Talk:Brilliant Light Power/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Black Light Power, Inc.

If you go to Black Light Power Inc. website (www.blacklightpower.com) you will find detailed presentations of the GUT-CQM theory as well as working prototypes of rt-plasma devices in which excess energy is clearly being liberated from free atomic hydrogen via the BLP process. They give detailed explanations of there experiments and, most importantly, they provide documentation of the confermation of these results by independant research organizations including NASA and the US Navy.

It's not just theory anymore, the phonomena of non-radiative resonant energy releases from the catalysis of free atomic hydrogen forming fractional ground state hydrogen atoms called hydrinos has become common knowlege. Most recently (since mid 2004), there has been a silent rush of rt-plamsa research around the world specifically focusing on the exploitation of this new hydrogen energy source. —Preceding unsigned comments added by 65.147.116.148 at 23:37, 7 January 2005 (UTC). Edited further by 65.147.245.219 at 20:31, 8 January 2005 (UTC) and by 62.194.119.199 at 18:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we can believe any disputed new theory, because a company's website say so.

Please try give citations, that interest and research and in this topic has risen. You may look for the following sources, to find something, which will give creditability:

• The physics preprint server: http://www.arxiv.org
• Google search, restricte to the .edu top level domain (include site:edu into your search string)
• Google scholarly search: http://scholar.google.com

In the mean time, I have reverted your changes. They are not lost, they are still recorded in the article history.

Pjacobi 21:39, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

The NASA abstract said that they only developed less than 19% of the claimed Power, and the US Navy has not published or verified any claims.

The Website does NOT give detailed explanations of their experments.

An Example: [[1]]

"..average efficiency measured has been 224% with a net power gain of 464 Watts."

And Yes, He is using Hydrinos, using a "tungsten filament (0.25 mm diameter"

Artoftransformation 08:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The evidence supplied on the BlackLight website is of very faint optical transitions are seen at multiples of the expected hydrogen lines. This is purported to show that a single hydrogen atom is making a transition to a new state below the standard accepted groundstate at -13.6eV.

The energy of the observed photon is too high to be explained as a transition of a single, standard hydrogen atom however there is no discussion as to whether non-linear optical effects inside the BlackLight apparatus and detectecor are combining a small proportion of the regular low energy hydrogen photons to produce the anomolous high energy photon count.

It is possible (and in fact likely) that standard physics can explain the observations reported by the BlackLight process without resorting to a hydrino model. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.8.104 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Back-up your assertions with references

Dr. Fred Salsbury, your assertions are delatory if you do not back them up: who has detracted from Hydrino theory? Please list names and their statements. Otherwise, you're engaging in gratuitous slander of Dr. Randal Mills' work. 209.29.95.52 19:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Dr. Anonymous

Mr Anon --

Please see the history, the citation, and the discussion above. Salsb 19:15-19:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Freddie it is then: get this here, the "skeptics" you mention is ONE SKEPTIC Mr. Eric Krieg, NOT EVEN A SCIENTIST, and a self-styled skeptic, founder of the commercial enterprise, the so-called Philadelphia Association for Critical Thinking, who makes a living out of mixing apples with bananas. Boo to you, half-bowl physicist! You cannot even quote a single detractor of Randall Mills published in a scientific journal, mainstream or not??? Boo. 209.29.168.152 20:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC) Dr. Anonymous

Silly Freddie: "since at least some scientists disagree (Noyes and Smolin) this is a disputed fact, so remove unless citation found". The supporters and the detractors disagree. Fact #1. Fact#2: there has not been an experiment that can settle the question; that's why Alvarez wanted to improve the situation. Fact #3: since no test has been carried out, there is no way to chose whether Carezani and Autodynamics or Noyes and Relativity are right. Which part don't you gasp? 209.29.168.152 21:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC) Dr. Anonymous

