' theories are not accepted by the mainstream physics comunnity?
Issue 1:
The second sentence of the two sentence introductory section is:
"Where Mills has not been ignored he has met general skepticism in the academic community since the founding of BLP in 1991. Mills' ideas of "CQM" and "hydrinos" have been criticised by mainstream physicists[5][6][7][8] as "pseudoscience" and rejected as "just silliness".
That seems clear to me. I am not sure how it could be made more explicit and remain consistent within the spirit of NPOV. Perhaps there is a case to be made for including Dr. Phillip Anderson's thoughts on the matter to liven up the section a bit.
Issue 2:
There may be some issues with the clarity of the writing in the "Company" section but two of the four paragraphs provide substantial negative information with regard to BLP. The point of the two paragraphs is that BLP theories have been rejected by respected scientists and no practical devices have been built based on BLP technology. I think perhaps there is room for improvement here in that perhaps the section could more clearly make that point. However, overall I think the general tone and approach of the section is correct.
--
Davefoc (
talk)
05:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I added mention in the theory section to the 1995 edition of the GUTCQM where RLM first predicts acceleration of the expansion of the universe in 1995 which was before it was observed and then later confirmed in 1998. This is significant and verifiable from the references provided.
Additionally, I updated BLP's publication references to 84 peer-reviewed publications and provided an updated link to the publication list. The last peer-reviewed citation was from 2009.
Both of these edits were undone by WMC on the basis of "restore useful info". How is it possibly restoring useful info by removing factually significant, more accurate and updated information? This seems biased. I would like to argue for restoring my edits.
Johnnycpis ( talk) 14:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Why it's a loser: Most experts don't believe such lower states exist, and they say the experiments don't present convincing evidence.(part of Winners & Losers VI, by Philip E. Ross in the same publication)
These 95 (as of July 2011) publications have been a topic of debate here for years now, as has how to characterize them. I suppose we may need an archive section on this question alone, and a FAQ. Simply put, the nature of modern junk science is to create reams of papers (that go largely unread) to create a semblance of credibility. Low impact journals are those with little reputation for quality in their field: science and publishing are both competitive fields, so authors/editors each want to get the best journals/papers they can. An author's consistent inability to get published in high-impact journals is strong evidence that the best editors are unconvinced of the work's merits. However that is only my analysis and has no place in the article. If we are to provide characterization, it should come from published and hence wp:V wp:RS. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Should this article include a list of prominent individuals that have been part of the corporate governance of BLP?
The section has been added and removed a few times.
The issue seems difficult to me. LeadSongDog has suggested that there is insufficient references to support it, but they now at least seem to be reasonably referenced.
The issue for me is whether the list is of sufficient interest and relevance to justify its inclusion. Part of the BLP story is the fact that the company has attracted prominent people to be part of its corporate governance. Right now that is about all that is publically known about this. None of these people have said anything about the company after they have left it and none of these people have provided any information about their motivation in joining the company other than some rosy statements around the time they join.
I think a similar issue exists with regard to the list of companies that BLP allegedly had contracts with. We know nothing about the nature of the contracts and mostly we don't know what the expectations of the people who signed these agreements was. In fact, the companies are almost all tiny entities the purpose of which is not clear and listing those companies may imply undo weight as to the significance of the contracts.
I don't know that there is an objective answer as to what is appropriate here. My own thought is that the corporate governance list is too long relative to the information value it supplies. I think what might be more appropriate is a short statement that the corporate governance of BLP has included prominent individuals with a few of the people on the list provided as examples. However an argument can be made that this is a kind of documentation that might be useful to somebody in the future trying to unravel what went on at BLP. -- Davefoc ( talk) 16:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I looked at a few of the references and they seem to be other than BLP. My guess is that most of the references are legit and non-BLP or could be made so. The real issue, I think, is whether the list belongs or not and if so should it remain in its current form. I would not feel bad about any decision, but I think the best would be to convert the list to a short paragraph stating that some prominent people have participated in BLP corporate governance and list a few examples. This is interesting information whether BLP is eventually shown to be a complete scam or if BLP releases technology that transforms the world. Perhaps a corporate governance section that lists a few current corporate officers and a brief mention of previous prominent individuals that have served in corporate governance would be best. The most interesting thing and the most useful thing would be to include something about what past board members had to say about what went on in the company. I have never seen even the tiniest indication that anything like that exists. The lack of any information from people that have worked in the company or served in its corporate governance about the nature of the company is an interesting part of the story, but I'm not sure what to make of it and at any rate it is hard to document the absence of something.-- Davefoc ( talk) 05:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Keep, but with some changesThe sources for the list of directors may not be perfect, but on a practical basis it seems very likely that they are correct. I doubt even the moderately prominent people in the list would allow their names to be used in this way if it weren't true. Although I don't seem to be able to build a consensus for this idea, I think the correct action here is to modify the section so that it begins with a statement about who a few of the highest ranking members of the corporate governance are, followed by a statement that the company has had some prominent board members in the past with the two or three most prominent listed. One way to maintain the documentation benefit of the list without unnecessarily increasing the size of the article would be to list the prominent members as references to the claim that prominent people have been part of BLP corporate governance in the past. Consideration might be given to pointing out board members that were previously were with Connectiv when it entered into its agreement with BLP.-- Davefoc ( talk) 18:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
talk:174.24.123.239|talk]]) 22:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.46.200.232 ( talk • contribs) 22:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Keep as notable and good form to improve the article. The Directors have a fiduciary duty, just as we have a duty to peacefully improve articles with relevant and sourced content. Zulu Papa 5 * ( talk) 00:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
There is a lot of talk above; I've hacked the section in an effort to see where consensus lies. I found it interesting that one of the few notable-in-the-sense-of-having-an-article people, Jordan, is (a) dead and (b) known as a turn-around expert; that seems very relevant. I deleted all the former non-notable people. That the founder is CEO, prez and chair is significant (showing how much of the power is in one set of hands). I left the only other former who had an article William M. Connolley ( talk) 08:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
84.106.26.81 recently edited the article in a variety of places. I believe many of these edits are inappropriate and it is a lot of work to undo them unless they are all undone which I tend to favor. The apparent goal of the edits is not vandalism or I would have just undone them completely. However the purpose of some of the edits seems to be to put a more positive BLP spin on facts than is justified. For instance, this sentence was changed from:
"In 2008,[41] 2009[42] and 2010[43] BLP news releases cited research by Rowan University staff as independent verification of BLP claims."
"In 2008,[42] 2009[43] and in 2010[44] Rowan University independently verified the claims.[45]"
This seems to be a clear cut attempt to misrepresent the facts. I do not believe 84.106.26.81 is a good faith editor and this example is egregious enough that it is my intention to undo it within 12 hours if there is not a consensus to keep it.-- Davefoc ( talk) 12:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
note: "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page." Wikipedia:Talk_page#Good_practices 84.106.26.81 ( talk) 18:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
http://www.rowan.edu/colleges/engineering/clinics/cleanenergy/pv/papers/pdf/files/paper6.pdf
84.106.26.81 ( talk) 18:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
At the best your source can be said to be a claim by Rowan University of independent research. As the subsequent portion of that section explains claiming that Rowan University provides independent validation might be misleading because of some of the factors listed. The article needs to be very careful with claims of independent validation by Rowan or by BLP. These claims are not peer reviewed. Rowan clearly has a long standing relationship with BLP. The article you referenced in this section is titled UNDERGRADUATE VALIDATION OF CUTTING-EDGE CALORIMETRY OF AN INDUSTRIAL AFFILIATE’S NOVEL ENERGY SOURCE. There are huge red flags there. First it calls BLP an affiliate. Secondly it is research done by undergraduates. Thirdly there is not the slightest indication that this is peer reviewed or supported by outside researchers. I have not included this in the article because I think it goes into personal opinion and OR but what seems to be going on here is that BLP does an experiment and passes it over to Rowan that repeats what BLP did often with the same equipment and says they have independently validated something. Please read what legitimate physics papers sound like when they are attempting to validate a theory or result. They develop independent experiments and reasoning to validate or not validate a theory. In a nutshell they are trying to provide independent confirmation of a theory. Rowan University is merely playing the role of advanced technicians that duplicate BLP specified experiments. Independent validation is not what is going on here regardless of claims to the contrary and your edits to the section in question imply that it is. If you want to claim independent verification find any research done by a respected university or research lab that has used their own equipment that is not an affiliate of BLP that supports BLP claims and reference that. Meanwhile until you can demonstrate something like that your edits will continue to look like something done by somebody with a non neutral agenda and it therefore my intention to undo them unless other editors of this article disagree with me.-- Davefoc ( talk) 21:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
The section was restored to what it had been before the 84.106.26.81|84.106.26.81 edits. Some of the reasons are described below:
Title restored
The title of the Rowan related BLP research section was deleted. The title served the purpose of providing a header to distinguish sections on BLP research, Rowan University BLP related research and mainstream science related BLP related research. It was therefore restored to make that distinction clear.
