This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
I cited the (scurrilious?) allegation that Puthoff outranks Cruise within Scientology. After a casual search of various websites, I can't find this repeated elsewhere. Can anyone confirm his involvement in Scientology? Does anyone know if there is a large Scientology presence in Austin, TX?--- CH 04:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
For the record: I just found out that User:Infrogmation deleted a previous wikibio, Hal Puthoff, on 24 June 2004; see this log. The current article was apparently created by User:GangofOne on 2 October 2005, probably w/out knowing about the earlier version. --- CH 07:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
This is kinda weird: User:RickK deleted yet another article, Harald Puthoff, on 2 Nov 2003, noting that the entire content of the article read "Harold PuthoffCriminal at large!". --- CH 07:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I have extensively edited previous verson and had been monitoring this for bad edits, but I am leaving the WP and am now abandoning this article to its fate.
Just wanted to provide notice that I am only responsible (in part) for the last version I edited; see User:Hillman/Archive. I emphatically do not vouch for anything you might see in more recent versions. This article concerns a controversial topic. Given past edits by the subject of this biography, who is a highly controversial figure who mainstream physicists regard as a fringe physicist (at best), and who has a wide following among laypersons with more enthusiasm than good scientific judgement, interested in topics including
I have reason to believe that at least some future versions of this article are likely to contain slanted information, misinformation, or disinformation. Beware also of external links to other websites, which may attempt to portray pseudoscience or fringe science topics as notions regarded by mainstream physicists as scientific, which is often not the case.
Good luck in your search for information, regardless!--- CH 00:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I was just reading the experiments page(on the long un-updated earthtech site, where many broken links on this page lead) and in the the reports for both the LENR and ZPE devices he never comes to a definitive conclusion of over-unity operation or a confirmation of polarizable vacuum theory/stochastic electrodynamics in any of them. In fact on the fusor page( http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/fusor/bigsys3.html) he states, "Counting the heat power generated by this experiment, the observed ratio of Pout/Pin is therefore about 1.0000000001. Yes, EarthTech has finally observed the excess heat phenomenon!". You probably need a sense of humour in order to do the work he does and it makes you wonder how seriously he takes it. Maybe the article should be written a bit to reflect this. 98.154.22.134 ( talk) 05:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
A user has raised concerns that Puthoff might not have a PhD. According to these references he does [1] and "Dr. Puthoff holds bachelor's and master's degrees in electrical engineering from the University of Florida and in 1967 was awarded a Ph.D. from Stanford University." [2] Goblin Face ( talk) 00:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I found another reference:
Jack David, Michael Park. (1978). Playback: Canadian Selections. McClelland and Stewart. p. 68. "Hal Puthoff, has a Ph.D. in electrical engineering from Stanford University. He worked for the Naval Security Group in Washington and then for the National Security Agency." Goblin Face ( talk) 01:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
And another:
Hugh Urban. (2013). The Church of Scientology: A History of a New Religion. Princeton University Press. p. 113. "A physicist with a PhD from Stanford University, Harold Puthoff joined Scientology in the late 1960s and quickly advanced to the OT VII level by 1971." [3] Goblin Face ( talk) 01:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Puthoff has ongoing involvements with members of NASA's Breakthrough Propulsion Physics program that ought to be mentioned: /info/en/?search=Talk:Breakthrough_Propulsion_Physics_Program#Hal_Puthoff.27s_involvement
Neuroscience325 ( talk) 00:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I added a short paragraph with references about the controversy and resolution of claims and counter claims in Puthoff's patent for information transmitted through a curl free potential. A much longer story is left out concerning the underlying science and disputes for or against the claims. The law school reference makes a firm statement that the patent appeal process was concluded in Puthoff's favor, and the topic is too advanced for most reviewers. Editors wanting more information can refer to the topic of Magnetic Potential which gets very technical. Puthoff's patent leaves a serious question unanswered about what form of energy is transmitted without electric or magnetic fields. It would make an interesting essay by suitable experts, but doesn't belong on this page. Astrojed ( talk) 02:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Before Puthoff's patent on curl free potential, an unrelated inventor Raymond C. Gelinas [1] working for Honeywell received 11 patents in six years 1980 to 1986 using the same principles as Puthoff' patent, but with different claims for different inventions.