First, this is the wrong talk page. Second, insulting me -- and screwing up my name on edit summaries -- will get you nowhere. The dispute, which should be on the autodynamics talk page, is that Noyes and others do believe the test has been carried out, and the autodynamics supporters do not, hence it is not an undisputed fact. Salsb 00:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• It seems to be part of the Theresa Knott activity to add and inflate these detractors who are not scientists and have conducted no experiments that demonstrate Mill's wrong, as equally valid to Mills' work. One can live with Robert Parks' opinion, quoting an Astronomer (eh eh eh) who checked the validity of Mill's mathematics...But Eric Krieg? How low can Wikipedia go? No Theresa, why don't you try to find a SINGLE EXPERIMENTAL REFERENCE (yes, published in a mainstream journal) THAT PROVES Dr. Randall Mills WRONG? I challenge you to do so. 209.29.167.23 23:30-23:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• I'm sorry but for NPOV you have to quote the detractors as well as those all for it. I'm looking for more references now. Note that I'm not saying that Mills is wrong, I'm saying he has detractors. His patents were refused due in part to the activities of Parks and co. The NASA experiments have bourne no fruit as yet. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• I know how you play the game. Here's the thing (live and learn if you can): Zimmerman WAS chief arms etc (during Clinton Administration. Get your facts right.) Zimmerman, or Dr. Zimmerman for you, had a duo going with Robert Park. Lastly, Knott, Zimmerman may be rather amusing, but he is NOT an EXPERIMENTAL REFERENCE TO A REFUTATION OF Mills. I'm sure that he would tell you that himself. 209.29.167.23 00:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC) Dr. Anonymous

• I never said he was. I said he was a detractor. Also the keelynet article is a copy of a reuters article and it is signed. There are copies all over the web. I'll find one from a different websitie if you like. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• here is the same article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theresa knott (talk • contribs) 00:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• Theresa Knott abusing her powers again?: "changing category from one that's going to be deleted soon". What a well oiled, smooth-operator pic-nic you guys run in there...Since you are impervious to dialogue, one shall have to wait for the whip...? 209.29.169.197 01:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, find a name, will you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.29.169.197 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Rigged, it's all rigged, boys and girls. Park and Zimmerman are the mentors of this cabal. One asks in vain for citation of experimental disproof of Mills. But all they come up with are the unsupported statements of detractors, which are more important than the questions of science. I hate to think about those girls you teach, Knott. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.29.169.197 (talk • contribs) 01:51 and 02:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

And while you are it, Knott, think about what is the reference that Zimmerman cites in the quotation you provide. Winning this way is dirty. You should provide, at least, the reference - otherwise the Zimmerman statement is vacuous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.29.169.197 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Now that I have spent some time examining the work, (I read the book entirely), and have read the verification results from NASA, on unrelated work, I think we need to merge this article into Cold Fusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artoftransformation (talk • contribs) 05:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

But that would be dishonest. Mills theoretical work began before the P and F debacle. Mills never supported the cold fusion hypothesis, nor did cold fusion theorists support Mills. Mills instead proposed his hydrino theory as to why excess heat may have been sporadically observed in CF cells. He proposed using a potassium based electrolysis cell using light water as proof of his theory as opposed to loading up platinum cathodes with deuterium. Also see the following article which also uses potassium based electrolysis and makes similar claims to Mills as to fractional hydrogen with the exception that their theory is allegedly based on Quantum theory. Eccles of Gardner Watts had their claimed tested by Bristol University http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2003/05/22/ecncell18.xml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.136.26.219 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

More from [Hydrino Website]

"They have been replicated by laboratories commissioned by BLP; these are listed on the BLP web site."

Where? I have searched the site, and only found the NASA paper, and quoted it.

"It is not clear why this has not been more forthright. Hopefully we will see these independent labs reporting their results to the mainstream journals before long."

This was 5 years ago.

"BlackLight Power is also in the middle of getting its patents granted."

On Patents: [Forbes Magizine May 15, 2000 ]

"The bubble began bursting in August[1999], when a federal court upheld the Patent Office's revocation of one of BlackLight's patents and the suspension of four others. The Patent Office said BlackLight's submission "did not conform to the known laws of physics and chemistry."