Topic sentence restored The topic sentence of the section was changed to this by 84.106.26.81|84.106.26.81: "In 2008,[19] 2009[20] and in 2010[4] Rowan University verified the claims." The new sentence is ambiguous. What are the claims Rowan University verified? It may refer in some way to what was written in the paragraph above it, but that is not clear. If it refers to verification of BLP theoretical claims then it is just wrong. Rowan University papers do not seem to ever claim proof or belief in BLP theories. If it refers to verification of BLP experiments then it does not meet reasonable standards for such a strong claim. Rowan University and BLP are the only source of this claim and they do not rise to the level of credibility that the article should state what they claim as fact. What is clear and true is that BLP claims that Rowan University provided independent verification of BLP claims and that is exactly what the original section said. A new source was added to the article that was put forth as justification for the change of the topic sentence. The new source does not validate the change to the topic sentence in the least. From the Reuters article cited: "Last month New Jersey-based Rowan University engineers said the BlackLight process in the lab had produced heat some 1.6-6.5 times beyond levels that can be easily explained." This source is consistent with what the article said before the edits and does not provide any independent confirmation that BLP claims were verified by Rowan as the edits suggest. -- Davefoc ( talk) 17:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-530712?ref=feeds%2Flatest December 2010
note: "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page." Wikipedia:Talk_page#Good_practices
84.106.26.81 ( talk) 06:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
What people forgot to mention is that "independent validation" is an oxymoron. All validation is dependent on prior research. What really matters here is any "conflict of interest". Of course, those too more or less exist when something is being verified. Even if Harvard itself were doing the test, there would be conflicts of interest in the very fact that they must consult Blacklight Power on how the experiment is even going to be set up. It's all shades of gray you people.
siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 +
talk
06:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
(FYI: The business with GEN3 and Harvard was discussed previously here. It's worth reading before rehashing this debate. SteveBaker ( talk) 20:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
The Company section was moved down in the article with the explanation that people were interested in the technology and not the company. This article is about the company and as such I think the Company section belongs at the top of the article below the lede where it was. I suggest that it be returned to its original position. -- Davefoc ( talk) 07:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
The article exists because of the controversy around the "technology" they claim to have discovered. This marvelous technology that was going to be ready to be mass produced 6 months from now 10 years ago. Your idea to bore people with company statistics no one cares about isn't a constructive suggestion. 84.106.26.81 ( talk) 02:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
The information provided in the article regarding activity of Alexander Bykanov is absolutely incorrect. Alexander Bykanov received the PDDF files with spectra taken by Harvard team where some continuum spectra in EUV band were observed in H2 plasma and werte not observed in He plasma. Then Alexander went to BLP and did measurements himself. He found WEAK spectra with He exactly same as in H2, whiche were not observable on the PDF scans. These spectra belong to metal of the electrodes. H2 makes reacts with the anode metal (Mo, Ta...) and creates fairly high concentration of metal in plasma. The inert He may cause only ion erosion and concentration is significanlly lower. This was not mentioned anywhere by BLP team, but no Hydrino explanation is required for the observed spectra. Alexander Bykanov. PhD. 2600:8801:D50A:7000:28A1:7C1E:8353:BD82 ( talk) 23:26, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 8 |
I've been trying to track down any indication that the two New Mexico projects that BLPI have saturated the news agencies with are acknowledged in some fashion by the purported customers. They appear to be real albeit small electric utility cooperatives, but their websites don't show any sign of BLPI that I can find. Can someone turn up a reference that isn't based on a BPLI press release? LeadSongDog ( talk) 18:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering why references to Blacklight Power's inability to get patents on their technology have been deleted. Apparently this was done around 29 December 2008. Is there any good reason why this information should not be reinstated? Mr pheasant ( talk) 08:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Can I just point out that Blacklight's UK applications were in fact finally refused after being remitted to the IPO. Can someone more experienced with editing than me add this? More details at http://www.ipo.gov.uk/pro-types/pro-patent/pro-p-os/p-challenge-decision-results-bl?BL_Number=O/170/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.215.229 ( talk) 21:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
The implication of Mills discovery, and I am quite confident it is real based on its consistency with western history and western literature (e.g. mathematics), but across many disciplines, is structurally consistent (i.e. it is among many similar discoveries in our day that have found structure, as well...), and it is changing the tide of history forever. This is, provided formal deduction has any say-so along the way (see Bertrand Russell, Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy, Incompatibility and the Theory of Deduction). So, why would a judge deny a process leading to formal deduction? Why?! Incompatibility, maybe?
In any event, there will be 'forces of nature' in opposition to their own extinction in any process leading to such an altered landscape, one example being the Old Guard, especially if the current process (of the legal system) doesn't lead anywhere to begin with which is too often the case, blocking it if it so chooses. Mills had a similar road block in the landscape or the current paradigm of modern acedemia which is why he went public, for what that is worth. Ward Churchill should have been so lucky. People can't do research for themselves.
In any event, deduction, which comes down to, in this day, a conflict between the unconscious, covert behavior of the psyche of moderns, and the outright rejection of this approach to those who treat science and art with compassion and respect, and with the true intent of learning rather than parroting former behavior, has to be focused on a minimal use of formal relationships to get to what is implied, or deduced, an efficiency. This is not a never ending process! There is something structural being introduced to mankind collectively across disciplines, like a truth-function more important than truth itself, or which will never be found to be greater than its user, the truth that is. But, where are the users in a public forum?
This truth-function must be working in the landscape of civilization, which might be a high hope at this time for the 'value of it' to be distributed. Repeating, there will be 'forces of nature' in opposition to their own extinction in any process leading to an altered landscape, especially if the current process doesn't lead anywhere to begin with. Take the ease of which a calculator in your hand adds 2 plus 2, and understand that this self-same logic, or its ability follows money in electronic form around the planet with equal ease to 2 plus 2, and then you will see who is programming it today. Yes, the Old Guard, not the commonwealth. Why did Viet Nam happen, people?! This is not WWII, nor even WWIII, but a IV of some strange or, maybe, not so strange variety, leaving us as 'the strange.'
