Wikipedia

Talk:Brilliant Light Power/Archive 7

< Talk:Brilliant Light Power
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Alexbrn in topic False, malicious, and defamatory comments republished by other editors
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

What is the ground state?

Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

The article states, "Mills' assertion that a hydrogen atom's energy level can drop below the ground state, contradicting the definition of ground state." I don't believe Mills' theory, but to be fair, rather than say he's claiming a state below the ground state, which is, by definition, absurd, it ought to be written that he thinks there are states below what had been considered the ground state, the lowest of which (if there are more than one) is the true ground state, and what had hitherto been considered the ground state is not the ground state, but an energy level above what his theory states is the ground state.HowardJWilk (talk) 04:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be the point, that Mills' claim is contrary to well-established principals of physics? Pseudophysics should be presented in terms of accepted physical theory, not Mills' unreplicated version. Jim1138 (talk) 09:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Good catch on an unclear sentence. I added a clarification: "Mills' assertion that a hydrogen atom's energy level can drop below the ground state, contradicting the definition of ground state that is used by the rest of the scientific community."
I was about to use "mainstream definition". --Enric Naval (talk) 15:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
"rest of the scientific community" is wrong. It implies Mills is part of the community. Mills is contradicting all of the science "community". Bhny (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I have never liked the phrase, "contradicting the definition of ground state" added on to the sentence, but I haven't edited it because I have assumed that there was some sort of consensus around it. The point of the sentence is (as HowardKWilk suggests above) that Mills thinks that the energy level of electron orbitals can drop below the ground state that is recognized as the lowest energy state by main stream physicists and not that he doesn't know what the definition of ground state is. I suggest the following: "The purported energy source is based on Mills' assertion that the energy level of a hydrogen atom can drop below what mainstream physicists believe is the lowest possible level (ground state)." Davefoc (talk) 03:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not "mainstream" physicists, it is all physicists. Mills is contradicting quantum physics. This is really extreme fringe stuff. Bhny (talk) 05:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I've tried to write things more plainly, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Protected for 3 days

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Hopefully this will give time to sort out the disputes. Dougweller (talk) 09:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

What a strange thing to do. What on earth triggered such a paternalistic overreaction to a perfectly normal & reasonably amicable editing discussion!!! Amazing.Blippy (talk) 09:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
It will not.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk 20:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Maybe you know something I am only starting to glimpse... perhaps it should be protected until the 29 Jan when we will know how the media etc. have responded to the demonstration (if it happens)!! Cheers, Blippy (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
"perhaps it should be protected until the 29 Jan when we will know how the media etc. have responded to the demonstration (if it happens)!!" That sounds about right.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk 01:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

I have just realised that the section starting "In 2012 after studying the BLP process..." is a copy-paste of the source cited, [1] and thus a clear breach of copyright. Since the article is locked from editing, I will have to report the issue at WP:ANI in order for this to be dealt with. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be mistaken. The phrase "In 2012 after studying the", nor anything similar, appears anywhere in that source. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 07:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
However, the text after that phrase was copied from the source. That's why the it was deleted. Dougweller (talk) 07:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
How difficult is it to provide the diffs? I don't recall ever seeing this block of text in the article:
After studying the process, Dr. K.V. Ramanujachary, Rowan University Meritorious Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry, described it as "truly exceptional", while W. Henry Weinberg, a professor of Chemical Engineering, at California Institute of Technology for 18 years and at University of California for six years, said the process could prove to the "one of the most important technological breakthroughs in history.
Certainly not the phrase "truly exceptional", and whilst I recall editing something about Ramanujachary I seem to recall it was to cut out all the cruff relating to how long who had worked where. I certainly don't recall putting that text there. Again, diffs would help (if it's not too difficult) given none of those edits are visible any longer. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 07:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
It's [2] and yes, you inserted that block of text. How you can not know what you are doing I don't understand. Dougweller (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Confirmed - the inserted text is identical to the posted article. It looks like the text was removed via the copyvio process. Blippy, you appear to have some issues understanding how to edit this page. No one is questioning your good faith, but it would be useful to become more familiar with accepted practices here at WP before editing a highly controversial page like this one. FWIW, I agree with you that this page carries a distinct negative bias. However, that's likely because it's simply reflecting the available source material that has been deemed acceptable. If Mills demonstrates he has indeed re-invented fire on the 28th - and gets reliable sources to document that fact, then this page will certainly be changed to reflect what appears in those reliable sources. For now, I kindly suggest redouble efforts to locating high quality material from reliable sources and discussing their merit, or failing that, to find other pages to contribute to. Ronnotel (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Can you provide the text as it stood after the last of those 3 edits so I can see what is being referred to? Thanks, Blippy (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Evidently the edits can't be unhidden. Can you confirm that the text as it stood after the 3rd edit was still a copyright violation? I think I pasted text because of the complicated name spelling, and inadvertently saved prior to editing the pasted text. If the text after the 3rd edit (8 mins later) is still a copyright violation I will be very surprised and displeased with myself. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 09:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand this. Drmies removed the copyvio. His was the last edit before this was protected. That was at 05:06, 17 January 2014, 21 1/2 hours after your last edit. Does that answer your question?‎Dougweller (talk) 11:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Ummm... I'm not sure what you mean. I'm referring to the edit I made at 09:15, 15 January 2014 - to the best of my knowledge the other couple of dozen edits since then related to other sections of the article. But I'm only guessing because I can't see anything  :-) Are you saying that all of the intervening edits have been restored by Drmies? Sorry if I'm appearing thick, this is new territory for me. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I think I've explained this at ANI - it was not changed by the edits you've asked about. No edits were restored - only the copyvio text that was removed by Drmies is missing from Drmies last edit - the intervening edits still remained in the article so still show up. I thin Ne Ent's comment at ANI is wrong. Dougweller (talk) 13:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Yep, saw your reply there. Thanks. I think it's much easier to avoid all the grief in future by me being more careful! Cheers, Blippy (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Village Voice addition

Latest comment: 10 years ago20 comments6 people in discussion

I just reverted an addition to the lede on the basis that it uses the weasel phrase "other scientists." We should be attributing any such statements to the source that makes them, e.g. "Agent Smith at the DOD has said blah blah blah." (With that said, I'm not sure that the lede needs as much detail—pro or con—as it has. It gets rather specific when it should be a brief summary).

In addition, I'm a little uncomfortable with using the Village Voice as anything close to authoritative on scientific matters; that is, I don't know that it should be considered when assigning WP:WEIGHT. Don't get me wrong, I respect and enjoy VV in most contexts, but over the years I've run into many articles that convince me they don't have the best editorial oversight on science.

Lastly, without explaining why any particular scientist is interested in this technology, I don't think we're correctly explaining the situation. i.e. We start off by saying that it likely violates principles of quantum mechanics, but then we go on to say that some scientists are interested in it. Imagine that someone had a theory of biology that violated principles of evolution: wouldn't it be expected that we'd require some sort of logical justification as to why the new theory could be sound? Blippy, can you find a source that better explains the why part? The VV article mentions an upcoming study in a peer reviewed journal, is there anything there we could use? Noformation Talk 05:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I think one of the things that is most interesting about BLP is that there are, on the face of it, credible scientists who have investigate their claims and who are saying that even though the theory violates QM, something is going on. This information is presented further on in the article, and so I think it should appear in the lede in summary form. I agree with your sentiment to attribute statements to sources that make them, but in the lede we're providing a summary of the article rather than the sources per se. That's what I was trying to achieve with the stuff that has been reverted. I'm not sure any summary can avoid weasel-like phrases without going into additional and therefore more verbose detail, though. Personally I don't find the "other scientists" phrase that offensive, and not wholly different to "critics" which appears in the same para, and again, hard to avoid in a summary.
I think VV is a reasonable source for this kind of claim - after all, it's not a scientific claim that other scientists think it's worth exploring further.
For the 'why' question, are you referring to this bit in the lede or elsewhere? In either case, I'm happy to pursue this further. My guess is that the 'why' relates to the fact that these people have convinced themselves that BLP is onto something in terms of the phenomena if not the theory. At the end of the day if they are able to produce energy from water in the way they claim, then it is almost of trivial by comparison as to whether the theory is right or not ;-) And thanks for the constructive spirit and tone Noformation. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 06:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Bit of an update from the VV article which I think justifies the reverted bit: "More quietly, however, some scientists are taking notice" (my emphasis). There's a bit about Marchese being sent by NASA to investigate and getting positive results but being "agnostic about the existence of hydrinos". And a bit about the editor of the Journal of Applied Physics defending his decision to publish Mills' paper per "formal review" processes AND that the editor is "interested to see what happens now, when the news hits" and that he "can't just reject it because I have some preconditioned thinking about it". Oh, and something relevant to our own discussions "The debate over Mills’s work has long since left the realm of pure science." Cheers, Blippy (talk) 07:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
There were many credible scientists that believed in the existence of Blondlot's N-rays. It seems that one can almost always find "other scientists" who support a dubious claim. Look at the history of "free energy". Many claims, many scientist supporters, and we are still burning coal. The pseudoscience label comes off when there are multiple simultaneous cover stories on both Science, Nature, and numerous other science rags. Which is what would happen if the hydrino was unequivocally demonstrated. Until then, there is no reason to think it is any different then the rest of the pseudoscience. Jim1138 (talk) 08:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure how what you're saying is relevant Jim1183, nobody here is arguing about the pseudoscience label. Nor is the question whether there are reasons to think BLP is different to the rest of pseudoscience (whatever that is!). It is simply the case that there are a number of credible scientists who do not think BLP should be dismissed out of hand. Armchair analysis is wonderful, but even the editor of the J. of App. Phys. chose not to reject it based on his experience to date. So if someone in his position suspending their disbelief isn't enough to encourage you to do so as well, at the very least it remains a reliably sourced fact that some scientists think BLP's claims are worth exploring further. And that point is all I'm trying to include. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 11:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
The problem with "some scientists believe" and variations on the theme is that it is true for virtually any assertion you might wish to make. There are a lot of scientists in the world, and it only takes a couple out on the far fringe to give a columnist the magic 'some scientists' waffle. Project Steve does a good job of making this point in evolutionary biology, where creationists regularly attempt to bolster their position by issuing statements about how $FAMOUS_SCIENTIST supports creationism, or $TEN_RANDOM_SCIENTISTS express doubt about Darwinian evolution. I can see very little distinction between the creationist strategy and the cold-fusion believers strategy when it comes to loudly trumpeting the views of very tiny numbers of scientists. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not advocating a strategy, I'm advocating WP policy. I'm not making any assertion, just those supported by the sources. If you have WP:RS that show BLP is engaging in the same shenanigans as creationists then put that in the article too. We don't pick and choose what to include based on the kind of analysis you are providing TenOfAllTrades, we pick and choose based on WP:RS. The comments I'm suggesting satisfy the RS criteria, and importantly, these reactions are the very ones that make BLP interesting cf. other alternative energy claimants, so per WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV it is important they are reflected in the article. Let's not forget that BLP has scores of published articles, so arguably the actual scholarship in their particular field is heavily weighted in their favour. But I'm not suggesting we change the article to reflect that, because obviously the broader armchair physics position overwhelmingly outweighs the actual research being conducted. But implying that the editor of the J. of App. Phys. is "out on the far fringe" is itself a pretty far out position to adopt without any evidence, wouldn't you agree? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I'll leave aside the WP:RS issue, and note that the primary problem with the "some scientists believe" construction is with WP:NPOV—specifically, WP:WEIGHT. That is true whether we are talking about cold fusion, creationism, or any other topic. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that's necessarily true, but what do you suggest? Assuming some sceintists and other scientists are off the table, how can we best convey the information in summary form in the lede? I think you raise a good point about the credibility of the other scientists, so perhaps "several reputable scientists" will fix the problem. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 04:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Don't mention it at all, it's undue and not neutral. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 04:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
How is it either of those things??? It is mentioned in WP:RS, and their work is published in peer reviewed journals (something not given much prominence in the article btw). It is one of the single most interesting aspects of BLP compared to other 'free energy' types, so it would fail NPOV to exclude it and pretend it doesn't exist. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 05:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
It is undue because these 'several' scientists are in a tiny minority. And no, it isn't unique - I could cite at least one Noble prize winner who has endorsed another fringe 'energy source' entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
And they should be mentioned in the corresponding article! Per WP:UNDUE:
If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
There is a clear majority view, as reflected in the article. However there is a significant minority view and prominent (in the world of science) adherents of this view have been named in WP:RS sources. It's not the 'tiny number' that is the issue here, it is whether it is a significant view, and clearly it is - or are you saying that the editor of the J. of App. Phys. is not prominent enough or is not sufficiently qualified to have an opinion on BLP that would be of any significance? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