Readers are advised to be cautious when looking at claims and counter claims about Harold Puthoff. With years (1972 to 1985) in secret government agencies, and other years in speculative and futuristic organizations, compared to a list of patents as evidence of technical accomplishments, there seems to be a blending of science and guess work.
-- Astrojed ( talk) 20:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
All of the above information on 'granted' patents is untrue. The patents were merely published. Many incredibly worthless patents are published. To be meaningful and 'money-making', the patent has to be granted. It is very simple to tell the difference: if the patent number is followed by an 'A', it has merely been published. If it is followed by a 'B', then it has been granted. This is a trick (implying that mere published patents are valid) that is widely used by the lunatic fringe ... and is fallen-for by gullible laymen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.191.21.100 ( talk) 20:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
While the A, B patent designation described by IP 86.191.21.100 is correct, it is necessary to view the original document because the European Patent server espace.net does not always update the suffix in a patent title although the original document is updated. With the Puthoff patent US5845220 the suffix has been removed. [2] Also in the USPTO reference page [3] the indication is that the patent was applied for in 1993 and granted in 1998.
The referenced university law school explains the situation that a review board examined the Puthoff appeal and decided in his favor after years of delay.
Compared to the related Gelinas patent, the patent title still has (A) [4] while the original document on the same server has been updated [5] and shows the patent was applied for in 1980 and issued in 1984.
References
Astrojed ( talk) 23:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Massimo Pigliucci has written Puthoff's research into zero-point energy is considered to be a pseudoscience. [1]
I don't understand the apparently changing rationale of the ip that has been edit-warring over this. [4] [5] [6] Anyone have ideas? Is the material due weight in the article or not?
References
-- Ronz ( talk) 16:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
(From my talk page [7] -- Ronz ( talk) 18:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)): "Harold E. Puthoff here. I continue to attempt to remove the false statement at the end of the Wikipedia article on me in which author Massimo Pigliucci reports that my research on vacuum energy physics (zero-point energy physics)"is considered to be a pseudoscience." Unsubstantiated & false opinion by author of a book for the public does not trump several peer-reviewed publications in Tier 1 physics journals like Physical Review, such as:
H. E. Puthoff, "Ground state of hydrogen as a zero-point-fluctuation-determined state," Phys. Rev. D 35, 3266 (1987);
H. E. Puthoff, "Gravity as a zero-point-fluctuation force," Phys. Rev. A 39, 2333 (1989); Phys. Rev A 47, 3454 (1993).
H. E. Puthoff, "On the source of vacuum electromagnetic zero-point Energy," Phys. Rev. A 40, 4857 (1989);
D. C. Cole and H. E. Puthoff, "Extracting energy and heat from the vacuum," Phys. Rev. E 48,1562 (1993);
B. Haisch, A. Rueda, and H. E. Puthoff, "Inertia as a zero-point field Lorentz force," Phys. Rev. A 49, 678 (1994).
Please remove the last false and unsubstantiated statement by author Massimo Pigliucci and permit me to offer edits again (it appears that through your edit refusals I've been banned for attempting to correct the record with documentation)."
(From my talk page [8] -- Ronz ( talk) 16:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)): After I submitted to you evidence that the entry that my research into vacuum zero-point energy, considered pseudoscience by a popular book author, was absolutely false, I provided to you a list of publications in Physical Review, one of the top Tier 1 physics journals, on my work. You challenged me to cite any reference where my work was lauded by others. I can hardly do better than to reference the laudatory article in Science on my work that came out right after I and my colleagues published an article on vacuum energy being a source of inertia for an accelerated particle. See Science, 4 February 1994, vol 263, Issue 5147, pp. 612-613: "Inertia: Does Empty Space Put Up the Resistance?" (We were even nominated for a very prestigious prize for that work.)