One step further, not desiring to digress so much nor able to go into so many far ranging fabulous issues stemming off this single idea having, each, their own proofs, or leaving them aside for the moment, what are some of the hurdles that are being faced with regard to Mills' patents, to which, he himself stated at the Hyatt in NYC recently are far reaching and numerous? The patents, I mean! He seems very satisfied. Why is this UK judge even on this page? What would a UK judge know about paradigms shifting in physics to begin with, or to claim as he does so much knowlege he is certain of based on his interpretation of the current (modern) paradigm of Physics (i.e. not Law), negating any opportunity for attaining professionals in the field to prove Mills' assertions false in the first place, or, for that matter, his proofs? RobertMStahl ( talk) 22:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Rowan university has done two recent (2008) studies which are not listed, these studies claim experimental verification and would offset the overly negative tone of this section. It seems to me that independent researchers fall into two categories, the ones willing to rip apart the mathematics, and the ones willing to actually try the experiments. The first are uncategorically negative since Blacklight flies int he face of conventional wisdom (as did Galileo). I don't think anyone who has performed the actual experiments has reported negative results. DavesPlanet ( talk) 13:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Water Flow Calorimetry Experiments, Validation Tests and Chemical Analysis of Reactantsfor BlackLight Power Inc. Experiments and Analytical Testing Performed at Rowan University, 21 July – 24 September 2008 direct link This report is included in direct link 79.161.33.17 ( talk) 11:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, 'alleged,' is bad English. But it's fine here at WP Discussion Forum, where the self-appointed 'gatekeepers of knowledge' can pick apart a paradigm-shifting discovery in clean, renewable energy. Alleged, is the right term since to them Mills is well on his way to trial and conviction for daring to try to explain (ie., theorize) the basis for something so fantastic (in it's implications if it is confirmed) since it flies in the face of their mainstream science icons (read: religion-of-obsolete-science idols). JRSlack ( talk) 06:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
It seems that BLPI or their agents Hill & Knowlton have some rather unusual publicity practices.
I don't expect to find a WP:RS discussing this behaviour, but editors should still be aware that they are actively spinning the media coverage. LeadSongDog come howl 14:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Spectroscopic observation of helium-ion- and hydrogen-catalyzed hydrino transitions. I have no opinion on the validity of hydrino theory, only that (1) it is totally unexpected from long-established understanding of the ground state for electrons, and (2) it's been getting a certain level of peer-reviewed publication. From other recent news, Mills and Blacklight have either found something very significant, or it is a complex end-game. -- Abd ( talk) 18:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Does that mean that I can alter the Central European Journal of Physics Wikipedia entry to say ... The CEJP is a lowly regarded rarely accepted form of peer review and the highly qualified board members integrity is open to question. Why not? However, if the journal is reputable then Mills has quality peer review and Hydrinos are a verifiable fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.178.38 ( talk) 06:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
This paper seems to be published by Rowan University (it has a Rowan logo on it)and although available on the BLP website, certainly looks to be an independant confirmation of Hydrino existence. http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/RowanHydrinoReport2009.pdf
If you feel it is still not enough to say that the Hydrino in fact does exist then can I do the same for Rowan University Wikipedia entry, that is mention that some Wikipedia articles and contributors do not accept that Rowan is a reputable source of scientific research? Oh, I forgot, Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information either!
Without taking a position on whether the theory is bunk or not, I think the theory section might do a better job of explaining how the Mills model makes use of the non-radiation condition. In particular, Mills links the non-radiation condition explicitly to the ground state by supposedly showing mathematically that the "orbitsphere" that corresponds to the ground state has the smallest radius possible that could contain "light-like" components and therefore is the smallest radius orbitsphere that could emit a photon - as per Haus. In Mills' view, the ground state is only the limit on photonic radiation, but not necessarily non-photonic radiation, which he then proceeds to describe in gory detail as the so-called "Blacklight process". Again, I take no position on whether he's right or not but if we're going to explain the theory, I believe we should make his arguments as accessible as possible. Any objections to making this change to the theory section? Ronnotel ( talk) 18:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I just added the following edit. Does anyone wonder when the Bob Park quote was first introduced into this article? I did just a few minutes ago. After clicking through through much of the history, I found that it was exactly 5 years ago on July 14, 2005 when user User:Theresa knott made this edit. Time sure does fly by. Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 17:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Related Edits ["8 intermediate revisions" by User:Kmarinas86]: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Blacklight_Power&action=historysubmit&diff=373512763&oldid=373496049
Google StreetView is notoriously unreliable about lining up actual numeric address within a block. In this context, I'm not sure the information in the recently added footnote is all that notable. Yes, there appears to be a building with appropriate signage at approximately the location that is stated in various BLP materials. Is there something else we should infer? Ronnotel ( talk) 21:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
This whole article on Blacklight Power is not accepted by mainstream scientists and regarded as pseudoscience. It should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.15.42.91 ( talk) 13:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Replication by Alexander Bykanov of anomalous spectra in the 10-30nm range from pure hydrogen was reported on Nov 29 and new papers were posted on Blacklight Powers website. I am not sure where these papers would fit into the article but it would seem to lend some credibility to Mill's older papers since this paper also reports short wavelength cutoff at 10nm and 23nm without being able to offer any conventional explanation for them. 0WhatWhat0 ( talk) 09:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
This paragraph was added to the "Responses by outside researchers in chronological order" section:
Issues:
1. The article says according to Gen3 Partners, but the only citation is a paper with GEN3 logo on the front of it. So what is the source for "according to GEN3 Partners". The GEN3 Partners website doesn't mention Blacklight Power or this paper.
2. The CEO of GEN3 partners seems to have been at one time Jim Sims and there is a James K. Sims listed as a director of Blacklight Power on their website.
3. There is a minor spelling issue and what appears to be a citation is just a link to the paper.
4. The problems mentioned by Ronnotel and LeadSongDog above with the paper.
I don't know how this sort of thing should be handled. Nothing about BLP research or press releases is exactly what it seems. There are no sources beyond BLP for most of its apparent linkages to other companies. Including the fact of the release of this paper without also mentioning that BLP is the sole source of information about it gives undo weight to the credibility of the paper and the facts surrounding it. -- Davefoc ( talk) 10:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I modified the paragraph in question. The sources of information for the new paragraph are entirely the BLP press release and the associated paper. I removed the information that the research was was done at Harvard CfA. It appears that the only CfA involvement was to lease their lab. This is supported by a letter from a Harvard PR person (posted to a blog) that this was the case . At least some of the research described in the paper was done at BLP. I also didn't mention that in the paragraph as I thought it was excessive detail. I did attempt to balance the claims of the press release by including the information that the study was funded by BLP and that the paper did not seem to have been submitted for peer review. The CV for Bykanov is available on the web and it does not mention this research or any association with BLP. The failure of Bykanov to mention an association with what would be one of the most significant scientific discoveries of the decade in his CV provides further circumstantial evidence that the BLP claims with regard to this are not credible. However, this article is about BLP, and what they claim even if it is not credible is relevant to the article I think. -- Davefoc ( talk) 19:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
It is difficult to determine what of the information in this article does not trace back to Blacklight power as the original source.
The claim that Blacklight Power has contracts with any utilities for power generation is suspect. No entity that Blacklight power claims to have a contract with seems to have published an acknowledgment of that contract. One of the utilities that BLP has announced a relationship with is Akridge Energy LLC. Akridge Energy does not seem to be a functioning business. Akridge Energy seems to be associated with the Akridge real estate company which does not publically acknowledge the existence of Akridge Energy on its web site.
The claim that Blacklight Power has raised any money does not seem to be independently verifiable. It is a claim repeated in various articles that do not provide any source for the information.
The claim that there is any independent validation of any Blacklight Power results does not seem to be verifiable. On closer inspection, alleged independent test results are only published by Blacklight Power and rely on people that have or have had relationships with Blacklight power.
The article contains this sentence: "A small group of experimental scientists from NASA and the US Navy research labs have expressed mild support for the claims of Blacklight Power.[2]" Who are these scientists? The article that is a source for this statement lists only Shelby Brewer who seems to have been on the BLP board and seems to have served as president of BLP for a time although the BLP site does not list him in either capacity today.