It would give undue weight, and obfuscate the mainstream view (that BLP is a load of nonsense). So, for neutrality, we don't included it. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Yup. The viewpoint isn't 'significant' if it is held by a tiny minority, by definition. As for the editor of the J. of App. Phys., he hasn't endorsed anything. Or even expressed an opinion on the validity of BLP's claims, as far as we can tell. He has allowed Mills to publish a paper which apparently doesn't even mention hydrinos. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Are you both saying that the attention BLP has received has nothing to do with the scientists who have expressed interest and/or support for their work? If so I think you run the risk of violating NPOV in order to push your personal view over those expressed in WP:RS. That doesn't make for a good article. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 07:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Why would the Village Voice article be considered RS? Is the writer trained in any field related to BLP? Anthony Marchese is a mechanical engineer, and would not, presumably, be qualified to judge the physics nor chemistry of the BLP apparatus. The literature is rife with individuals in their field, let alone outside their field, getting hoodwinked by "free energy" scams. I don't see any RS here. Jim1138 (talk) 07:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand that VV is a RS of what these scientists say, not the author's opinion. The author's credentials are that VV published their article, beyond that it doesn't matter whether they have any related "training". The RS is VV, not the author. And you seem to be saying that your judgement about Marchese trumps NASA and NIAC's judgement to fund his research into BLP. If you don't see any RS, then perhaps that's because you're being blinded by your personal opinion. I note you aren't complaining about Park's blog being so prominently reported... Cheers,Blippy (talk) 08:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
You are mistating the facts here. The author is not reporting all of what "the scientists say", he is reporting what he thinks the editor wants in the article. The author has little idea what is relevant to the science and what is not. Therefore, it is highly likely important "statements" are missing. You don't seem to understand that VV is not an RS on this topic. Your using the 'bias' card speaks to your inability to present a solid case. The level of credulousness here is astounding. Jim1138 (talk) 02:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Please point out the many WP:RS that are transcripts of interviews. Please then point out the WP policy on how such transcripts should be processed. The fact that you can assert such silly things is a testament to the bias I am observing in your position. We are all biased, the trick is to be open to being fair minded as an editor. I recognise that I might be assuming more good faith in the work of BLP than the general scientific community, but I am not trying to remove their criticisms of BLP. You are actively denigrating a RS in order to exclude material you disagree with. You run the risk of embarrassing yourself in taking such a twisted position that only a journo-physicist can properly report on what a scientist says. And all based on your armchair speculation that the author of the article has no scientific training and is merely a puppet of the phantom editor who also presumably has no scientific training. Come on, surely you can see that you are taking an extreme and untenable position on this. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

NPOV

Latest comment: 10 years ago30 comments8 people in discussion

I have added the NPOV tag given the serial reverts of sourced material that tries to fix the NPOV bias. I recognise this is a contentious article, and acknowledge that the dominant accepted scientific view is that BLP is mistaken. I also recognise that there are, as reported in WP:RS's, reputable scientists who have examined their claims and been persuaded that something interesting is going on, and that there are scores of articles by BLP adherents that have been published in peer review journals. This not reflected well in the article, and now not at all in the lede. I'm not aiming for any kind of whitewash or diminution of the serious concerns expressed by mainstream science on this topic, but I do believe the counterbalancing RS's need to be included to maintain NPOV, especially given many of the editors here seem to be justifying their removal of such material based on personal animosity toward BLP. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

'Personal animosity toward BLP'? Nope. Concerns over the relentless efforts of multiple POV-pushers (of which Blippy is but one of a long series) to promote BLP in a manner entirely contrary to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. So far, the so-called 'NPOV concerns' seem to amount to nothing but a failure of other contributors to be as credulous as Blippy evidently is. Wikipedia isn't here to provide a platform for BLP press releases, or for vague 'endorsements' from scientists who haven't actually carried out a scientific investigation. If and when BLP ever delivers this supposed new 'energy source' we can amend the article accordingly. For now, "Wikipedia [NPOV] policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship", and accordingly, the 'extraordinary claims' and minority-view endorsements are unjustified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Neutrality is not an issue here by any but for one POV pusher. Wikipedia is not a platform for BLP's nonsense. Jim1138 (talk) 03:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
The future will be filled with powerful mass disclosures of mass irony.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk 04:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
There is no neutrality problem. Tag removed. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Simply asserting there is no NPOV issue does not mean there is no NPOV issue. Please address the concerns I have raised above. Articles aren't to take sides, but rather explain the sides, fairly and without bias. The FACT that reputable scientists have been supportive of BLP is not reflected in the lede. This surely must be as clear an example of a genuinely alternative theoretical formulation as you're ever likely to encounter, yet so far the responses to my NPOV concerns have included personal attacks ("POV-pusher", "credulous"), broadbrush dismissal (WP not a platform for nonsense), whimsy, and unilateral declarations of truth ("there is no neutrality problem"). How about some intellectually honest engagement with the issue? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 05:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Consider opening up a WP:Request for comment on the inclusion of the Village Voice quote. These requests for comment are publicized on a list, and the list might draw the attention of more participants. At present there is an item about this article at the WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard but there have not been any responses there. EdJohnston (talk) 05:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. Documenting the irony of people who are not in the know of what they derise, as I have, and not having such documentations reverted "successfully" in the past nearly 18 months (only relocated to the bottom of the article) is one of the great many advantages of Wikipedia's 'N'POV policy. The future is on our side! (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BlackLight_Power&diff=504882641&oldid=504864626)siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk 05:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Interesting history of BLP on Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#BlackLight_Power. Who's funding all this? Jim1138 (talk) 06:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
BLP funding has been about $80M over the years from a variety of individual investors. In fact that's such a huge amount, IMHO I would assume if any of it were being used to fund astro-turfing on this page we see a better coordinated action. Ronnotel (talk) 13:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 
Job Postings at BlackLightPower.com

* Administrative Assistant.Receptionist 112905
* Battery_Scientist_Engineer_031611
* Business Development Executive 031010
* Business Development Executive
* CHEMIST.INORGANIC 0807
* CHEMIST.INORGANIC 0909
* CHEMIST.ORGANIC.ASSOCIATE.SCIENTIST 1008
* Chemical Engineer 0608
* Chemical Engineer 1007
* Chemist Process Engineer FINAL
* Computational Chemist 0408
* Computational Chemist 0807
* Electrical Engineer - Circuitry 100705
* Electrical Mechanical Engineer 083105
* Electrical Mechanical Engineer 120105
* Electrical Mechanical Nuclear Engineer - Plasma Specialist 121605
* INTERN PHYSICS CHEMISTRY 0408
* INTERN Technician - Engineering 0510
* LaboratoryTechnician 1007
* Machinist.Welder 010906
* Plasma Physicist.Engineer 012506
* Plasma Physicist.Engineer 1006
* Receptionist.Administrative Assistant 0506
* Research Literature Searches Consultant
* Research Scientist 0807
* Research Scientist.Theoretical Physicist 1107
* Sales Engineer
* Scientist.BatteryDevelopment 0510
* Scientist.Engineer Battery Development 0810
* Senior Engineer.Electrochemical Device Development 120811
* Senior Engineer.Mechanical Engineer 012506
* Senior Engineer.Mechanical Engineer 0608
* Senior Mechanical Engineer 031010
* Senior Mechanical Engineer 0909
* Senior Mechanical Engineer 1209
* Software Engineer.Programmer 0408
* Software Engineer.Programmer 051506
* Software Engineer.Programmer 0807
* Software Engineer.Programmer 0908
* Software Engineer.Programmer 092006
* Software Engineer.Programmer 1007b
* Software Engineer.Programmer 101006
* Sr Product Mgr Assoc Dir Mktg
* Technician - Research Lab 0510
* Technician - Research Lab 0806
* Technician 0710
* Technician Fuel Cells 0710
* Technician-ResearchLab0411