Unfortunately, whoever was responsible for constructing the wikipedia article on me apparently has the power to gather false accusations without an avenue for recourse by the individual to be able to correct the record. Though valiantly attempting to correct the record with facts, my ability to even use the edit button has been removed, having been accused of "edit wars." I now realize that wikipedia is a very flawed source of information, my own case being an example of the first water. If that falsehood on my work (last sentence in the entry on me) is not removed given the evidence I have provided, I give up.
I have simplified Pigliucci's claim to more closely follow what Pigliucci said, to more clearly identify Pigliucci as the source of the assertion that the Wikipedia article (and everyone cited within) is wrong. int21h ( talk · contribs · email) 17:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Harold is indeed allowed permitted to offer edits within bounds of the English Wikipedia policies, and always has been. Have at it, take care. int21h ( talk · contribs · email) 03:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC) int21h ( talk · contribs · email) 03:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Content cited to the Jahn reference has been added
I found that paper and read it, and it is.. fascinating and carefully written. One of the things it pounds home is that these studies cannot be replicated. The content being added that is cited to this source, misrepresents and dishonors the source. Not happy. Jytdog ( talk) 20:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Harold E. Puthoff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
{{ Parapsychology}} contains no link to this article. Could someone please remove it? Thanks.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Harold E. Puthoff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Hob Gadling: New discussion since discussions above are from a decade ago and hard to follow. int21h ( talk · contribs · email) 17:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Hm I get your point, but this statement seems off. The zero-point article seems to indicate that this is a minority view, and should be worded to reflect as much. If needed, would a statement by someone else that Pigliucci is wrong be enough? It would keep Pigliucci and also point out his view is a minority view and conflicts with the state of the artThis is bullshit. Puthoff's ideas are far-out, and Pigliucci is mainstream. Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia.
The upshot of all this is that Puthoff advocates for ZPE ideas that are firmly pseudoscientific. There is no reason to have a separate section on this, we can include a sentence in the section on the paranormal and pseudoscience. jps ( talk) 20:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
The biographical text here ends with the controversial work of the 70s and 80s. Then work from the 80s and 90s is listed without text. To me that makes the bio lopsided. The work under peer reviews seems notable and thus should be treated in the same manner as the other material. Johnjbarton ( talk) 22:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
I am happy this is getting off the ground. To be clear, I removed these papers previously because I did not find a tremendous citation rate for them, and there don't seem to be any lasting impact of these ideas that I can see. However, if anyone reading can summarize the situation better, I'd be thrilled. Stochastic electrodynamics is an obvious tagalong to this discussions. Whatever we can do to get this stuff into shape would be appreciated.
Note also that there is strong circumstantial evidence that the raison d'etre for this series of papers was to argue for an engineering approach to extract zero-point energy, an idea roundly criticized by essentially everyone who is not a member of that team who comes across it. Nevertheless, there are other less outlandish claims made in some of these Physical Review papers (not surprising -- unlikely that peer reviewers would have let complete rubbish slide) which may have had lasting impact especially, I suspect, in the way textbooks might treat certain physical phenomena while avoiding quantum mechanics. Try as I might, I cannot find any sources that show that this is the case, so it may also simply be something that is being actively ignored and we might want to invoke WP:UNDUE or WP:NFRINGE to excise the papers.
jps ( talk) 21:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Is there a consensus that Harold E. Puthoff is notable? I don't want to spend hours reading sources and writing a section in the article only to discover that it will be deleted. Johnjbarton ( talk) 22:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
The article contains a quote from a book by Massimo Pigliucci. The quote raises more questions than answers.
The quote refers to unspecified work by Puthoff as disputed by anonymous "credentialed" physicists. Puthoff and his collaborators are "credentialed" and they have published work in peer reviewed physics journals. Have Pigliucci's physicists? Which papers did they read? Are they expert in the field? To me this quote is essential gossip.