In general, it does not seem to be possible to find independent verification of any information concerning BLP and what independent information there is available concerning BLP is of a nature that tends to make BLP claims look even more suspicious. As such, I think that consideration should be given to a complete review of this article with an eye to eliminating statements that are based on sources that seem to be just repetitions of data from BLP press releases.-- Davefoc ( talk) 17:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, I'm sorry I wrote this. When I first read the article, I noticed a lot of stuff that seemed to trace back only to information posted by BLP and I thought I'd mention it. Now that I have become more familiar with the article and the discussion I realize that much of the article is written in such a way as to deal with this issue. I believe questionable material still remains in the article, but I think the appropriate way to deal with that is on a case by case basis in the discussion section. -- Davefoc ( talk) 23:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
According to the article, BLP claimed that they would deliver a 50KW plant in 12 to 18 months - and that was back in 2008. So did they deliver something - or did they default on that contract?
Seems like it should have made news either way. Does anyone know who they claimed to be delivering this system to?
SteveBaker ( talk) 19:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
There have two recent efforts by anon users: 79.36.206.98 and 95.245.215.94 to add a reference to the Joe Shea CNN iReport (which is not a true CNN report - more like a blog entry). Anything you see in Wikipedia that is promoting anything written by Joe Shea is almost certainly the man himself doing a bit of shameless self-promotion. He's wannabe journalist and a repeated violator of COI rules who typically uses the approach of first trying to post something under his own name - then resorting to widely-separated (and hence hard to block) anon IP accounts. This time is no different User:Joeshea modified the article on Jan 15th and is (in all likelyhood) behind these two anon efforts to do the same thing. Revert on sight folks. SteveBaker ( talk) 21:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Is there really a need to publish every press release this company sends out? I suggest we remove most. There's only so much "The company claims that..." that an article should have.. Guyonthesubway ( talk) 03:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
"iReport is a user-generated section of CNN.com. The stories here come from users. CNN has vetted only the stories marked with the "CNN" badge. " Guyonthesubway ( talk) 17:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
The article contains this statement currently:
May 1, 2008: Hans-Jürgen Kunze suggests "that spectral lines, on which the fiction of fractional principal quantum numbers in the hydrogen atom is based, are nothing else but artefacts."
The referenced article seems to be one of the most relevant critiques of the techniques used by BLP to detect novel spectrum lines for hydrogen. As such I thought some expansion of the information about it was justified. However, I would like to get responses from others before I made any change to the article in this area. The change I propose is below:
May 1, 2008: An article by Hans-Joachim Kunze was published that criticized the techniques used to observe novel spectral lines reported in a 2003 paper authored by R. Mills and P. Ray, Extreme ultraviolet spectroscopy of helium–hydrogen. Hans-Joachim Kunze is professor emeritus at the Institute for Experimental Physics V Ruhr University Bochum, Germany. The abstract of the article is: "It is suggested that spectral lines, on which the fiction of fractional principal quantum numbers in the hydrogen atom is based, are nothing else but artefacts."
Kunze stated that it was impossible to detect the novel lines below 30nm reported by Mills and Ray because the equipment they used did not have the capability to detect them as per the manufacturer and as per "every book on vacuum-UV spectroscopy" and "therefore the observed lines must be artefacts". Kunze also stated that: "The enormous spectral widths of the novel lines point to artefacts, too."
Link to Kunze paper: http://iopscience.iop.org/0022-3727/41/10/108001/pdf/0022-3727_41_10_108001.pdf Link to information about Kunze: http://www.ep5.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/en/emeriti_en.html
Small issue: I don't know why the article uses Hans-Jürgen Kunze. His name seems to be Hans-Joachim Kunze.
Thanks for the response Kmarinas86. What is the source for the criticism of Kunze's critique of the Mills/Ray experiment? I couldn't find a response to Kunze but I did look over the issue that you raised a bit. The minimum detectable wavelength of the spectrometer used in the experiment (Model 302 Vacuum Ultraviolet Monochromator) is specified an 30nm (as Kunze says) by the manufacturer ( http://www.mcphersoninc.com/spectrometers/vuvuvvis/model234302.htm). I did not find any information on line that this range could be expanded by using a channel electron multipler. Perhaps the most significant point that Kunze made was that the observations of the novel lines were done with the normal incident spectroscopy equipment that he claims was inappropriate for the detection of sub 30 nm wavelengths but that the control observations of helium emissions were done with a grazing incident instrument that he felt was appropriate for detecting the sub 30 nm emissions. That strikes me as very strange. Why was the control experiment done with a completely different experimental setup? Regardless, this is just my non-expert musings about all this. Kunze is an expert and his article is relevant to this article as would a published critique of his article by another expert or BLP.
My main question is with regard to the summary I proposed of Kunze's article. Is the proposed summary too long, incorrect or could the wording be improved? Is there a published response to Kunze's article that would be appropriate to mention? -- Davefoc ( talk) 19:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Dr. Melvin H. Miles was quoted as a source of mild support for BLP technology presumably as an example of support from the US Navy research labs. He also seems to be a supporter and was at least previously an investigator of cold fusion. Is this an appropriate fact to mention in the article if Miles is going to be quoted? It is also interesting that despite his support for BLP in 1999, Blacklight Power is not mentioned on his website today.-- Davefoc ( talk) 08:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the response Guyonthesubway. Did you mean you favor removing the Melvin Miles quote entirely? If that was what you meant, I tend to agree. This seems like an offhand comment by Miles in response to his belief that BLP claims of having an actual product were true (although he expressed skepticism about the BLP theory as to why their product worked) and that put the BLP research ahead of cold fusion research at the time. I was not able to find any other connection between Miles and BLP. -- Davefoc ( talk) 21:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Regarding these three sentences,
they now appear in two places in the article, which is not a sign of a quality article. If my fellow editors insist on keeping them in the lede, please delete them from the "Reactions from various scientists" section.
I continue to maintain that inconsistencies with quantum theory are not sufficient reason to criticize the theory. This theory has its own set of successes, separate and distinct from quantum theory's successes (such as the Millsian software's uncanny ability to closely predict experimental results). Mills intends it as a replacement for quantum theory, and if it had no inconsistencies with quantum theory, it would make for a poor replacement indeed.
199.46.245.231 (
talk)
21:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
These sections should be combined. Now should the combination be notably ahead of the "Rejection of mainstream particle physics"? The company has higher order relevance to this article. Zulu Papa 5 * ( talk) 22:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
"Theory" mind as well be orders with "rejection"
Zulu Papa 5 * (
talk)
22:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
William M. Connolley hath decreed, "A ref to two newsgroup postings, neither by connett, isn't even close to good enough"
Yes, but in fact this statement was made by Jeconnett
William M. Connolley deleted the following ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Blacklight_Power&curid=452779&diff=415484861&oldid=415480386):
“ | Dr. John E. Connett, one of BlackLight Power's most vocal critics on the now-defunct Hydrino Study Group forum, issued the following statement in August 2010:
|
” |
Hydrino.org discussions in text files.zip (256 KB) 12/3/10 by Kmarinas86 https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B4C1RIYfRPYtNmM5OGUzYTAtYmFkZC00MDM3LWIyYTctMjNiNmJjY2IwNzIy&sort=name&layout=list&num=50
Hydrino.org discussions in htm.rar (3 MB) 12/3/10 by Kmarinas86 https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B4C1RIYfRPYtYjg3YWIxMjctZGEyMC00MzIxLTg2YzMtMzllMzcyZTYyNjU3&sort=name&layout=list&num=50
Meeting of the Johns.txt
My comments are highlighted in blue. The rest are Jeconnett's quotations and commentary.
[quote="jeconnett"][quote][b]John EB quoted Randell Mills' post in SCQM: [/b]
It is improper to integrate the time-averaged power over time as insisted on by Dr. Connett. It is a number not a function of time. There is nothing to contest here and Dr. Connett is clearly wrong.