This list took 24 minutes to make using Firefox, Microsoft Excel, and Notepad.
Thanks to the institutional investors who chose to invest in Blacklight Power, such as Morgan Stanley (c.f. Village Voice article from December 21, 1999 - (full list)), BLP can hire the right stuff.
https://web.archive.org/web/20120508091216/http://www.blacklightpower.com/careers.shtml
https://web.archive.org/web/20120508091216/http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/
https://web.archive.org/web/20140115000000*/http://www.blacklightpower.com/contact-careers/careers/
siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk 07:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
It's great that BLP have a gigantic breakthrough that will overturn modern science, however, Wikipedia follows events and does not lead them. The day that an independent scientist verifies that power can be drawn from a new energy source is when glowing accounts of the success can be added. Until then, the current article has no POV problem. Tags have to be justified—what text in the article is a problem? why? what source? Johnuniq (talk) 06:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I can't help but feel that you are arguing my case Johnuniq! Perhaps you might notice that the material I am arguing for is NOT a glowing account of success, but rather a simple ultra-short summary of WP:RS which FOLLOW the events concerning the investigations of INDEPENDENT SCIENTISTS who claim to have VERIFIED some of the claims BLP makes. So can I take it from your comment that you would support adding such content? The sources say things like "Researchers at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), scientists for the U.S. Navy and a group of investors who have contributed over $25 million to his private company believe in the work of Harvard Medical School graduate Dr. Randell Mills" and "'I was there quite a bit and really looked around, kicked the tires, talked at length with their engineers, observed their experiments, and did my own,' Marchese says. 'I'm really pretty confident as I'm ever going to be that there's no fudging going on.' " and "The editor of the Journal of Applied Physics, James Viccaro, defends the decision to give space to the maverick. 'His paper underwent formal review and was accepted for publication based on review. The findings are quite interesting and the reviewers found them relevant to the field' and "After studying the process, Dr. K.V. Ramanujachary, Rowan University Meritorious Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry, described it as "truly exceptional", while W. Henry Weinberg, a professor of Chemical Engineering, at California Institute ofTechnology for 18 years and at University of California for six years, said the process could prove to the one of the most important technological breakthroughs in history. 'I have found nothing that warrants rejection of their extraordinary claims, and I encourage aggressive optimisation and fast track development of a scaled up prototype', said Weinberg." There are dozens of primary peer reviewed journal articles as well. All I've been trying to do is to add the single line in the lede which indicates that there exist some scientist who do not utterly reject the BLP claims. I can't see how a fair minded person could exclude something along these lines. This article MUST NOT be a white wash. But it mustn't be a smear piece either. One of the single most interesting things about BLP is the fact that they have had independent scientists support some of their claims, and that information is well sourced, and important to an NPOV article. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
"...events concerning the investigations of INDEPENDENT SCIENTISTS who claim to have VERIFIED some of the claims BLP makes"? Which claims, and where has this 'verification' been published? So far, I've seen no meaningful claims of 'verification' from any scientific source other than BLP. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I've already provided the reported claims of Marchese, Ramanujachary, and Weinberg above. Here are some more detailed claims:
In the case of experiments whose interpretation appears to require the existence of quantum states whose energies are lower than those of the known states in the literature, to which I have given the generic name 'hydrino states', this work is intended to establish that no general rule exists by which such states can be said to be incompatible with quantum mechanics. B. Ritchie of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory published in J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 11 (2013) 101–122
We consider processes in laboratory setup [1-5] with high energy release at relatively low temperatures. The basic difficult of the study is that the experimentally observed energy release fails to be interpreted in the framework of conventional physical concepts. Accordingly, new theoretical constructions are required...according to which hydrogen can be in the so-called hydrino state with a small atom radius and the transition to this state is accompanied by considerable energy release. N. Evstigneev, F. Zaitsev, A. Klimov, N. Magnitskii, & O. Ryabkov of Faculty of Computational Mathematics and Cybernetics, Moscow State University, and Scientific Research Institute for System Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences published in Doklady Mathematics May 2013, Volume 87, Issue 3, pp 354-356.
and another recent one apparently based on a BLP/Harvard collaboration, ...spectra of high current pinch discharges in pure hydrogen and helium were recorded in the extreme ultraviolet radiation region at the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) in an attempt to reproduce experimental results published by BlackLight Power, Inc. (BLP) showing predicted continuum radiation... R. MILLS, R. BOOKER, & Y. LU of BLP and University of North Carolina published in Journal of Plasma Physics October 2013 Volume 79, Issue 05, pp 489-507.
These are all secondary sources for the original BLP hyrdrino claims (which are obviously primary sources). Cheers, Blippy (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
BLP claims to have a new energy source. The above "detailed claims" show a wall of gobbledegook that are totally unrelated to the central claim of the company, but which are typical of the smoke screens and mirrors erected around all quackery in order to impress the gullible. Using the above material would be pure WP:SYNTH as it introduces extremely tentative speculation about details of side issues with no claim of relevance to a "new energy source". Please return when there is a reliable source concerning the central claim of the company, and the reason for its notability. Johnuniq (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
BLP make many claims, most notable about them - the one that violates accepted physics - is the existence of a 'hydrino' state of Hydrogen. The 'gobbledegook' is the writings of independent scientists relating explicitly to the existence (theoretical and physical) of hydrinos. You seem confused about the issues here. I am not talking about anything beyond adding a statement that informs readers that there are some scientists who think BLP's claims warrant further exploration. If you think that these are not WP:RS please explain why, and if you think hydrinos are not a central to BLP's claim, then I think you have missed a fairly big piece of this puzzle. Including well sourced information is what WP is all about. My edit that there are some scientists who think BLP's claims warrant further exploration is backed by many WP:RS's and helps to inform the reader of the current state of play. I am not advocating removal of material critical of BLP or inclusion of overblown poorly sourced praise, nor even self-published material. I'm actually a little shocked this is proving so difficult. Blippy (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Please respond to the substance of my comment: it would be WP:SYNTH to add mentions that independent scientists have commented on possible hydrino states and high current pinch discharges in this article about a company that claims to have a new energy source—such wording is merely a smokescreen to mislead readers into thinking that there might be something in the company's claims. Of course BLP might succeed in revolutionizing energy production, and when that happens this article will have all the details. Meanwhile, if anything concerning hydrino states is important and WP:DUE, it should be added to hydrogen. Johnuniq (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
It's hard to know which of your claims you think is substantive :-) It is no more SYNTH to say that some scientists are taking them seriously than it is to say that the majority of scientists dismiss them. I don't have a problem with saying either of these things in the article, I just have a problem with only saying the latter because there are WP:RS to support the former and the former is one of the single most significant elements of the BLP story. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

(undent)@Johnuiq - I think the material Blippy has referenced is more relevant than you may think. The claimed identification of "continuum radiation" is instrumental to the claims of energy production. If Mills' experiments really is producing continuum radiation in the range he claims, then that would close to "smoking gun" evidence of hydrino transitions - the claimed source of power. Continuum radiation is typically produced by highly energetic reactions. In typical reactions, you tend to see spikes in the spectography relating to each of the discrete energies of the photons that are characteristic of the materials involved. The importance of continuum radiation can be inferred from Phelps' critical response to these claims, both of which appeared in European Physical Journal D. Phelps implicitly acknowledges that continuum radiation in this context would indeed be novel, but instead asserts that Mills has botched the experiment and didn't really see continuum radiation. I have no idea whether Mills and his co-researchers have found continuum radiation or not in his experiments. But it would certainly be news if he did and no other source could be found to explain it.Ronnotel (talk) 13:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's another statement, this time published by the editorial board of European Physical Journal D, confirming the relevance of continuum radiation to Mills' theory. The key bit: "Because of the profound consequences of the existence of such levels in conjunction with statistical mechanics for various areas of physics and chemistry, this hypothesis is controversial and has opponents as well as proponents in the scientific community". Ronnotel (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
What text are you proposing, and which sources are you proposing to cite it to? I can't really see how this relates to what Blippy is arguing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
"What text are you proposing, and which sources are you proposing to cite it to?" Did you seriously mean to ask this? Though he has answered that he does not want to add sources, if it was alright to assume that he was, it's pretty obvious that the source would be located at ("Here's another statement" - http://epjd.epj.org/articles/epjd/abs/2011/10/d110455/d110455.html) and the corresponding text would be a straight-forward description of what the source says, and how is that going to create a problem? "I can't really see how this relates to what Blippy is arguing" This is so obvious, I don't even know why anyone would ask this. It might not be the kind of "relation" your are looking for, but really, any relation is a relation. Ronnotel said, "However, I do think the editorial is exactly the type of content that could be used to establish Blippy's point of 'some scientific support'", which is a major duh. How you cannot see this on your own is beyond me. (Personally, I would gather that this response by European Physical Journal D represents acknowledgement of the Mills report but not "support" for it per se.)siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk 13:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't proposing any text nor did I have any sources to add. I was simply responding to @Johnuiq, who had questioned whether continuum radiation had anything to do with Mills' claims of excess energy production. While I personally think the three-way exchange in European Physical Journal D and a more recent article in the Journal of Plasma Physics are interesting, I'm not sure the impact factor (~1.5ish) of either journal is high enough to meet the consensus on this page. However, I do think the editorial is exactly the type of content that could be used to establish Blippy's point of "some scientific support". If we saw something like that in one of the premier journals it might be appropriate for inclusion. Thoughts? Ronnotel (talk) 23:34, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
The company claims to have a new energy source. They do not mean something capable of tweaking an electron—they hope to eventually produce useful power for human-scale activities. A company which merely researched the properties of hydrogen and found quirks of interest to a few specialists would fail WP:N and would not have an article. The company is notable because of their central claim, and that is the focus of the article. Adding speculation about "continuum radiation" violates WP:SYNTH because it carries the suggestion that the company's findings may be able to produce useful power, whereas a reliable secondary source would be needed to verify that claim. It is always possible that a breakthrough will occur, just as it is possible that one day I'll be powering my car with water, but per WP:FRINGE an article should not be used to promote the unverified possibility that BLP is about to overturn established science. Any useful findings related to continuum radiation should be in a suitable physics article, and should not used to promote unfounded claims here. There is precisely zero independent scientific support for the company's central claim. Johnuniq (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Johnuniq, I think when you say "new energy source", BLP says "a previously unknown state of hydrogen (hydrino) that produces energy". The two are inseparable concepts - as you rightly point out, some novel state of hydrogen of itself is hardly notable, but a "new" state that produces energy is. And the fact that there are some scientists who consider BLP's central claim (per my adjustment to your statement) in a positive light is a notable part of the BLP story. Also, per FRINGE, BLP is an alternative theoretical formulation which has some (limited) support. This material is already in the article and consequently should be mentioned in the lede. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 07:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Johnuniq, I don't mean to get in a pissing match, but I promise you that confirmation of the "quirks" Mills claims to have found would be earth-shattering. These quirks would directly contradict the following well-established theories: the Schrödinger Wave equation, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, the existence of a hydrogen ground-state, quantum entanglement, particle-wave duality, as well as describe the nature of dark matter, to name just a few. Next to this, the existence of a free-energy machine would be but a single consequence. However, this is exactly why there is such skepticism, and why the evidence presented in their support must be held to such a high standard. At the moment, it seems like Mills has been able to get some of his work published in low to mid-quality journals so I wouldn't say there is zero independent scientific support. Obviously the editors and referees at both journals felt the material was worthy to publish. We also have the statement from the EPJ-D editorial that Mills has "proponents in the scientific community". However the consensus on this page quite rightly demands recognition from top-tier journals before this material can be referenced on the page so until we have evidence of that nature I think the page is in about the right place. Ronnotel (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
@Ronnotel: I agree, there is not too much that could be added to the article that would not be WP:SYNTH. The most notable, imho, with BLP is the level of capital investment. The upcoming demo will be of interest, but inconclusive until energy generation is independently verified. I suspect that no significant details will be forthcoming from the demo. There are a enormous number of "free-energy" claims. Each which would turn physics on its head. Energy Catalyzer seem rather well-financed too and the article seems to be undergoing a similar effort. Jim1138 (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
It's a bit of a shame that we cannot add the following to the wiki on BlackLight Power:
Long list of material from blacklightpower.com
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Signed, siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk 01:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Since you acknowledge that the material in the list can't be added to the article, there is no useful purpose to be served in listing it all here - accordingly, I have collapsed the list. Please confine future postings to discussions regarding article content, as compliant with Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