For balance I added content related to Puthoff's published work on the thermodynamics of hypothetical Casimir devices. This work is broadly similar to other work in the field. Puthoff may have made extravagant claims elsewhere as alleged by Pigliucci, but Pigliucci does not tell us.
Consequently I would like to group the Pigliucci quote with the paragraph on Puthoff's thermodynamics paper.
(I find the arguments either way puzzling. The Casimir effect is mainstream physics but a tiny effect. Using it is not unconventional, but it's wildly impractical). Johnjbarton ( talk) 18:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
“ | multiple layers of charged conductors sufficiently close for the short range Casimir force to compress the structure and store electrical energy; external electricity would be needed to recharge the device | ” |
Pritchard apparently chaired some kind of "Abduction Study Conference" in 1992. fiveby( zero) 03:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Harold Puthoff is the director of Austin’s Institute for Advanced Studies, but is also a well-known parapsychologist and conducts research on so-called zero point energy, the idea that one can extract energy from empty space—a proposition, I should add, that violates basic principles of thermodynamics and that is considered pseudoscience by credentialed physicists.
[9]. I think this source should be used. Provides some good context. jps ( talk) 12:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
[10] Used to be in the discussion, is now not included. Let's get it back. jps ( talk) 12:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
not sufficient? fiveby( zero) 00:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Therefore, the proper conclusion to be drawn by consideration of engineered metric/vacuum-energy effects is that, with sufficient technological means to appear “magic” at present (to use Arthur C. Clarke's phrase characterizing a highly advanced, technological civilization), travel at speeds exceeding the conventional velocity of light could occur without the violation of fundamental physical laws.
There is also a follow-up exchange between Puthoff and Gardner. jps ( talk) 12:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Not only does my security software object when I go to Preterhuman.net website, (I went to archive.org's storage of it), but the reference is to a copy of a personal page of Hambone. But that does show where he got the information. Naraht ( talk) 15:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
I cited the (scurrilious?) allegation that Puthoff outranks Cruise within Scientology. After a casual search of various websites, I can't find this repeated elsewhere. Can anyone confirm his involvement in Scientology? Does anyone know if there is a large Scientology presence in Austin, TX?--- CH 04:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
For the record: I just found out that User:Infrogmation deleted a previous wikibio, Hal Puthoff, on 24 June 2004; see this log. The current article was apparently created by User:GangofOne on 2 October 2005, probably w/out knowing about the earlier version. --- CH 07:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
This is kinda weird: User:RickK deleted yet another article, Harald Puthoff, on 2 Nov 2003, noting that the entire content of the article read "Harold PuthoffCriminal at large!". --- CH 07:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I have extensively edited previous verson and had been monitoring this for bad edits, but I am leaving the WP and am now abandoning this article to its fate.
Just wanted to provide notice that I am only responsible (in part) for the last version I edited; see User:Hillman/Archive. I emphatically do not vouch for anything you might see in more recent versions. This article concerns a controversial topic. Given past edits by the subject of this biography, who is a highly controversial figure who mainstream physicists regard as a fringe physicist (at best), and who has a wide following among laypersons with more enthusiasm than good scientific judgement, interested in topics including
I have reason to believe that at least some future versions of this article are likely to contain slanted information, misinformation, or disinformation. Beware also of external links to other websites, which may attempt to portray pseudoscience or fringe science topics as notions regarded by mainstream physicists as scientific, which is often not the case.