[/quote]
I disagree. The expression for a_M(l, m) in Equation (23) of the paper includes an integral with respect to s of cos(m k s).
[snip]
John C.[/quote]
Equation 16.74 of John DJ's [i]Classical Electrodynamics, Second Edition[/i]:
[url= http://books.google.com/books?ei=k5RYTM3xIqO-9gTWqpG5BA&ct=result&id=_7rvAAAAMAAJ&dq=classical+electrodynamics&q=%22am%28l%2Cm%29%22#search_anchor]dP/dΩ[/url] - [b]Summation [u]precedes[/u] squaring.[/b]
Equation 16.89 of John DJ's [i]Classical Electrodynamics, Second Edition[/i]:
[url= http://books.google.com/books?ei=k5RYTM3xIqO-9gTWqpG5BA&ct=result&id=_7rvAAAAMAAJ&dq=classical+electrodynamics&q=j+l+kr#search_anchor]a_E(l,m) and a_M(l,m) (solutions for a source)[/url] - [b][i]Corresponds to Eq. (1.7) and Eq. (1.8) of the August 2, 2010 update of Mills' book.[/i][/b]
Equation 16.47 of John DJ's [i]Classical Electrodynamics, Second Edition[/i]:
[url= http://books.google.com/books?ei=k5RYTM3xIqO-9gTWqpG5BA&ct=result&id=_7rvAAAAMAAJ&dq=classical+electrodynamics&q=%22am%28l%2Cm%29%22#search_anchor]a_M(l,m) and a_E(l,m) (general formulae)[/url] - [b]Integration with respect to [u]angle[/u].[/b]
So which John is correct? Clearly only one John is correct, and that John is John David Jackson.
[b]The link has been updated:
Former title: [url= http://www.blacklightpower.com/papers/21cm-1%20paper072210S.pdf]21cm-1 paper072210S.pdf[/url] (link does not work anymore)
New title: [url= http://www.blacklightpower.com/papers/21cm-1%20paper%20080210S.pdf]21cm-1 paper 080210S.pdf[/url][/b]
[quote="jeconnett"][quote][b]John EB quoted Randell Mills' post in SCQM: [/b]
It is improper to integrate the time-averaged power over time as insisted on by Dr. Connett. It is a number not a function of time. There is nothing to contest here and Dr. Connett is clearly wrong.
[/quote]
I disagree. The expression for a_M(l, m) in Equation (23) of the paper includes an integral with respect to s of cos(m k s). The limits on this integral are clearly closely related to time. A key question is: how did that cosine expression get there in the first place? It is clear that its origin, as seen in Equation (11) of the paper, is in the factor exp(-i omega t) which in this case represents rotation of the sphere, and is similarly in Equation (20), exp(-i omega_n t), where t is [b]time[/b]. The text after Equation (20) shows that the real part of this factor is cos(m*phi + m*omega_n*t). The previous version of the paper indicated this by noting explicitly that s is a function of t, s(t). (In fact by the previous statement, it is clear that s(t) = phi + omega_n*t, i.e. the relationship of s(t) to time is linear.) This description is now omitted, but it is clear that s, the 'angular displacement', is a direct function, essentially a surrogate, of time. The "ds" in the integral in Equation (23) of the paper could easily be written as s'(t) dt.
What is being done in the paper to some extent emulates what Jackson carries out for multipole sources, where there is a factor of Re(exp(-i omega t) = cos(omega t). Jackson however first squares the expression for time-dependent power per solid angle, then integrates. It is the fact that (cos(omega t))^2 is always nonnegative which results in nonzero power. Dr. Mills' argument here is that he first claims to show that the time-dependent power is zero, i.e., a_M(l, m, t) = 0 for all t, so the square of this quantity in the expression for time-dependent power is zero. What I am saying is that in his argument to show that the time-dependent power is zero, he has unwittingly already averaged over time because s as an angle is linearly related to time, and that integrating in Equation (23) with respect to s (hence the "ds" in Equation (23)) unfortunately obscures this fact. The integration in Equation (23) is actually being done over time.
[quote][b]Dr. Mills continued: [/b] Next, as shown by Eq. (11), the magnetic coefficient is derived as an integral over the three spatial dimensions and not time as incorrectly claimed by Dr. Connett. Based on the spherical symmetry of the source current, it was integrated over distance r, angle theta, and azimuthal angle phi, not time.
[/quote]
Despite saying this, there is no indication whatsoever in Equation (23) of the paper that that integration is over any variable other than s. In both Equation (11) and Equation (23), the expression on the left side of the equations is exactly the same: a_M(l, m). As noted in the comments following Equation (24), the integration with respect to s (which is essentially integration with respect to t) is crucial to showing that a_M(l, m) is zero. The problem being, what should be integrated here is the [b]square[/b] of this expression, as is done in Jackson's text.
I have advanced three other arguments indicating that a rotating orbitsphere with a nonuniform charge distribution must radiate. I think the simplest of these is the following:
1. Dr. Mills asserts that the orbitsphere has angular momentum hbar / 2 (nonzero is all that's important) due to his meshwork of great-circle current loops.
2. The magnetic moment of such a system is proportional to the angular momentum (Jackson, e.g.). Hence the magnetic moment is also nonzero.
3. Thus the orbitsphere is basically a permanent magnet.
4. A rotating permanent magnet transfers energy to its surroundings. If there is a pickup coil-circuit nearby with a resistor in the circuit, current will flow in the coil and the resistor will heat up. Ultimately the energy transferred by the changing magnetic field is supplied by the motive force that is rotating the magnet. This is why for example hydroelectric power generators work. There need not be a coil in the vicinity; electrons in conducting materials will move, and atoms nearby will be caused to jiggle a bit by the changing magnetic field, and the energy for jiggling them again comes from the motive force that is rotating the magnet. The changing magnetic field is propagated through space at the speed of light.
5. Therefore the rotating orbitsphere loses energy to its surroundings. Whether this constitutes 'radiation' may be a matter of definition. It does qualify as radiation according to the definition given by Wikipedia:
In physics, radiation describes any process in which energy travels through a medium or through space, ultimately to be absorbed by another body.
Another (intuitive) way of viewing this: a rotating orbitsphere with a nonuniform charge, in many configurations, is highly
similar to a rotating dipole. This is made clear by a number of color illustrations and movies in the BLP presentation
materials. As such it will exhibit ED (electric dipole) radiation. This is not necessarily identical to classical EM radiation.
The important thing is that a transfer of energy occurs and the orbitsphere must lose kinetic energy. The orbitsphere
in this configuration cannot be stable.
[quote][b]Randell Mills continued as follows: [/b]
If Dr. John Connett, University of Minnesota, is academically honest and is not acting in malice, he will admit these indisputable facts, retract his false conclusions, and apologize for his unprofessional conduct and personal insults. Some recent examples are given below.
[/quote]
I am not acting out of malice. I remain convinced that the a rotating orbitsphere with a nonuniform charge density (as depicted in a number of BLP presentations) must, according to classical laws of physics, radiate. My arguments are sincere. It would not be honest of me at this point to retract the views and arguments that I have expressed here on this.
At times I have been intemperate and uncomplimentary in my references to Dr. Mills. I sincerely apologize for this. I will strictly refrain from such characterizations in the future.
John C.[/quote]
The retraction
Hydrino Study Group Forum • View topic - Question about Delusions and GUT-CP 1.htm
Hydrino Study Group Forum • View topic - Proposal for a New Section 1.htm
Hydrino Study Group Forum • View topic - The Hydrino Spectrum.htm
Hydrino Study Group Forum • View topic - What Would Reverse Your View.htm
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg39812.html
Re: [Vo]:A prominent CQM (BL) critic capitulates
OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson Mon, 09 Aug 2010 07:46:54 -0700
The original retraction from John Connett appears to be out at HSG Hydrino Study Group Forum, maintained by Luke Setzer (my apologies for misspelling Luke's last name):
http://forum.hydrino.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=312&sid=851e1815295c5d93648887358ed4869f
Luke replied:
"I am locking and stickying this topic to make it a standalone document."