POV slanting of the lede by Kmarinas86

Latest comment: 10 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

Kmarinas86 is trying to water down the lede to soften criticism of Blacklight Power in various ways. In these edits (Edit 1, Edit 2, Edit 3) he repeatedly changes "The proposed theory is inconsistent with quantum mechanics..." to "The proposed theory disagrees with quantum mechanics...", as if quantum mechanics were some sort of optional frill of physics, and proposed theories wildly inconsistent with it can be slipped in as having polite 'disagreements'. The intent to weaken legitimate criticism (and soften accepted facts legitimately presented in Wikipedia's voice) is apparent based on his Edit 1, as he changes "...with quantum mechanics" to "...with quantum mechanics as has been taught."

Edit 3 further tries to gloss over the fact that Blacklight Power has never delivered a commercial product, changing "BlackLight has announced several times that it was about to deliver commercial products based on Mill's theories, and it has failed to deliver every time." to the much wishy-washier "BlackLight has announced several times that it was about to commercialize the technology, and it has failed to deliver to plan"—the unspoken and misleading insinuation being that BLP might have delivered something, just not quite to the original plans, while simultaneously avoiding any acknowledgement that BLP might have ever made any suggestions about 'products'.

This type of POV-pushing is probably more a user-conduct issue than a content dispute and will probably have to end up at a noticeboard (and with possible Arbitration Enforcement), but I'm explaining my reverts of Kmarinas86's edits here for the record. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The first of those diffs introduced "Most criticisms against these claims highlight their incompatibility with quantum mechanics as has been taught." which is solid evidence that the editor is unaware of core Wikipedia procedures, such as WP:FRINGE. Why not add the same sentence to creationism, with "evolution" instead of "quantum mechanics"? The POV appears to be that since science develops and modifies its theories, nothing is actually known because it all might be totally wrong, so any wild claim is as good as the theory of quantum mechanics, and that POV is not consistent with Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 02:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
"The POV appears to be that since science develops and modifies its theories, nothing is actually known because it all might be totally wrong, so any wild claim is as good as the theory of quantum mechanics[....]" Nonsense and hyperbole.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk 02:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
"Edit 3 further tries to gloss over the fact that Blacklight Power has never delivered a commercial product, changing ‘BlackLight has announced several times that it was about to deliver commercial products based on Mill's theories, and it has failed to deliver every time.’ to the much wishy-washier ‘BlackLight has announced several times that it was about to commercialize the technology, and it has failed to deliver to plan’ the unspoken and misleading insinuation being that BLP might have delivered something, just not quite to the original plans, while simultaneously avoiding any acknowledgement that BLP might have ever made any suggestions about 'products'."
In actuality, the edit summaries are uncovert and explain the purpose of these edits directly:
  • "[....]BLP is not, nor intends to be an OEM. One can take part in commercialization without taking part in manufacturing the commercial product itself. The IEEE source itself talks [of] BLP's plans to commercialize (not any for manufacturing)."
  • "[....]Also, Blacklight never promised to deliver the products, but rather that OEMs would eventually deliver them. Of course, they have not done so to plan."
The implication is that "deliver" suggests a role in manufacturing and shipping the products to customers. "Commercialization" is the process that makes it happen, which begins before products are even made or shipped out, and this alone can take years prior to anything being "delivered". No where here is any mention of a different plan, nor is there necessarily any insinuation that would be such a plan. "Failed to deliver to plan" only means that a plan was not followed, and not that there was a different plan or backup plan (let alone one that might have done better), as nothing of the sort here is even hinted at or discussed.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk 03:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Instead of waiting for consensus here, Kmarinas86 has decided to revert his preferred wording back into the article: [3]. Very disappointing.
The IEEE article to which the article's original statements are cited – and which Kmarinas86's wording relies on – was published in January 2009, and describes BLP's claims that they had already constructed a 50 kW the previous year, and BLP's intent to construct a large-scale pilot plant in 2009:
"Last year BlackLight announced that it had a prototype reactor capable of putting out 50 kilowatts of thermal power using a tiny amount of hydrogen. The company said that the device releases energy in one short burst and that it’s working to make the reaction continuous. It also said it planned to scale up for pilot operation sometime this year, estimating that its technology could produce electricity for under 2 cents per kilowatt-hour. That’s on a par with nuclear and coal power plants and considerably better than gas and petroleum plants." [4]
Correct me if I am mistaken, but I imagine that in the four years since those statements were published, there has been no independent testing of that claimed 50 kW prototype plant – supposedly completed in 2008, remember – nor has BLP ever finished their promised pilot plant. Indeed, I suspect that they haven't said anything about it since, with the sort of press-release-amnesia typical of these fringe-physics energy companies. BLP promised a pilot product that they never built, and probably never will. This isn't Kmarinas86's wishy-washy failure "to commercialize the technology...to plan"; it is a clear failure to produce a promised physical artefact. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Yup - "commercialize the technology" is anything but NPOV - it is asserting as fact that there is a 'technology' to 'commercialize' - something which BLP have singularly failed to demonstrate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
"it is asserting as fact that there is a 'technology' to 'commercialize' - something which BLP have singularly failed to demonstrate" The IEEE itself acknowledges the existence of a technology claimed to involve hydrinos; if it did not, it could not call plausibly claim it to be a "loser" technology. All the other "losers" from that IEEE issue are also technologies that exist [5][6][7][8][9]. Even if hydrinos were not involved, BLP's technology is a technology.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk 03:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
http://dev.blacklightpower.com/press/052808-2/ "Cranbury, NJ (May 28, 2008)—BlackLight Power, Inc. today announced the successful testing of a new energy source. The company has successfully developed a prototype power system generating 50,000 watts of thermal power on demand. Incorporating existing industry knowledge in chemical and power engineering, BlackLight Power (BLP) is pursuing the immediate design and engineering of central power plants utilizing the BlackLight Process. BLP plans on developing pilot plants with architecture and engineering firms with anticipated delivery in approximately 12 to 18 months. The BLP process has been replicated and validated by independent scientists and has received interest from financial institutions and power utility plant operators around the world. BLP plans on licensing its technologies.""
Note how this is prior to their announcements of their C.I.H.T. Fuel-Cell technology (2008.10.21) and their more recent S.F.-C.I.H.T. (2014.01.14) technology which combines their plasma technology (1990s) and their solid fuel technology (2010.11.29). If we want to talk about "other plans" these are those "other plans". The projects may have changed, but the programme remains the same "commercialization of hydrino-based technology".
Note that none of my edits have indicated that the pilot plant has a chance of being built. To my knowledge, there is no evidence of its existence, and certainly there aren't any sources I know of (let alone any "independent" one) which I could use to indicate its completion.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk 03:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
So...what you're saying is that yes, BLP did indeed plan (in a mid-2008 announcment) to develop pilot plants for delivery in mid- to late-2009, made this claim in their own self-serving and unreliable press releases, and then completely failed to follow through. In mid-2009, they claimed to have licensed 8000 MW of generating capacity to six different utility companies; curiously enough, we have yet to see any further reports from these utilities. You will forgive me if, based on BLP's consistent track record with respect to fulfilling their press release promises, I remain skeptical of their press release claims related to their 'new' C.F.-S.H.I.T.; they appear to have the "commercialization" down, but they seem to have failed to actually back it up with any working "hydrino-based technology". TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk 04:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
In other words, BLP have failed to demonstrate that any 'technology' exists - though they have repeatedly demonstrated that their claims to be able to create such technology are unreliable. Accordingly, Wikipedia will not imply that any such technology exists. Because we don't have a reliable source for it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Evidence of fraud?