Good luck in your search for information, regardless!--- CH 00:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I was just reading the experiments page(on the long un-updated earthtech site, where many broken links on this page lead) and in the the reports for both the LENR and ZPE devices he never comes to a definitive conclusion of over-unity operation or a confirmation of polarizable vacuum theory/stochastic electrodynamics in any of them. In fact on the fusor page( http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/fusor/bigsys3.html) he states, "Counting the heat power generated by this experiment, the observed ratio of Pout/Pin is therefore about 1.0000000001. Yes, EarthTech has finally observed the excess heat phenomenon!". You probably need a sense of humour in order to do the work he does and it makes you wonder how seriously he takes it. Maybe the article should be written a bit to reflect this. 98.154.22.134 ( talk) 05:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
A user has raised concerns that Puthoff might not have a PhD. According to these references he does [1] and "Dr. Puthoff holds bachelor's and master's degrees in electrical engineering from the University of Florida and in 1967 was awarded a Ph.D. from Stanford University." [2] Goblin Face ( talk) 00:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I found another reference:
Jack David, Michael Park. (1978). Playback: Canadian Selections. McClelland and Stewart. p. 68. "Hal Puthoff, has a Ph.D. in electrical engineering from Stanford University. He worked for the Naval Security Group in Washington and then for the National Security Agency." Goblin Face ( talk) 01:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
And another:
Hugh Urban. (2013). The Church of Scientology: A History of a New Religion. Princeton University Press. p. 113. "A physicist with a PhD from Stanford University, Harold Puthoff joined Scientology in the late 1960s and quickly advanced to the OT VII level by 1971." [3] Goblin Face ( talk) 01:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Puthoff has ongoing involvements with members of NASA's Breakthrough Propulsion Physics program that ought to be mentioned: /info/en/?search=Talk:Breakthrough_Propulsion_Physics_Program#Hal_Puthoff.27s_involvement
Neuroscience325 ( talk) 00:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I added a short paragraph with references about the controversy and resolution of claims and counter claims in Puthoff's patent for information transmitted through a curl free potential. A much longer story is left out concerning the underlying science and disputes for or against the claims. The law school reference makes a firm statement that the patent appeal process was concluded in Puthoff's favor, and the topic is too advanced for most reviewers. Editors wanting more information can refer to the topic of Magnetic Potential which gets very technical. Puthoff's patent leaves a serious question unanswered about what form of energy is transmitted without electric or magnetic fields. It would make an interesting essay by suitable experts, but doesn't belong on this page. Astrojed ( talk) 02:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Before Puthoff's patent on curl free potential, an unrelated inventor Raymond C. Gelinas [1] working for Honeywell received 11 patents in six years 1980 to 1986 using the same principles as Puthoff' patent, but with different claims for different inventions.
Readers are advised to be cautious when looking at claims and counter claims about Harold Puthoff. With years (1972 to 1985) in secret government agencies, and other years in speculative and futuristic organizations, compared to a list of patents as evidence of technical accomplishments, there seems to be a blending of science and guess work.
-- Astrojed ( talk) 20:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
All of the above information on 'granted' patents is untrue. The patents were merely published. Many incredibly worthless patents are published. To be meaningful and 'money-making', the patent has to be granted. It is very simple to tell the difference: if the patent number is followed by an 'A', it has merely been published. If it is followed by a 'B', then it has been granted. This is a trick (implying that mere published patents are valid) that is widely used by the lunatic fringe ... and is fallen-for by gullible laymen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.191.21.100 ( talk) 20:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
While the A, B patent designation described by IP 86.191.21.100 is correct, it is necessary to view the original document because the European Patent server espace.net does not always update the suffix in a patent title although the original document is updated. With the Puthoff patent US5845220 the suffix has been removed. [2] Also in the USPTO reference page [3] the indication is that the patent was applied for in 1993 and granted in 1998.
The referenced university law school explains the situation that a review board examined the Puthoff appeal and decided in his favor after years of delay.
Compared to the related Gelinas patent, the patent title still has (A) [4] while the original document on the same server has been updated [5] and shows the patent was applied for in 1980 and issued in 1984.
References
Astrojed ( talk) 23:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Massimo Pigliucci has written Puthoff's research into zero-point energy is considered to be a pseudoscience. [1]
I don't understand the apparently changing rationale of the ip that has been edit-warring over this. [4] [5] [6] Anyone have ideas? Is the material due weight in the article or not?