;-)
Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 +
talk
12:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Blacklight_Power#Theory has an indented section of text that looks like it's trying to be a quotation. Since it has neither quotation marks - nor any indication of who said it and where - it tends to look like a part of the article that we've written - which is bad because it's really complete nonsense.
We need to either attribute this carefully - or remove it.
SteveBaker ( talk) 15:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Fixed
LeadSongDog
come howl!
17:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I just noticed that their latest claims include a direct to electricity conversion, getting rid of that pesky steam generator. Plus a claim that they anticipate getting 1500 miles to the litre of water. Holy shades of Meyer! [ [3]] I would strongly support inclusion of this claim in the article. Guyonthesubway ( talk) 17:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't see a good explanation for [4] William M. Connolley ( talk) 18:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
[Mill's paper], which involves a nowadays widely discredited 'hydrino' model that was proposed in 1991 to account for the excess heat observations in 'cold fusion' studies. (...) [the notion that there are electron orbital states that are less energetic than the ground state], is contrary to conventional quantum principles and unacceptable to me or to the general theoretical-physics community.
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randell Mills. Randell Mills has been redirected here, so this is the proper article to discuss his theories. other pages redirecting here are "Hydrino", "Hydrino power", "Hydrino theory" and "Randell Mills' Classical Quantum Theory" ( what links here).
Note that the company success completely depends of the success of Mill's ideas and on the existance of hydrinos, so we should cover them in enough detail.
Also, we need to cover well the mainstream acceptance of hydrinos. It affects the abilities of getting private funding, getting published in journals, and having other scientists replicate your work and posting confirmations that should bring in turn more acceptance and funding. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 12:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I've undone the chop, still not seeing why it was done. I think the anon had largely done so, but in a different order, and it seemed cleaner to just revert to the pre-chop version, keeping only the fusion -> fuse fix William M. Connolley ( talk) 12:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
These sections can be merged.
They are about the same thing, just presented differently. They could be merged to better attribute with less confusion. Zulu Papa 5 * ( talk) 18:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Zulu Papa 5 * ( talk) 14:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
The company series of sub-sections is far too long, and needs to be trimmed William M. Connolley ( talk) 19:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
The reorg seems to be going well to me. Zulu Papa 5 * ( talk) 02:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I prefer BLPI to BLP (ala Bio. Living Person, confusion). Zulu Papa 5 * ( talk) 18:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
The "Incorporated" part is almost never incorporated into the initials of a company.
siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 +
talk
21:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Blacklight_Power#Alleged_experimental_findings .... seems like this section should be earlier in the article, at least before all the outsiders huff and puff. It's the insiders huff and puff right? Zulu Papa 5 * ( talk) 14:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
My reading between the lines, is that the Mill's process excess heat is highly dependent on the the hydrinos finding a new home in some yet unclear chemical process, else they go back from whence they come, with no net energy gain. I would like to research and include content on the likely chemical processes which have been proposed for these hydrino things. My view, if there is a sham, it is in assuming the dependent chemical process has the market scale to support wide spread energy benefits. Zulu Papa 5 * ( talk) 02:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
This source seems relevant [5] for a note in this article. Zulu Papa 5 * ( talk) 22:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
{{
press}}
added at the talkpage header. See
WP:PRESS for details.
LeadSongDog
come howl!
23:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
In the article, did anyone notice Mr Park's good faith in Wikipedia openness? Seems like he had as much faith as he has in Mills. It would be worth a mention in his criticisms, that Wikipedia may have gone to far .... back then in 2007. Zulu Papa 5 * ( talk) 03:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
This is now 4 months old yet I do not see it reflected on the wiki page here at all:
GEN3 Partners and Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) Scientists have confirmed the light signature of hydrino formation, high-energy radiation emitted as the electron of the hydrogen atom undergoes a transition below what was previously considered the lowest energy state. Read the results in the GEN3 and CfA Report "Validation of the Observation of Soft X-ray Continuum Radiation from Low-Energy Pinch Discharges in the Presence of Molecular Hydrogen." 96.44.175.206 ( talk) 00:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
BLP claims production of electricity in at least two places on their web site:
However, none of the BLP reports reference any form of electric generation. Apparently the only information about the electrical generation is the fact that BLP claims that it has happened. The BLP text seems like it was written to be intentionally misleading, however based on a careful reading of the text, it seems that BLP is not actually claiming that they are providing any reports about the generation of electricity.
I don't know what, if anything, the article should do with regard to the above. Some people have interpreted BLP releases to mean that direct generation of electricity has occurred in a meaningful proof of concept way. There is zero evidence from BLP, other than their misleading claims, to suggest that anything like that has happened. However this conclusion is bordering on OR and may not be appropriate for the article.
The deceptive use of Rowan University, CfA, GEN3 partners as indication of independent verification, the dodgy claims of electric utility contracts and the misleading claims about electric generation create the suggestion of a pattern that is an important part of the BLP story, but perhaps the article has gone as far as it should in describing this aspect of the story.
As an aside, it seems like BLP is claiming that a new report, dated November 2010, was generated to support their 2010 claims of independent validation by Rowan: http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/Rowan2010.pdf The new report is titled:
The title and listed authors are very similar to the third of the four Rowan reports that were put forth to support their 2009 claims of independent validation by Rowan.
The Wikipedia article is not quite correct with regard to this and it should be updated to be precise on this point I think.-- Davefoc ( talk) 20:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
With regard to Zulu's question above "Heat goes to electricity, how trivial and misleading is that?" Very misleading I think. The press release suggests that BLP has a functioning prototype that produced electricity from a continuous reaction in excess of that predicted by standard physics. Validation of their claims would be trivial with such a device but beyond the title of the press release BLP did not produce any evidence for such a device. The reports cited by BLP claim that a pulse of heat has been detected in excess of what can be explained by standard physics. This is essentially the same claim that BLP has been making for years and there was nothing new in that. There are at least three possible problems associated with this evidence: 1. The experiments may be flawed. 2. The analysis may be flawed. 3. Even if a previously unknown reaction was detected it is not clear that it could be exploited for useful energy generation. So without the claim of electricity production they had nothing to claim except the same sketchy stuff that they had been claiming for years and, in fact, they didn't supply any information about their electricity production so despite the implication of the press release title the information released was nothing new and it was at least as problematic as what had come before. -- Davefoc ( talk) 17:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
“ | Dr. K.V. Ramanujachary said, “The chemicals used in CIHT technology are similar to those used in thermal and chemical cells that were separately, thoroughly and diligently validated over the past three years by a team at Rowan University that included myself. Since the measurements on CIHT are electrical versus calorimetric, there can be no dispute over the power and the energy balance. With further optimization, there is no doubt that this technology will present an economically viable and environmentally benign alternate to meet Global energy needs. If advanced to commercialization, it would be one of the most profound developments ever.” Completion of Thermal Energy Balance and Chemical Characterization of Solids Fuels at Rowan University .... Light Signature of Hydrino |
” |
The type of content in the papers is not all that new, however Blacklight Power seems to be disclosing some details years after the fact. Check out
http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/GEN3_SolidFuel.pdf. It's a 2009 paper in connection with GEN3 Partners. The file was uploaded/modified into
http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/ on March 10, 2011.
siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 +
talk
18:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I guess misleading is in the eye of the beholder. The only thing significantly different in this press release from what BLP has been claiming for years is the claim of electrical production. There are no details on this other than some unsubstantiated blathering, so essentially there is no new information here from what has gone on before and that seems to be pretty misleading to me. If BLP has a device that generates electricity in a way that provides a simple validation of their claims all they need to do is send it to a local independent lab, release the reports and they're done. They can just start spending the billions of dollars that will flow their way. If they have that device no tricky press releases are necessary. The fact that they are still producing tricky press releases strongly suggests that they don't have such a device.-- Davefoc ( talk) 19:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC).