Latest comment: 10 years ago25 comments11 people in discussion

Putting aside the issue of whether Mills is right or wrong, what evidence exists to support the use of the term "fraud" in the lede? Per WP:BLP, negative personal accusations such as this must be supported by appropriate, verifiable evidence. It seems like the only mention of fraud in the citations goes back to the Village Voice article - 15 years old - and doesn't seem supported by anything other than an outside commentator's opinion. I'd be happier with a more recent citation of fraud, together with a cause of action, such as an investor or someone in a better position to make the charge. Otherwise, I think we should reconsider use of that term. Ronnotel (talk) 14:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

It has been discussed at length in the archives such as here- [10]. To summarize, it is sourced correctly and there is no BLP problem. Bhny (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer, however I don't see anything in that conversation that addresses my point. The only support for use of the term "fraud" is a thinly sourced, 15-year-old article. Yes, the person making the charge is an expert in physics, but I don't see how they could be an expert at determining whether Mills' claims are the result of maliciousness or simply sloppy science. Are there any other examples in Wikipedia where a fraud charge has been used with such flimsy evidence? Ronnotel (talk) 15:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Park makes a very reasonable argument that the investments in BlackLght are an example of a Pascal's wager: "It was Pascal's wager, a little money invested in a project that has little chance of working but a huge payoff if it does. (...) Large corporations often set a certain amount of risk capital aside for investment in unproven technologies. It's cheap if they invest early, so they feel they can take bigger risks. I's not an unreasonable policy - as long as the odds are not zero. But those who bet on hydrinos are betting against the most firmly established and successful laws of physics (...) You should mistrust scientists; all sorts of outrageous claims are made by people who represent themselves as scientists. But those companies managed to get it just backwards: they trusted Randy Mills and mistrusted the underlying laws of physics. (...) 'But is it possible,' she asked, 'that the laws of physics are wrong in this case, and Randell Mills is right?' (...) A better way to phrase the question is "What are the odds that Randell Mills is right?" To within a very high degree of accuracy, the odds are zero. It's Pascal's wager again." p 134-135 [11])
How about we expand the details into the body, then we leave only a summary in the lead? I'm getting tired of trying to keep specific words into the lead. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
That certainly seems like a step in the right direction. I don't know how much fiduciary duty Wikipedia has to any investor, much less an investor in a free-energy claim so I wouldn't over do it. We can discuss the merits of Mills claims without making assumptions about his motivations. Ronnotel (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
We are quoting a reliable source. Our assumptions don't matter. Bhny (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
It's alright to leave to leave the word "fraud" there. When the contrary is shown to be the case, the same statements and similar ones can still be sourced with reliable sources, only that time, it will become obvious for others too what these statements really show. Hopefully there will be more sand to add to this "castle" of commentaries. It is said the bigger they are, the more spectacular they fall. It's not always the case, but it might apply here.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk 18:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't seem like a good reason to leave the term in place. Ronnotel (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
To be clear, we are not relying on analysis by The Village Voice for assessment as a fraud. We credit it to Philip Warren Anderson as quoted in TVV. A nobel laureate experimental physicist is singularly qualified to assess whether BLP's claims could plausibly be the result of sloppy work as opposed to intentional fraud - Anderson's opinion is arguably the most germane of all cited in the article. The fact that the quote was published in TVV only becomes an issue if we think the source is so unreliable as to fabricate the statement and falsely credit it to Anderson. VQuakr (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Agreed - Anderson is an expert at scientific method. But why do we extend that assumption of expertise to determining whether Mills is evil or simply a fool. That's the part I really don't get. Especially when we have a 15-year intervening period in which we have had similarly credentialed scientists working much more closely with Mills and not a single accusation of fraud. We have mainstream journals - EPJ-D - taking an editorial position that Mills has "proponents in the scientific community". While we can't use cite that article directly in the page (a consensus with which I don't entirely agree), it simply obliterates a 15-year-old statement by a non-involved scientist regarding Mills motivation. If there truly was fraud, how do we square that with this other evidence? Ronnotel (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Honest mistakes happen in science. Plugs come loose and particles are reported to move faster than light; math gets simplified and extrasolar planets are inaccurately detected. As an eminent physicist, Anderson is quite qualified to evaluate experimental physics claims and express an informed opinion about whether they could be the result of an innocent error. Precisely what other evidence do you refer, that is both reliable and potentially excludes this being an intentional fraud? "Having proponents" obviously does nothing to establish this. VQuakr (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Is it is proper and encyclopedic to use the emotive and ambiguous word "fraud," without context and without the inclusion of positive assessments, at the top an article that is required to be without bias? Since this is the current stance, the article might be coming across as more of an embarrassment to Wikipedia than to the corporation it is meant to fairly summarize. Positive assessments are found in the IEEE Spectrum article and in Reference 54. Neufer (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean, without context? The IEEE spectrum article is not an endorsement or even, as you say, a positive assessment. The greenwisebusiness.co.uk is pretty clearly not reliable; was there a discussion at some point that resulted in agreement to include that in the article? To what "current stance" do you refer? The mainstream assessment that hydrinos are silliness at best has not changed. VQuakr (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Given the shrillness of the detractors, I'd say quite a bit is changing. 64.134.32.200 (talk) 13:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
My question and statements are clear. Neufer (talk) 23:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
An encyclopedia needs to inform readers who should not be left wondering whether there is any evidence supporting the idea that a company has a new energy source. It's quite unusual for scientists to bother commenting on nonsense, and the fact that several have in this case justifies the current lead. Johnuniq (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Your team obviously feels strongly that the ancient quote from Nobel laureate (and pottymouth) Phillip Anderson is highly precious, however if you examine it in the context of the referenced article, what was he actually saying? What question was he answering? The Voice doesn't say, does it? The quote seems to imply that it is impossible to "fuck around with the hydrogen atom" but specifically what does "fuck around with" mean? We don't know. The former residents of Bikini Atoll might feel strongly that somebody fucked around with the hydrogen atom. The quoted rant ends with something being a fraud, but what? It doesn't say, does it? Is it the unspecified "fucking around" that's a fraud? Is it the Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics? Is it the specific element of the theory referring to hydrinos? Is it Blacklight Power, Inc? Or something else altogether? The text does not say. What we do know is that around 15 years ago, this guy used the words fraud and fuck. This is your weakest opposing view and you place it first - and undated. And it's redundant since it's included in the Wikipedia article twice.Neufer (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
err, they didn't do anything with hydrogen atoms at Bikini, they worked with fusing nuclei. Even blp are not claiming fusion. Now how about addressing improvements to Wikipedia instead of talkpage rhetoric.LeadSongDog come howl! 14:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the apparent consensus here. The use of the word fraud in quotes is appropriate. If the word was used in the context of an accusation that Mills committed fraud, I would agree the use of the word would be inappropriate. Anderson would not be an acceptable source as to whether Mills is committing fraud or not. But that was not what he said. He said the theory is a fraud. This wasn't the best word to use for what Anderson meant but it is the one he used and his intended meaning is clear. The sentence should stand as it is. Davefoc (talk) 08:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Your opinion will prevail for the moment. Is there Wikipedia policy on redundancy? And, can you say in advance if and why it would be removed if someone inserted, "In 1999," prior to both Anderson mentions? The second mention comes off as having been spoken in 2009. Presumably unintentionally. Neufer (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the policy (manual of style) at WP:LEAD states that the lead section should summarize the contents. This is why it appears twice in the article. VQuakr (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Paragraph 1 of the Lead seems fairly stated. However, the entire paragraph 2 should be immediately removed from the Lead. It's just a one-sided rehash of the Commentaries section. The Lead is meant to be a brief summation of items found in the full article, which according to the title is about the corporation. You can mention hydrino theory and its critics in the Lead, but then you have to mention other notable elements from the full article, like the multi-million dollar contracts. Positive assessments are excluded from the Lead even though they appear in the article and even more so in the references. And highlighting the emotional and ambiguous word "fraud" adds confusion not light. It doesn't lead readers into the full article (as policy suggests,) it shuts them down. As it stands, paragraph 2 appears to be a cynical manipulation of Wikipedia Policy, but assuming good faith, perhaps it is just a misunderstanding of WP:LEAD. Neufer (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Partial agreement. Most ventures of this type don't receive millions and millions on corporate funding. This is notable and should be mentioned in the lead. Even if editors think that BlockLight shouldn't have been funded. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
That BLP hasn't been reproduced and highly unlikely to be reproduced is quite pertinent in the lede and should stay. Removal would give a false impression that something might work. Jim1138 (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I am quite reassured that the lead is decidedly NOT close to its final form. Meanwhile, let the skeptics have their cake for today. Today, the lead is "appropriate", if you will. Soon we will be seeing "skeptics" rewrite "history" before their eyes, while the irony is that the true reality behind these claims will have been the same all along.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk 07:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Needs an update