References
-- Ronz ( talk) 16:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
(From my talk page [7] -- Ronz ( talk) 18:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)): "Harold E. Puthoff here. I continue to attempt to remove the false statement at the end of the Wikipedia article on me in which author Massimo Pigliucci reports that my research on vacuum energy physics (zero-point energy physics)"is considered to be a pseudoscience." Unsubstantiated & false opinion by author of a book for the public does not trump several peer-reviewed publications in Tier 1 physics journals like Physical Review, such as:
H. E. Puthoff, "Ground state of hydrogen as a zero-point-fluctuation-determined state," Phys. Rev. D 35, 3266 (1987);
H. E. Puthoff, "Gravity as a zero-point-fluctuation force," Phys. Rev. A 39, 2333 (1989); Phys. Rev A 47, 3454 (1993).
H. E. Puthoff, "On the source of vacuum electromagnetic zero-point Energy," Phys. Rev. A 40, 4857 (1989);
D. C. Cole and H. E. Puthoff, "Extracting energy and heat from the vacuum," Phys. Rev. E 48,1562 (1993);
B. Haisch, A. Rueda, and H. E. Puthoff, "Inertia as a zero-point field Lorentz force," Phys. Rev. A 49, 678 (1994).
Please remove the last false and unsubstantiated statement by author Massimo Pigliucci and permit me to offer edits again (it appears that through your edit refusals I've been banned for attempting to correct the record with documentation)."
(From my talk page [8] -- Ronz ( talk) 16:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)): After I submitted to you evidence that the entry that my research into vacuum zero-point energy, considered pseudoscience by a popular book author, was absolutely false, I provided to you a list of publications in Physical Review, one of the top Tier 1 physics journals, on my work. You challenged me to cite any reference where my work was lauded by others. I can hardly do better than to reference the laudatory article in Science on my work that came out right after I and my colleagues published an article on vacuum energy being a source of inertia for an accelerated particle. See Science, 4 February 1994, vol 263, Issue 5147, pp. 612-613: "Inertia: Does Empty Space Put Up the Resistance?" (We were even nominated for a very prestigious prize for that work.)
Unfortunately, whoever was responsible for constructing the wikipedia article on me apparently has the power to gather false accusations without an avenue for recourse by the individual to be able to correct the record. Though valiantly attempting to correct the record with facts, my ability to even use the edit button has been removed, having been accused of "edit wars." I now realize that wikipedia is a very flawed source of information, my own case being an example of the first water. If that falsehood on my work (last sentence in the entry on me) is not removed given the evidence I have provided, I give up.
I have simplified Pigliucci's claim to more closely follow what Pigliucci said, to more clearly identify Pigliucci as the source of the assertion that the Wikipedia article (and everyone cited within) is wrong. int21h ( talk · contribs · email) 17:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Harold is indeed allowed permitted to offer edits within bounds of the English Wikipedia policies, and always has been. Have at it, take care. int21h ( talk · contribs · email) 03:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC) int21h ( talk · contribs · email) 03:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Content cited to the Jahn reference has been added
I found that paper and read it, and it is.. fascinating and carefully written. One of the things it pounds home is that these studies cannot be replicated. The content being added that is cited to this source, misrepresents and dishonors the source. Not happy. Jytdog ( talk) 20:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Harold E. Puthoff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
{{ Parapsychology}} contains no link to this article. Could someone please remove it? Thanks.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Harold E. Puthoff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Hob Gadling: New discussion since discussions above are from a decade ago and hard to follow. int21h ( talk · contribs · email) 17:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Hm I get your point, but this statement seems off. The zero-point article seems to indicate that this is a minority view, and should be worded to reflect as much. If needed, would a statement by someone else that Pigliucci is wrong be enough? It would keep Pigliucci and also point out his view is a minority view and conflicts with the state of the artThis is bullshit. Puthoff's ideas are far-out, and Pigliucci is mainstream. Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia.