[Forbes Magizine May 15, 2000 ]

"This month[May 2000] a chat room called the Hydrino Study Group was abuzz over a purported wirestory saying the National Institute of Standards &Technology validated BlackLight's claims. It hasn't." —Brendan Coffey

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Artoftransformation (talk • contribs) 09:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Requires Revision

Mills was formed as a medical doctor.

Does this mean that Mills was formerly a medical doctor, or that he was trained as a medical doctor? A revision clarifying this point would be useful. Chasuk 23:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Hopefully it reads better now. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• [Interjected] Dr. Mills was awarded a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Chemistry, summa cum laude in 1982, and a Doctor of Medicine Degree from Harvard Medical School in 1986. Why are you guys so reticent to accept the degrees of genuine researchers, why do you make so much of it, when so few of you have any degrees at all, let alone degrees that entitle you to speak on the subject matter and wave the grand banner of "in the name of legions of scientists..."?? 216.254.162.166 15:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I am unhappy with this article. It is describing a theory that is controversial -- on the very fringes of science -- and I think that this needs to be made clear within the first paragraph. I will not go so far as to say that "Hydrino theory" should be identified as a psuedoscience, but I am disturbed that the tone of this article seems to indicate authorship by an ardent devotee. Chasuk 00:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. This article needs a lot of work. I've bben doing some reading up on the web and there is a whole load of stuff that isn't in the article, patents that were granted then refused. Lawsuits that failed. Interest from NASA. Big talk from Mills but no applications, no prototypes even (for 10 years) The fact that this is at odds with quantum mechanics. That fact that Mills' results have been published in journals. A mathermatical description of Mills' idea, and so on. It's very difficult because there are evagalists who are making it difficult to NPOV the article, who think any critism of the idea is an attack against them, who insult regular wikipedians, who think article writing is a war that one side has to win. I've come across their type before, I intend to simply ignore them until they learn the meaning of the word collaboration. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 08:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Ha ha ha. i pity the sucker that would make the mistake of engaging in a dialogue with you or your kind. All you can quote is Keelynet, Eric Krieg, Robert Park and other such internet sources. You're a joke, no? Then you and your kind are very good to add things like: "most scientists say..."; "the physics community holds...", etc, ALL WITHOUT FOUNDATION OR PROPER CITES. You never provide references to ytour statements. Who the heck elected you to speak in the name of a majority of physicists or scientists or street-cleaners for that matter? 216.254.162.166 15:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Or let's have you prove me wrong: provide the reference that Zimmerman alludes to, when he writes: Since Mills's edifice of theory is now shown to have (yet another) error in its foundation, the incorrect force balance condition, much doubt is cast on Mills's own interpretations of his experiments. What yet another error is that? Proven by who? Published where? in which scientific journal? Ha ha ha. And you try to appear even-handed. Wink-wink, nod-nod. Ha ha ha 216.254.162.166 15:37, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Fritz Jacobi who claims "irralevent titles" is not a taker? Such 'cowardliness'... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.158 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Fixation on titles

Sigh. Feels like the Austrian Wikipedia.

It's irrelevant for the Hydrino theory that Randell Mills is Chemist, and Medical Doctor. (Him being an inventor has some relevanmce but it's hard to judge). Spare these details for the Randell Mills.

OTOH it is relevant, that Herman Haus, whose paper is said to have inspired the theory is an Electrical Engineering Professor. But that's no reason to refer to him as "Professor" each time the name is mentioned. That's just bad style for an encyclopedia.