Latest comment: 10 years ago56 comments8 people in discussion

Hi, this article seems to be quite out of date - the lede cites something from 5 years ago as it's main summation of the reception of the hydrino hypothesis. A cursory look at BLP's website shows that there have been considerable publications and movement since then. To avoid triggering a potential edit war, I thought perhaps we could start drafting here first? I think the CIHT cell development certainly needs to be covered in some way given it has an article published in the Int. J. of Energy Res., and the company also received independent (?) acclaim in receiving an award recently. In light of this, I think the tone of the article is overly negative/dismissive and warrants an update. I'd welcome being corrected if my reasoning here is flawed or if I'm missing something. Blippy (talk) 05:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Blippy. There's been a lot of talk about the papers here. Maybe search the last few archives. We weren't able to find a secondary source that justified inclusion of these papers. The latest one you added (sorry I reverted it!) isn't cited[12] and I'm not sure that journal is well regarded. Anyway it would need to be written about in a secondary source (science magazine etc.) before we include it. Bhny (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation Bhny - no probs on the revert, I figured a quick edit was more likely to get a response than just leaving a comment here. Putting the quality of the journal to one side (Impact factor of 1.9 isn't great!), it is nevertheless a peer reviewed journal. So at the very least I think we need to adjust the tone of the article which implies their work is not being published - and explicitly goes on to claim that replication work hasn't been published when it seems that it has been... Jansson, P., Schwabe, U., Bellomo-Whitten, K. (2010) Calorimetric Analysis and Validation Testing for a Proprietary Water Flow Calorimeter, International Review of Chemical Engineering - Rapid Communication, Vol. 2 Issue 5, p606. I'm not wanting to puff BLP up, but I don't think the article accurately conveys what BLP is doing (not that I know anything beyond what my own curiosity in their research has generated). So, yes, happy to discuss the primary/secondary issue - but I'd like to first try and be clear about intent. It seems that BLP is not as shady as this article implies, and while the underlying theory clashes with the received view, readers should be clear that they are working on an alternative theoretical formulation of reality, not trying to sell perpetual motion machines to the gullible.Blippy (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Er, no. Readers should be clear that BLP has been making such claims for many years, and delivered precisely zilch. That is the relevant 'reality' here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
That sounds like either a personal view ATG, or an out of date one. I'm aiming for something that more accurately reflects the recent circumstances and takes account of the publications/recognition/award... That's not to say that the article shouldn't be conservative in tone, but not as mocking/dismissive as you are suggesting. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
So my accurate description of the facts - that in 22 years BLP has delivered nothing - is a 'personal view' is it? As for the 'award', the New Jersey Technology Council isn't exactly the Nobel committee, and the fact that BLP has been given one of fifteen awards this year by a "private, not-for-profit membership organization" is hardly front-page news. Possibly because Blacklight Power is a paid-up member of said private, not-for-profit membership organization. [13] AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
"NJTC's member companies work together to support their own enterprises while advancing New Jersey's status as a leading technology center in the United States."[14] This award seems self-promotional, in addition to not being independent and not being recognized...... I couldn't defend adding this award to any article...... --Enric Naval (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I also just dug up that according to SCImago the Int. J. of Energy Res. is in the top 50 of Energy Journals (47 of 367 - although I'd say only the first 200-250 are actual journals) - so that seems a pretty reputable source. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 08:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
That sounds like a personal view... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Oooooh! Ziiinnnggg!!!!  :-) Blippy (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly enough - just this morning BLP has announced a public demo of a working CIHT cell for January 28th. Looks like might be heading towards a conclusion. Either Mills has re-invented fire or we're going to get an epic "Orbo"-level face plant. Ronnotel (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Um, no. Scientific claims are verified by replication by third parties, not by 'demonstrations' which inevitably raise more questions than they answer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, from the release, it seems like third parties are involved - ENSER for one. But there's no point in mindlessly bashing. If Mills can keep a light bulb light with nothing but water vapor as the input I suspect we'll all know soon enough. The Blacklight saga of claims and counter-claims has gone on for over 20 years, I think this is the first time Mills has committed to a public demo. It's bound to be of interest to some. Ronnotel (talk) 15:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Given that ENSER is a commercial organisation, rather than a scientific institute, it seems reasonable to ask why they are involved. Unless of course they are being paid for their involvement, in which case they aren't a 'third party'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
ATG, you seem to be confusing this article with a debunking exercise. We just need to present well sourced information, not conduct WP:OR about the motives of this organisation or that. Who cares if it's 10, 20, 50, 100 years? If you think you can keep a scam going for 20 years, produce 100 papers, get highly regarded professionals to join your board, all whilst being under attack for claiming to violate the fundamental laws of physics - well, I for one would be impressed. This isn't about whether it's true or false, it's about presenting information in an NPOV manner, and I don't think the article has been doing that. I would suggest it is counterproductive to edit the article from the perspective of someone who thinks they have absolute knowledge of the falsity of their claims. For instance, I think Park's armchair critique is given far too much prominence compared to Marchese's NIAC funded investigation. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Blippy, I deleted the press-release info from the lead. Press-releases aren't useful sources in any article. Another unrelated thing that I don't think you realize is that this article deals with fringe-science and must be treated as such. Please read WP:FRINGE Bhny (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Bhny, I agree a press release by itself isn't WP:RS, but if the release is picked up by other RS then it is appropriate viz. Business Wire, Venture Beat, Atalantic Journal etc. So while a self published announcement doesn't warrant inclusion in and of itself, there is no doubt that this announcement is of some note, and significant to the company this article is about - so surely it must be covered in some way. Is there any doubt that they have announced this demonstration? Shouldn't the article cover such a development given the single biggest critique is that such a demonstration is impossible? I'm not pushing for the press release, but I think this is a major announcement and has a place somewhere in the article, if only as part of a response from BLP to critics... Cheers, Blippy (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Any objection to this quote from W. Henry Weinberg - former professor of Chemical Engineering, Chemistry and Applied Physics at California Institute of Technology going into the commentary section? My only concern is that I'm not familiar with the website, and will continue to look for an alternative source in the meanwhilst:

“It would be irrational not to be very skeptical, and I was extremely skeptical. However, after having reviewed Dr. Mills classical theory, participated in experimental designs and execution, and having reviewed vast amounts of other data BLP produced, I have found nothing that warrants rejection of their extraordinary claims, and I encourage aggressive optimization and fast track development of a scaled up prototype.”

Cheers, Blippy (talk) 08:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I found an article containing similar information so used that instead. Blippy (talk) 09:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source Bhny (talk) 12:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
To be clear, that source traces back to this press release. Note the dreaded "H+K Strategies" at the bottom. Hill & Knowlton are the go-to choice for such crap. Have a look at their involvement in selling the war in Iraq. They've been spinning BLP's line for a long time. Still no results. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
From their press release: " A 100 W unit is planned for completion by the end of 2012, and a 1.5 kiloWatt (kW) pilot unit that can serve the residential power market, as an initial target commercial application, is expected to be operational by 2013". Now here we have something that needs an update..... --Enric Naval (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Are you saying that it is untrue that more recently a number of scientists have claimed to have investigated the BLP process and been persuaded that it may have some merit? I don't see how that is a controversial claim? The quality of this and this reference are sufficient to attribute that claim to - in fact we could legitimately even use BLP's website to establish such a sentence. To my knowledge this is not a fact that is in contention... as distinct to the claims BLP makes :-) Cheers, Blippy (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I've already said those references aren't reliable. One is a blog and the other (cnn) is a self published article. From memory (please read the archives!) the "number of scientists" are friends of Mills at Rowan university. Bhny (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Aren't reliable for what purpose? You concede that there are scientists who have not completely rejected BLP's claims, we don't need to wait for Nature to publish this fact to be able to provide reliable sources to that effect. How do you propose we moderate the current impression that no such people exist? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
The article doesn't state that such scientists don't exist. Can you cite a source that suggests that the number of scientists who "have not completely rejected BLP's claims" is somehow significant? Actually, I'd have thought that this would include the vast majority of scientists - most of whom have better things to do that spend their time rejecting the claims of fringe purveyors of supposed 'cheap energy'. That isn't how science works. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's not get distracted by pretending anyone actually knows how science works! In any case, this isn't science, it's a WP article on a company that makes controversial claims. I've added a source which covers the claim that some labs have validated the work and some scientists find it interesting. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

If you don't understand how science works, I suggest you find articles on other subjects to edit. And yes, this is an article on science, in that it relates to scientific claims made by BLP. If it wasn't about science, why would you want to include statements about what scientists think? Anyway, this article comes firmly within the remit of WP:FRINGE, and your attempts to cherry-pick statements to boost BLPs claims - which are utterly at odds with mainstream physics - is contrary to the guideline - and to WP:NPOV policy, which is quite clear that giving undue weight to minority (miniscule minority in this case) points of view isn't acceptable. If and when mainstream science recognises Mills & co's theories, so will Wikipedia. Until then, we reflect the scientific consensus, and BLP will have to get its publicity elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Judging by your statements to date I suspect my understanding of how science works is better than yours! But, once again, this is an article on a company making FRINGE claims. NPOV requires just that - a NEUTRAL poing of view - not one that is biased to cherry picking all the criticism. By definition, being FRINGE means that a small number of supportive claims are significant - especially if the supportive/non-dismissive claims are from scientists. A balanced article must include such views. The fact that Mills' team have 100 or so papers should suggest to you that if the company is scamming people, it is doing so within the context of a pretty convincing attempt at looking like a serious research facility. We don't need to make a judgement about whether it is a scam or not, we just need to provide a balanced article which shows what BLP theory and products are, that its theory is rejected because of it's incompatibility with accepted physics, but that some scientists think it may have some merit - especially those who have gone to the trouble of investigating it for themselves. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 00:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Where have the results of these investigations been published? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Well there are at least two kinds of published results. There are the formal results that I suspect you are referring to, which consist of the various and many papers viz. peer reviewed and non-peer reviewed commissioned reports. The other kind of published results are the informal ones reported in interviews with the investigators such as those contained here, here, here, here, here etc. The formal papers are the single most important piece of the science question, but the informal publications are important for telling a balanced story about BLP. We want readers to be well informed about BLP after reading the article. It would be ridiculous for someone to be well informed about BLP and not to know certain things e.g. that the theory violates accepted physics, that BLP has been strongly crticized by various well known skeptics, that there have been questions raised about it being a fraudulent outfit or some sort of scam, who they have on their board and some sense of their credibility, their history of missing promised deadlines, that they have published numerous papers in peer reviewed journals, that some scientists have investigated their claims with mixed results, that they claim to be about to give a demonstration they think will change the world. Would you agree that these are pretty basic nuggets of information that are part of the BLP story, and that this article should strive to provide them in a coherent and NPOV way? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
As I suspected, your claims of 'investigations' are based on nothing of any scientific merit. Given your self-evident promotion of unverified scientific claims, your continued removal of sourced content, and your refusal to abide by WP:FRINGE guidelines, I can see no particular reason why your edits shouldn't be reverted entirely. Wikipedia isn't here to promote BLP. It is an encyclopaedia, not free advertising space. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh, my mistake, I thought this was an article about the company BLP, not the Journal of Applied Physics? Or is it you who has that wrong? The claims made by the investigators are reported in WP:RS, that's the bar we have to satisfy. I am not promoting anything beyond a balanced article that informs readers of the notable and most interesting aspects of this company. Are you unable to respond to my brief overview of what I think should be included and where you disagree? Girating off into bluster and ad hominem attacks does nothing but to distract from making this a better article. And as for your odd reversion, how is this:
In 1996 NASA released a report describing experiments using a BLP electrolytic cell. Although not recreating the large heat gains reported for the cell by BLP, unexplained power gains ranging from 1.06 to 1.68 of the input power were reported that whilst "...admit[ing] the existence of an unusual source of heat with the cell...falls far short of being compelling".
not a reasonable, terser, and (I think) better written version of this:
In 1996: NASA released the report, "Replication of the apparent excess heat effect in light water-potassium carbonate-nickel-electrolytic cell" by Janis M. Niedra, et al. The paper describes experiments done with a 28 liter electrolytic cell on loan from Hydrocatalysis Power Corporation (as BLP was known at the time). The experiments described in the paper did not recreate the large heat gains reported for the cell by BLP. However, unexplained power gains in the cell ranging from 1.06 to 1.68 of the input power were reported. Speculation on the causes of this excess power was included in the "Summary and Conclusions" section of the paper. From that section: "Although our data admits the existence of an unusual source of heat with the cell, it falls far short of being compelling" and "Following the principle of simplest explanation that fits the data on hand, recombination [referring to recombination of hydrogen and oxygen] becomes the explanation of choice".
And as for your somewhat uncivil edit summary,i) it is obvious why you removed the last part - I have no idea what you're talking about! Please elaborate. And ii) cut out the crap edit summaries - perhaps a mirror would come in handy? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
So it's just a coincidence that your 'terser' version omits the NASA explanation for the 'unusual heat' is it? Yeah, right...
And if this is about 'the company', rather than the scientific claims they are making, why are you so intent on adding so-called 'investigations' by scientists to the article? Not that anything seems to have been investigated by anything approaching science. The fact of the matter is that nothing has changed: BLP is making unverified claims entirely contrary to physics as it is currently understood, and so far have nothing but press releases to show for it. Oh, and an award they seem to have awarded themselves. Nothing new at all... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Coincidence??? You are coming from a really biased position on all of this stuff. I get it, you don't like BLP, and you're not afraid to let that skew your editing of this article. But don't start jumping at shadows every time you read something that offends your personal position. How about this version:
In 1996 NASA released a report describing experiments using a BLP electrolytic cell. Although not recreating the large heat gains reported for the cell by BLP, unexplained power gains ranging from 1.06 to 1.68 of the input power were reported which whilst "...admit[ing] the existence of an unusual source of heat with the cell...falls far short of being compelling". The authors went on to propose the recombination of hydrogen and oxygen as a possible explanation of the anomalous results.
As for your continued impugning of motives, can you seriously expect a competent article about BLP not to contain information relating to scientific investigations of their claims??? This article should neither be a puff piece nor a smear - it should simply put forward notable and interesting information about BLP. So instead of continuing to play Mr Bombastic, how about we collaborate on making it better? This NASA para is a good start, and I'd appreciate your input on the list of topics I mentioned previously. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 07:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Has any reliable group confirmed Mills' experiment and reliably produced significant heat? Anomalies would not be confirmation. Anyone done any chemistry on hydrinos (which would have vastly different properties from "ground state" hydrogen)? Physical chemists have done experiments on pico-scale quantities; no reason hydrinos should be exempt. This seems to be yet another attempt to white-wash the article. If there is no evidence, and I have not seen any, the article should be labeled pseudoscience and any indication that it works would be contrary to Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Shouldn't this be posted to Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard? Jim1138 (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