I contested your prod [6]. Please note that crackpot theories also get their own articles (just take a look at Category:Pseudophysics). They just need to be notable. I think that the lead of the article already makes it clear that mainstream science just plain out rejects Mill's ideas. About being a scam, you need reliable sources to make such a claim about a company in a wikipedia article. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 08:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Well okay, here's how I see it. The scientific content of the article is exactly zero, so on this ground it does not make a positive contribution to Wikipedia. However, as Enric pointed out, crackpot ideas can get their pages if they're notable enough. Which brings us to the notability issue. Apart from some media brouhaha around 2005-2007, I really don't see any notability this idea has. Their company may of course put out press releases every once in a while on their website to try and keep interest alive, but just because they make enough noise doesn't mean they should get their own Wikipedia entry. This was my reasoning behind proposing the article for deletion, and I still stand by it. However, in the meantime I realized there is a good reason for not deleting the article - to provide some information to those who may occasionally run across this company. I guess this is also some form of notability, albeit a different one from the one I had in mind when proposing the article for deletion. Which brings us to the quality of the article.
I think the article is very poorly written/potentially misleading. Yes, it does state at the beginning of some sections that the ideas presented are not mainstream physics, but this is not further explained in the body of the sections. In other places sections of criticism are mixed with sections defending the theory, and with legitimate buzzwords/institutions, so that a casual reader may be confused into believing the legitimacy of the crank concepts. The same is true of the references - papers which are legitimate but have nothing to do with these crackpot ideas are cited alongside crackpot papers, creating a mishmash in which it is hard to discern what is legitimate and what is not. Etc.
So in conclusion, I think the article should stay. But with significant rewriting. Crackpot ideas do belong on Wikipedia if they're "notorious" enough, but they should be clearly labeled as such. I'm going to stick a couple of templates in until my concerns are addressed. Bstoica ( talk) 21:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
This article is good in that it shows how scammers can gain $ for idiotic and completely Wrong ideas.. But.. There needs to be clear demarcation about what is real and what is pseudoscience (fantasy-fiction).. This article is TOO NEUTRAL and needs to be clearer about the fringe-fantasy-idiocy aspects of the 'theory'/BS.. As the person says above, Wikipedia is complicit and encouraging FRAUD by publicizing this BS .. MAKE THIS ABSOLUTELY CLEAR or delete the article.. PARTICIPATE IN FRAUD or make ABSOLUTELY CLEAR IT'S FRAUD - only ONE OR THE OTHER Phoenix-antiscammer ( talk) 23:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Bstoica said above: "Perhaps it would be better to state in a more elaborate manner at the beginning of the article that it's not dealing w/ mainstream physics. I don't think the one sentence that is currently there quite cuts it, and going into the company section one can be left with the idea that this is legitimate science."
I see two related issues here:
1. Does the introductory sections makes it sufficiently clear that BLP theories are generally rejected by mainstream physics?
2. Should the "Company" section be more explicit about the fact that Mills' theories are not accepted by the mainstream physics comunnity?
Issue 1:
The second sentence of the two sentence introductory section is:
"Where Mills has not been ignored he has met general skepticism in the academic community since the founding of BLP in 1991. Mills' ideas of "CQM" and "hydrinos" have been criticised by mainstream physicists[5][6][7][8] as "pseudoscience" and rejected as "just silliness".
That seems clear to me. I am not sure how it could be made more explicit and remain consistent within the spirit of NPOV. Perhaps there is a case to be made for including Dr. Phillip Anderson's thoughts on the matter to liven up the section a bit.
Issue 2:
There may be some issues with the clarity of the writing in the "Company" section but two of the four paragraphs provide substantial negative information with regard to BLP. The point of the two paragraphs is that BLP theories have been rejected by respected scientists and no practical devices have been built based on BLP technology. I think perhaps there is room for improvement here in that perhaps the section could more clearly make that point. However, overall I think the general tone and approach of the section is correct.
--
Davefoc (
talk)
05:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I added mention in the theory section to the 1995 edition of the GUTCQM where RLM first predicts acceleration of the expansion of the universe in 1995 which was before it was observed and then later confirmed in 1998. This is significant and verifiable from the references provided.
Additionally, I updated BLP's publication references to 84 peer-reviewed publications and provided an updated link to the publication list. The last peer-reviewed citation was from 2009.
Both of these edits were undone by WMC on the basis of "restore useful info". How is it possibly restoring useful info by removing factually significant, more accurate and updated information? This seems biased. I would like to argue for restoring my edits.
Johnnycpis ( talk) 14:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Why it's a loser: Most experts don't believe such lower states exist, and they say the experiments don't present convincing evidence.(part of Winners & Losers VI, by Philip E. Ross in the same publication)
These 95 (as of July 2011) publications have been a topic of debate here for years now, as has how to characterize them. I suppose we may need an archive section on this question alone, and a FAQ. Simply put, the nature of modern junk science is to create reams of papers (that go largely unread) to create a semblance of credibility. Low impact journals are those with little reputation for quality in their field: science and publishing are both competitive fields, so authors/editors each want to get the best journals/papers they can. An author's consistent inability to get published in high-impact journals is strong evidence that the best editors are unconvinced of the work's merits. However that is only my analysis and has no place in the article. If we are to provide characterization, it should come from published and hence wp:V wp:RS. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Should this article include a list of prominent individuals that have been part of the corporate governance of BLP?
The section has been added and removed a few times.
The issue seems difficult to me. LeadSongDog has suggested that there is insufficient references to support it, but they now at least seem to be reasonably referenced.
The issue for me is whether the list is of sufficient interest and relevance to justify its inclusion. Part of the BLP story is the fact that the company has attracted prominent people to be part of its corporate governance. Right now that is about all that is publically known about this. None of these people have said anything about the company after they have left it and none of these people have provided any information about their motivation in joining the company other than some rosy statements around the time they join.
I think a similar issue exists with regard to the list of companies that BLP allegedly had contracts with. We know nothing about the nature of the contracts and mostly we don't know what the expectations of the people who signed these agreements was. In fact, the companies are almost all tiny entities the purpose of which is not clear and listing those companies may imply undo weight as to the significance of the contracts.