The upshot of all this is that Puthoff advocates for ZPE ideas that are firmly pseudoscientific. There is no reason to have a separate section on this, we can include a sentence in the section on the paranormal and pseudoscience. jps ( talk) 20:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
The biographical text here ends with the controversial work of the 70s and 80s. Then work from the 80s and 90s is listed without text. To me that makes the bio lopsided. The work under peer reviews seems notable and thus should be treated in the same manner as the other material. Johnjbarton ( talk) 22:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
I am happy this is getting off the ground. To be clear, I removed these papers previously because I did not find a tremendous citation rate for them, and there don't seem to be any lasting impact of these ideas that I can see. However, if anyone reading can summarize the situation better, I'd be thrilled. Stochastic electrodynamics is an obvious tagalong to this discussions. Whatever we can do to get this stuff into shape would be appreciated.
Note also that there is strong circumstantial evidence that the raison d'etre for this series of papers was to argue for an engineering approach to extract zero-point energy, an idea roundly criticized by essentially everyone who is not a member of that team who comes across it. Nevertheless, there are other less outlandish claims made in some of these Physical Review papers (not surprising -- unlikely that peer reviewers would have let complete rubbish slide) which may have had lasting impact especially, I suspect, in the way textbooks might treat certain physical phenomena while avoiding quantum mechanics. Try as I might, I cannot find any sources that show that this is the case, so it may also simply be something that is being actively ignored and we might want to invoke WP:UNDUE or WP:NFRINGE to excise the papers.
jps ( talk) 21:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Is there a consensus that Harold E. Puthoff is notable? I don't want to spend hours reading sources and writing a section in the article only to discover that it will be deleted. Johnjbarton ( talk) 22:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
The article contains a quote from a book by Massimo Pigliucci. The quote raises more questions than answers.
The quote refers to unspecified work by Puthoff as disputed by anonymous "credentialed" physicists. Puthoff and his collaborators are "credentialed" and they have published work in peer reviewed physics journals. Have Pigliucci's physicists? Which papers did they read? Are they expert in the field? To me this quote is essential gossip.
For balance I added content related to Puthoff's published work on the thermodynamics of hypothetical Casimir devices. This work is broadly similar to other work in the field. Puthoff may have made extravagant claims elsewhere as alleged by Pigliucci, but Pigliucci does not tell us.
Consequently I would like to group the Pigliucci quote with the paragraph on Puthoff's thermodynamics paper.
(I find the arguments either way puzzling. The Casimir effect is mainstream physics but a tiny effect. Using it is not unconventional, but it's wildly impractical). Johnjbarton ( talk) 18:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
“ | multiple layers of charged conductors sufficiently close for the short range Casimir force to compress the structure and store electrical energy; external electricity would be needed to recharge the device | ” |
Pritchard apparently chaired some kind of "Abduction Study Conference" in 1992. fiveby( zero) 03:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Harold Puthoff is the director of Austin’s Institute for Advanced Studies, but is also a well-known parapsychologist and conducts research on so-called zero point energy, the idea that one can extract energy from empty space—a proposition, I should add, that violates basic principles of thermodynamics and that is considered pseudoscience by credentialed physicists.
[9]. I think this source should be used. Provides some good context. jps ( talk) 12:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
[10] Used to be in the discussion, is now not included. Let's get it back. jps ( talk) 12:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
not sufficient? fiveby( zero) 00:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Therefore, the proper conclusion to be drawn by consideration of engineered metric/vacuum-energy effects is that, with sufficient technological means to appear “magic” at present (to use Arthur C. Clarke's phrase characterizing a highly advanced, technological civilization), travel at speeds exceeding the conventional velocity of light could occur without the violation of fundamental physical laws.
There is also a follow-up exchange between Puthoff and Gardner. jps ( talk) 12:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Not only does my security software object when I go to Preterhuman.net website, (I went to archive.org's storage of it), but the reference is to a copy of a personal page of Hambone. But that does show where he got the information. Naraht ( talk) 15:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)