It would appear that you have built a ready made answer into your question - presumably any group that claims to have confirmed any of BLP's work is not "reliable", including Rowan University, ENSER, and NASA. This is an article about an entity that promotes controversial alternative theoretical formulations that they claim have real world implications, which - judging by the WP:RS's we have - have been investigated by others. That doesn't mean they're right. It doesn't mean the public needs to be protected from these dangerous pieces of information. It simply means that if we are to write an article readers would find useful, it should contain various bits of reliably sourced information that tell the BLP story in an NPOV fashion. If that constitutes a white-wash in your view, then perhaps you are coming from a similar place that AndyTheGrump seems to be coming from. What's your view on the topics I suggested should be covered? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Neither NASA nor Rowan University have 'confirmed' anything. And where exactly is the evidence that ENSER has 'confirmed' anything for that matter? Which scientific journal is this scientific journal is this published in? Oh yes, its in a BLP press release... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
This is fringe. There is no debate. The article is even in the category "Pseudophysics". It has often been posted to the fringe noticeboard. Bhny (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
What exactly are you arguing about? That it isn't true? Who cares?1? We're just telling the story, not making judgements about it's truth content, that's the job of others. The press release is a RS for the fact that BLP have made the claim. Them making that claim is an important part of the story - regardless of whether ENSER etc. have actually verified their work or not. It is the claim that is reliably sourced by the press release, not that they have validated their work. You are confusing facts about the company with facts about their theory. Blippy (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Press releases are rarely of the slightest relevance regarding sourcing encyclopaedic content - if the claims are of any significance, they will be reported in mainstream secondary sources. Since they haven't we can safely assume that yet another press release detailing yet more unverified claims from BLP isn't 'important'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
This is one of those occasions. Claiming to have their work validated is of considerable significance to the BLP story - that's why the secondary sources have picked it up. You can't claim that a press release that is picked up by an independent source is not reliable because it originates from a press release. The fact that it has been picked up and retransmitted lends it the significance required by WP. The announced patent and demonstration are two obviously significant parts of the story, and should be covered accordingly. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Complete and utter nonsense. BLP have been making similar claims for years - as you know full well, having added such claims to the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
i) How do you know? ii) Why does it matter? I presume your answers are i) from their website/press releases and their coverage at other sites, and ii) because it speaks to their credibility. If you think these are important and decisive points here, then you should be arguing that they appear in the article. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Is that even supposed to make sense, or are you just posting whatever random drivel comes into your head? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Blacklight claims to have a power source that violates well established principles of physics. They have had ample opportunity to do so, yet failed to demonstrate their claim. Scientists with expertise in the field say it is bunk. End of story. Anything else simply results in a confusing article. Unless BLP demonstrates that this phenomenon really exists, there is nothing else to report. Jim1138 (talk) 08:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
So what do you propose we do about the scientists with expertise in the field who say it may not be bunk? Or is that covered by your idea that "anything else" will confuse the article? Blippy (talk) 03:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Science doesn't work through testimonials - it works through experimentation, publication and replication. When there is science to report, we will report it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Once again you are confusing how you think science works with how WP works. My question was not a question of science, it is a content question. This is not a page about hydrinos (in fact I don't think WP has one does it?), it is a page about a company. We have WP:RS's reporting the conclusions and comments of scientists who say it may not be bunk. What do you propose we do with that information, or do you also think it falls into the anything else will confuse things camp? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 04:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
If this is 'not a page about hydrenos', it would seem logical to remove all the hydrino-related claims made by BLP from the article. Except of course that there would then be nothing left to indicate that BLP was in any way notable - and accordingly, it would have to be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Once again you don't seem to have answered my question but gotten carried off on a bombastic tangent. I don't see how that is a constructive approach to improving this article. Blippy (talk) 09:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Just getting back to some productive editing... I think as things stand the NASA paragraph is pretty clunky. I propose replacing:

In 1996: NASA released the report, "Replication of the apparent excess heat effect in light water-potassium carbonate-nickel-electrolytic cell" by Janis M. Niedra, et al. The paper describes experiments done with a 28 liter electrolytic cell on loan from Hydrocatalysis Power Corporation (as BLP was known at the time). The experiments described in the paper did not recreate the large heat gains reported for the cell by BLP. However, unexplained power gains in the cell ranging from 1.06 to 1.68 of the input power were reported. Speculation on the causes of this excess power was included in the "Summary and Conclusions" section of the paper. From that section: "Although our data admits the existence of an unusual source of heat with the cell, it falls far short of being compelling" and "Following the principle of simplest explanation that fits the data on hand, recombination [referring to recombination of hydrogen and oxygen] becomes the explanation of choice".

With:

In 1996 NASA released a report describing experiments using a BLP electrolytic cell. Although not recreating the large heat gains reported for the cell by BLP, unexplained power gains ranging from 1.06 to 1.68 of the input power were reported which whilst "...admit[ing] the existence of an unusual source of heat with the cell...falls far short of being compelling". The authors went on to propose the recombination of hydrogen and oxygen as a possible explanation of the anomalous results.

I think this shorter version conveys the essential elements of the original with much less distracting detail. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 05:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

February 2014: New positive reports by Henry Weinberg (Professor of Chemical Engineering at University of California, Santa Barbara) and Nick Glumac (Professor of Mechanical Science & Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign) published on the BLP site : http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/WeinbergReport2.pdf http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/GlumacReport2.pdf--213.214.50.100 (talk) 12:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Is this going to appear in a wp:RS at some point? LeadSongDog come howl! 14:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I am not familiar with this procedure--213.214.50.100 (talk) 08:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
This phenomenon should be reproducible by anyone with the knowledge of the process and the necessary equipment. A reliable source would be replication by an independent lab (not under any agreement with BLP) with unambiguous, positive results published in a reputable science journal. The production of heat by the generation of hydrinos would be an extremely significant event and would easily make the pages (and cover) of Science and Nature. Those reports would be reliable sources (RS). Jim1138 (talk) 08:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Removal of self-serving press release

Latest comment: 10 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

Okay, it's been three weeks since BLP offered up their most recent self-serving press release claiming independent confirmation of their technologies and a more than a week since the announced date of their "breakthrough transformational power technology" demo on January 28.

As is typical both for this company and for this field in general, nothing meaningful has come from either part of the announcement. There has been no coverage whatsoever of their demo, while discussion of their 'independent confirmations' amounts principally to low-impact news sites that reprinted bits and pieces of their press release over the few days after it was issued. The extraordinary nature of the claims being made (miraculous new energy technologies, made posssible by breakthrough discoveries contradicting established physical laws) coupled with a lack of meaningful independent, secondary coverage of those claims, means that repeating them (even with attribution to BLP) is lending them undue weight.

Looking more closely, it is also apparent that BLP has been downright misleading in the way that they have presented the reports of "independent, offsite validation". For instance, in describing their January 14 press release, their press release page declares,

"...BLP announces independent, offsite validation of its electrochemical cell...and solid fuels technologies Perkin Elmer report."

Their press release insists,

"BlackLight’s results of multiples of the maximum theoretical energy release for representative solid fuels was replicated at Perkin Elmer’s Field Application Laboratory at their facility using their commercial instrument"

...Which is just an incredibly deceptive claim. The only thing that Perkin Elmer (PE) actually did was perform a couple of DSC scans on some sealed samples provided by BLP. PE had no way to know what was in the sample vessels; their report doesn't even mention what material was used as a control (very important in DSC). PE had no way to verify even basic information like the mass of reagent used in the sealed BLP sample: a critical figure that PE did not and could not include in their report. (Mass of reagents is important, because a small mass undergoing a highly exothermic reaction produces a similar DSC trace to a large mass undergoing a slightly exothermic reaction. A key BLP claim is that, given its mass, their material released too much energy for the explanation to be a chemical reaction; that claim fails if the sample cell contained, say, 20 mg of reagent instead of the claimed 6 mg.) Pages two through five of the report as posted on BLP's site weren't from Perkin Elmer at all, but rather were BLP's own covering material with their interpretation of PE's numbers, depending entirely on their 'just trust us' figures for reagent mass and other properties.