I don't know that there is an objective answer as to what is appropriate here. My own thought is that the corporate governance list is too long relative to the information value it supplies. I think what might be more appropriate is a short statement that the corporate governance of BLP has included prominent individuals with a few of the people on the list provided as examples. However an argument can be made that this is a kind of documentation that might be useful to somebody in the future trying to unravel what went on at BLP. -- Davefoc ( talk) 16:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I looked at a few of the references and they seem to be other than BLP. My guess is that most of the references are legit and non-BLP or could be made so. The real issue, I think, is whether the list belongs or not and if so should it remain in its current form. I would not feel bad about any decision, but I think the best would be to convert the list to a short paragraph stating that some prominent people have participated in BLP corporate governance and list a few examples. This is interesting information whether BLP is eventually shown to be a complete scam or if BLP releases technology that transforms the world. Perhaps a corporate governance section that lists a few current corporate officers and a brief mention of previous prominent individuals that have served in corporate governance would be best. The most interesting thing and the most useful thing would be to include something about what past board members had to say about what went on in the company. I have never seen even the tiniest indication that anything like that exists. The lack of any information from people that have worked in the company or served in its corporate governance about the nature of the company is an interesting part of the story, but I'm not sure what to make of it and at any rate it is hard to document the absence of something.-- Davefoc ( talk) 05:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Keep, but with some changesThe sources for the list of directors may not be perfect, but on a practical basis it seems very likely that they are correct. I doubt even the moderately prominent people in the list would allow their names to be used in this way if it weren't true. Although I don't seem to be able to build a consensus for this idea, I think the correct action here is to modify the section so that it begins with a statement about who a few of the highest ranking members of the corporate governance are, followed by a statement that the company has had some prominent board members in the past with the two or three most prominent listed. One way to maintain the documentation benefit of the list without unnecessarily increasing the size of the article would be to list the prominent members as references to the claim that prominent people have been part of BLP corporate governance in the past. Consideration might be given to pointing out board members that were previously were with Connectiv when it entered into its agreement with BLP.-- Davefoc ( talk) 18:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
talk:174.24.123.239|talk]]) 22:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.46.200.232 ( talk • contribs) 22:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Keep as notable and good form to improve the article. The Directors have a fiduciary duty, just as we have a duty to peacefully improve articles with relevant and sourced content. Zulu Papa 5 * ( talk) 00:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
There is a lot of talk above; I've hacked the section in an effort to see where consensus lies. I found it interesting that one of the few notable-in-the-sense-of-having-an-article people, Jordan, is (a) dead and (b) known as a turn-around expert; that seems very relevant. I deleted all the former non-notable people. That the founder is CEO, prez and chair is significant (showing how much of the power is in one set of hands). I left the only other former who had an article William M. Connolley ( talk) 08:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
84.106.26.81 recently edited the article in a variety of places. I believe many of these edits are inappropriate and it is a lot of work to undo them unless they are all undone which I tend to favor. The apparent goal of the edits is not vandalism or I would have just undone them completely. However the purpose of some of the edits seems to be to put a more positive BLP spin on facts than is justified. For instance, this sentence was changed from:
"In 2008,[41] 2009[42] and 2010[43] BLP news releases cited research by Rowan University staff as independent verification of BLP claims."
"In 2008,[42] 2009[43] and in 2010[44] Rowan University independently verified the claims.[45]"
This seems to be a clear cut attempt to misrepresent the facts. I do not believe 84.106.26.81 is a good faith editor and this example is egregious enough that it is my intention to undo it within 12 hours if there is not a consensus to keep it.-- Davefoc ( talk) 12:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
note: "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page." Wikipedia:Talk_page#Good_practices 84.106.26.81 ( talk) 18:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
http://www.rowan.edu/colleges/engineering/clinics/cleanenergy/pv/papers/pdf/files/paper6.pdf
84.106.26.81 ( talk) 18:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
At the best your source can be said to be a claim by Rowan University of independent research. As the subsequent portion of that section explains claiming that Rowan University provides independent validation might be misleading because of some of the factors listed. The article needs to be very careful with claims of independent validation by Rowan or by BLP. These claims are not peer reviewed. Rowan clearly has a long standing relationship with BLP. The article you referenced in this section is titled UNDERGRADUATE VALIDATION OF CUTTING-EDGE CALORIMETRY OF AN INDUSTRIAL AFFILIATE’S NOVEL ENERGY SOURCE. There are huge red flags there. First it calls BLP an affiliate. Secondly it is research done by undergraduates. Thirdly there is not the slightest indication that this is peer reviewed or supported by outside researchers. I have not included this in the article because I think it goes into personal opinion and OR but what seems to be going on here is that BLP does an experiment and passes it over to Rowan that repeats what BLP did often with the same equipment and says they have independently validated something. Please read what legitimate physics papers sound like when they are attempting to validate a theory or result. They develop independent experiments and reasoning to validate or not validate a theory. In a nutshell they are trying to provide independent confirmation of a theory. Rowan University is merely playing the role of advanced technicians that duplicate BLP specified experiments. Independent validation is not what is going on here regardless of claims to the contrary and your edits to the section in question imply that it is. If you want to claim independent verification find any research done by a respected university or research lab that has used their own equipment that is not an affiliate of BLP that supports BLP claims and reference that. Meanwhile until you can demonstrate something like that your edits will continue to look like something done by somebody with a non neutral agenda and it therefore my intention to undo them unless other editors of this article disagree with me.-- Davefoc ( talk) 21:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
The section was restored to what it had been before the 84.106.26.81|84.106.26.81 edits. Some of the reasons are described below:
Title restored
The title of the Rowan related BLP research section was deleted. The title served the purpose of providing a header to distinguish sections on BLP research, Rowan University BLP related research and mainstream science related BLP related research. It was therefore restored to make that distinction clear.
Topic sentence restored The topic sentence of the section was changed to this by 84.106.26.81|84.106.26.81: "In 2008,[19] 2009[20] and in 2010[4] Rowan University verified the claims." The new sentence is ambiguous. What are the claims Rowan University verified? It may refer in some way to what was written in the paragraph above it, but that is not clear. If it refers to verification of BLP theoretical claims then it is just wrong. Rowan University papers do not seem to ever claim proof or belief in BLP theories. If it refers to verification of BLP experiments then it does not meet reasonable standards for such a strong claim. Rowan University and BLP are the only source of this claim and they do not rise to the level of credibility that the article should state what they claim as fact. What is clear and true is that BLP claims that Rowan University provided independent verification of BLP claims and that is exactly what the original section said. A new source was added to the article that was put forth as justification for the change of the topic sentence. The new source does not validate the change to the topic sentence in the least. From the Reuters article cited: "Last month New Jersey-based Rowan University engineers said the BlackLight process in the lab had produced heat some 1.6-6.5 times beyond levels that can be easily explained." This source is consistent with what the article said before the edits and does not provide any independent confirmation that BLP claims were verified by Rowan as the edits suggest. -- Davefoc ( talk) 17:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-530712?ref=feeds%2Flatest December 2010
note: "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page." Wikipedia:Talk_page#Good_practices
84.106.26.81 ( talk) 06:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
What people forgot to mention is that "independent validation" is an oxymoron. All validation is dependent on prior research. What really matters here is any "conflict of interest". Of course, those too more or less exist when something is being verified. Even if Harvard itself were doing the test, there would be conflicts of interest in the very fact that they must consult Blacklight Power on how the experiment is even going to be set up. It's all shades of gray you people.
siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 +
talk
06:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
(FYI: The business with GEN3 and Harvard was discussed previously here. It's worth reading before rehashing this debate. SteveBaker ( talk) 20:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
The Company section was moved down in the article with the explanation that people were interested in the technology and not the company. This article is about the company and as such I think the Company section belongs at the top of the article below the lede where it was. I suggest that it be returned to its original position. -- Davefoc ( talk) 07:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
The article exists because of the controversy around the "technology" they claim to have discovered. This marvelous technology that was going to be ready to be mass produced 6 months from now 10 years ago. Your idea to bore people with company statistics no one cares about isn't a constructive suggestion. 84.106.26.81 ( talk) 02:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
The information provided in the article regarding activity of Alexander Bykanov is absolutely incorrect. Alexander Bykanov received the PDDF files with spectra taken by Harvard team where some continuum spectra in EUV band were observed in H2 plasma and werte not observed in He plasma. Then Alexander went to BLP and did measurements himself. He found WEAK spectra with He exactly same as in H2, whiche were not observable on the PDF scans. These spectra belong to metal of the electrodes. H2 makes reacts with the anode metal (Mo, Ta...) and creates fairly high concentration of metal in plasma. The inert He may cause only ion erosion and concentration is significanlly lower. This was not mentioned anywhere by BLP team, but no Hydrino explanation is required for the observed spectra. Alexander Bykanov. PhD. 2600:8801:D50A:7000:28A1:7C1E:8353:BD82 ( talk) 23:26, 8 October 2021 (UTC)