Consequently, I am removing (with this edit) the press release's claims from our article, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a blog for or about Blacklight Power. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

"Pages two through five of the report as posted on BLP's site weren't from Perkin Elmer at all, but rather were BLP's own covering material with their interpretation of PE's numbers, depending entirely on their 'just trust us' figures for reagent mass and other properties." Ummm.... It is clearly stated on page 2 of the PDF (or page i as per the report's page footers) that, "The PerkinElmer Field Application Lab report in its entirety can be found starting on page 1, the sixth page of this document. For the reader’s convenience we present here a side by side comparison of BLP’s results to those obtained at PerkinElmer’s Field Application Lab." To call this deception is very ironic.
"PE had no way to verify even basic information like the mass of reagent used in the sealed BLP sample: a critical figure that PE did not and could not include in their report. (Mass of reagents is important, because a small mass undergoing a highly exothermic reaction produces a similar DSC trace to a large mass undergoing a slightly exothermic reaction." Nonsense. Mass is one of the easiest things to measure. The same "DSC 8000" that PerkinElmer used is part of their own product line. PerkinElmer's double-furnace equipment is accurate to 1/4000th of a degree Celsius. Saying PerkinElmer has "no way to verify" mass of their reagents shows how little you know about PerkinElmer. The original sample weight of Sample 1 can be found in Table A and Figure 2. 6.3 mg. Again, page 2 (or page i as per the report's page footers) even says, "In Tables A and B we provide the calculations for the maximum energy release from any known chemical reaction of the starting reagents, ‐52 J per gram for sample 1 and ‐63 J per gram for sample 2 Results, shown in Figures A and B indicate the observed energy release is approximately 2 times and 4 times the theoretical for Samples A and B respectively." The bottoms of Figure A (page ii) and Figure B (page iii), which are from PerkinElmer, correspond to Table A and Table B from Perkin Elmer (page iv), respectively, and are not to be confused with Figure 1 and Figure 2, which are wholly from PerkinElmer. You should also keep in mind that PerkinElmer's field reports are not science journal articles. The implication here is that this example involves industry replication as opposed to academic replication. You can see how not-so rigorousness these are just by looking at (https://www.google.com/search?q=perkinelmer+%22field+application+report%22+filetype%3Apdf). Also remember that the document is clearly a business-to-business communication, not an academic one, so by definition it is not expected to satisfy your criterion of evidence.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk 21:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Like a casino, BLP sells hope. The company has no new energy source, but they offer hope to investors that they might develop one—that is the deception. This is an article on what the company has, not what their self-serving press releases hint might be available. Johnuniq (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Kmarinas89, I get the impression that you haven't very much experience with DSC, and that you don't quite understand what the instrument is measuring. The precision of the temperature control on the PE instrument is quite good, and also quite irrelevant to the point I made—that PE had no way of knowing how much reagent mass was in the sealed sample cells provided to them by BLP. (It's right there at the top of the page numbered 1 in the PDF: "Two samples were loaded into gold pressure pans with gold seals under argon atmosphere at the Blacklight Power lab and returned to the Perkin Elmer applications lab for DSC analysis." PE didn't and couldn't directly handle or measure the reagent that BLP put in the sample cells; the mass in figure 2 would be based on the number that BLP gave PE.) Reproducing BLP's DSC curve is pointless as 'confirmation' if the mass of reagents can't be confirmed, because it only tells us the total energy released, rather than the total energy released per unit mass of reagent. (The latter value is the one on which Mills' claim rests.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
"It's right there at the top of the page numbered 1 in the PDF: 'Two samples were loaded into gold pressure pans with gold seals under argon atmosphere at the Blacklight Power lab and returned to the Perkin Elmer applications lab for DSC analysis.' PE didn't and couldn't directly handle or measure the reagent that BLP put in the sample cells; the mass in figure 2 would be based on the number that BLP gave PE.)" That's a ridiculous argument. All you have to do is compare the mass when empty with the mass when full. PerkinElmer can easily supply identical containers to put samples in. How do you think international shipping works? Do you have to open the package to know the mass of whatever is inside? No. Now if you are talking about verifying what the sample is, PerkinElmer could have easily taken in multiple samples and selected some randomly to test for the material's makeup while select two other samples for testing. It's obvious that they didn't describe this procedure in this report, but it is not obvious that they didn't measure the mass, because by all accounts, they have done so.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk 01:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
It's probably time for discussion to return to proposals regarding improvements to the article. Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I think the fact that BLP has made many of these grandiose claims of success over the years is a big part of the BLP story. Previously I added and they have been subsequently removed references to BLP's repeated claims. I disagreed with the removals, but not enough to spend much time arguing about it. The argument was that what BLP says about itself is a primary source and should only be added to the article when reliable secondary sources are available to supply the appropriate weight to the claims. In some years, BLP claims have been picked up by major media sources, so I think there was adequate weight to support the inclusion of the claims. However, adding this claim to the article without referring to the substantial array of previous claims gives a misleading picture about the significance of this new claim. Every year or so BLP makes a new claim of great success and impending commercialization. Clearly the new claim is not that interesting put in the context of twenty years of unfulfilled claims.Davefoc (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
That would be something for secondary sources to point out, not us. Doing so here amounts to novel synthesis. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, rationalwiki would probably be a good sort of place to engage in that, Second Quantization (talk) 10:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

--Davefoc (talk) 02:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Removal of the "Independent scientific research and analysis"

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

"Experiments" "Analysis of Mills' models" and the "Commentaries" sections were previously grouped under the heading, "Independent scientific research and analysis". It was removed, which was part of the reason that 99.57.139.26 might have been lead to add the information about a BLP video of their experiments into this section. The section deals entirely with independent experiments and analysis of BLP claims and was not intended as a place to put information about BLP experiments. As such I propose that the heading be restored for these three sections to make the purpose of the three sections clear. --Davefoc (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

No. I think that title is far too grand. The central issue is whether a new energy source may be produced, yet nothing suggesting real-world consequences is available so "independent scientific research" would not be addressing that central claim of the company's existence. Johnuniq (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I am afraid I don't understand your point. You seem to be arguing that identifying the three sections in question about research and analysis that was done independent of BLP on BLP claims should not be identified as such. Your point seems to be that the three sections don't address the BLP claims precisely enough to be labeled as independent of BLP. Isn't that an argument for just removing the sections? If the sections are about research and analysis of BLP claims done independently of BLP what is the argument for not designating them as such? OK, I read what you said again. Perhaps you are objecting to the specific wording of the title. If that is the case perhaps you could suggest a different one?--Davefoc (talk) 02:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

  • No real independent research was ever done as far as I can tell. Only carefully delegated experiments so that BLP's secrets would not be reveled. All I see is things like putting chemicals in a container, zapping them, and recording the results. I would not call that research 'independent'. Such a title would suggest that the independent lab was doing significant research and understood BLP's technology. "Independent scientific research and analysis" as a section header would be misleading and should not be restored. Jim1138 (talk) 04:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC).

You are just wrong and I would suggest you read the articles in the sections under question. Not only was the independent research and analysis documented in the sections done, but there was a very thorough independent test done of earlier BLP claims by an independent laboratory. The results of the research were not released into a peer reviewed journal and as such I didn't think it was proper to link to them in the external links section, but I've read through the descriptions of the experiments and they appear to have been done by sincere researchers genuinely trying to replicate BLP results, without success. No independent research or analysis by credible individuals has ever supported BLP claims, on that we can agree but that doesn't mean they haven't been attempted.--Davefoc (talk) 06:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Article under WP:ARBPSEUDO, discretionary sanctions apply, use Talk page only for purposes described at WP:TPG

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is a general notice to all editors involved in the content here that this article is under WP:ARBPSEUDO, the ArbCom ruling that authorizes the use of discretionary sanctions on articles related to pseudoscience and fringe science:

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all articles relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.

The article Talk page needs to be used for its intended purpose: Civil, productive discussion directly related to the article content, based in reliable sources. It must not be used for airing of personal theories, threats, or discussion of individual editors. Thanks... Zad68 13:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

False, malicious, and defamatory comments republished by other editors

Latest comment: 10 years ago12 comments9 people in discussion

False, malicious, and defamatory comments republished by other editors have been deleted. BlackLight’s technology has been demonstrated in independent third party studies to produce significant amounts of power. Its technology converts H2O-based solid fuel into brilliant light-emitting plasma power, an ionized gaseous physical state of the fuel. This technology has moved beyond the theoretical and experimental stages; is published in numerous peer reviewed journals; is now in development; has been demonstrated as a working device to several audiences; has been licensed to third parties. Blacklight is and will continue to take steps to defend itself against those who make defamatory statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.44.181.202 (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:No legal threats. And if you are claiming to represent Blacklight power, please identify yourself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Blocked for legal threat. Dougweller (talk) 11:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Article controllers should note these guidelines: Wikipedia:Don't overlook legal threats and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is in the real world "Wikipedia is not a role-playing game." "Take responsibility for your actions here, and you will be less likely to be surprised by any undesirable consequences of what you say and do." Neufer (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out Neufer. I raised the issue currently being litigated, both here and at WP:BLPN, some months ago and pointed out that it very likely violated WP:BLP. Unfortunately, certain editors insisted on including this questionable language, unsupported by sources and against policy. Actions here have real consequences, both for the subjects of this page and, regrettably, for editors as well. WP policies are there for a reason and shouldn't be ignored just because they will keep you from inserting your preferred version. Ronnotel (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
What is "unsupported by sources"? Please say something relevant to improving the article. (vague stuff about how we should be scared is off-topic) Bhny (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I commend your convictions but please understand that not every editor will understand the stakes that are involved here. When people are dancing in a minefield, I believe there is an obligation to let them know. Ronnotel (talk) 17:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
You didn't answer a simple question and you are completely off-topic. The "stakes" on a talk page are improving the article. Go here WP:AN/I if you want to report something Bhny (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What's funny is that having these reliably-sourced™ defamatory statements will eventually define the mindset of the hard-headed mainstream scientists which oppose this technology. There is no mechanism (pillar, guideline, or otherwise) in Wikipedia that will be able to force these reliably-sourced™ statements to be removed permanently. Either Wikipedia will provide such a mechanism, or these "mainstream" statements which in reality will embarrass the mainstream and serve as an annoying scar of their ignorance that won't go away (annoying to them anyway ;)). In the mean time, Blacklight Power will deserve every cent that it earns from its patented scientifically-accurate™ technology, which should be many hundreds of billions of today's dollars. However, looking further ahead, the future of even the most practical science research in the mid-21st century will most definitely be open-sourced and decentralized by the non-entrenched interests of a self-educated general population. The complete privatization and voluntarization of science will be exciting. "Academia" in the sense of socially-constructed co-dependent institutions will be increasingly irrelevant when the obvious and dispensable inefficiencies they allow to plethorate become blatant to everyone who participates in this soon-to-be obsolescence. The difference between mainstream science versus the true-cutting-edge™ science is already as obvious as the difference between United Launch Alliance and SpaceX. talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 00:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I support the actions and comments of AndyTheGrump and Dougweller in this section. --Davefoc (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree. After removing some cruft, I don't see anything problematic in the article content in respect of its neutrality. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brilliant_Light_Power/Archive_7&oldid=1090551319"