Pjacobi 17:28, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

How dimwitted of you - being a chemist is not relevant to a chemical and physical theory that one enunciated? And being an MD is not relevant to Mills' preparation as a scientist? You, on the other hand, you're largely irrelevant with all the wrong picayune spins that you like to sprinkle around. Just bad style. 20:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.20.170 (talk • contribs)

[Interjected] Please do not devolve to personal attacks. MD is relevant to Mills prepration as a scientist, but he was a farm boy/hayseed salesman before that. All irrevelent to the topic of discussion. He is a doctor and should be afforded the title along with it, but not as a basis for credibility. Havent most diet doctors died of heart attacks? Again, not really relevnt. Call the guy a doctor, only because he is one. --Artoftransformation 05:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

It is relevant to hydrino theory that Mills is a Chemist. The way he claims to decrease the orbit of the electron of a hydrogen atom is through using a catalyst, thereby giving off a large ammount of energy. This claim is the big break from Quantum Mechanics, which clearly states that there is no lower orbit than the ground state. See slide nine in presentation [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.230.251 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Relevant or not, the title "Dr." (as used in the intro) is ambiguous. Either take it out entirely or specify the degrees he has attained. There is no reason that even someone with NO formal education could not do good scientific work; however, in the context of an article on physics and/or chemistry it is jarring to discover half-way through the piece, in a snide comment by a detractor, that in fact the "Dr." in question is not a PhD. It leads to an obvious question, "is that comment corect?" I think we have a responsibility to provide the answer. --Cladist 06:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Douglas Osheroff

Douglas Osheroff is a physicist not an astronomer see [3] Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:56, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Quotes

What have you go against putting all quotes under one heading? Labelling people as skeptics, supporters etc is susceptable to POV. Wheras lumping them together and letting the reader decide is much more neutral. Yet you keep reverting my attemps. Why? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Theresa, I wish that i could believe on your good will, by now. But i'll play the part for amusement, if nothing else: only one of those quotes is by a scientist competent on plasma physics and atomic chemistry. Do you see that? Quotes by Parks or his side-kick Zimmerman are suspect quotes from political men (yes, professional scientists) who are also professional skeptics and don't hide that fact. they are not quotes from experimentalists who have published findings in official or alternative scientific publications - which is what you should be seeking. So, right there you have two categories. Then there is Obershoff - he is slandering Mills without experimental proof. That's his problem and Mills. Our problem is to make sure the entry remains as impartial as possible, rather than fall in defense of slanderers. So you put the nay side and the yes side, and you don't hide which is which. In my view, Osheroff is out of line, at the very least the comment you or someone else added to his quote. Lastly, Baard is still a separate category. As you see, you can pull someone's leg again. Let's see where your good-will will take you. For my part I'll refrain until you're done. Hopefully others will too. 00:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.29.169.71 (talk • contribs)

I agree that the the article should be as impartial as possible. You are mistaken if you think I believe otherwise. But look at the language you are using. Slander? Obersheroff is not slandering Mills by saying he thinks it's crackpot science he is expressing an opinion. If Parks is a professional skeptic by all means say so. But there is no need to do it as a heading. Hell I'll do it myself in a minute. Putting headings of "for" and "against" or WTTE sets things up as though there is war. Now that may be true for some people but Baard strikes me as fairly neutral. There must be others as well. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

In some form the "Reactions" section should include the fact, that until the until the Rathke paper, no preprint was on the Hydrino theory was seen on the preprint server. Also, in this specific point I'm agreeing with the anon, I'd fine with including only physicists, as in the version where I added the Rathke paper: [4]. I'm not wanting to cast these two names in stone, but I'm taliking about the inclusion criteria here. --Pjacobi 06:47, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

The only quote so far that is not by a physicist is Baard and he is quoting Michael Jacox who according to the article is a nuclear engineer. I'm not happy with removing the Baard quote. I'm also not happy with puting him under as "supporter" heading because he is clearly a writer who is trying to write neutrally. We could include it in the main body of text somewhere, or we could have a section for quotes from non physicists. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 08:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Erik Baard quote

Would whoever added that to the article please add a source. Cheers! Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:04, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Classical quantum mechanics

Does anybody doubt the presentation in Rathke's paper? Otherwise we should the present Mills' CQM equation, it's solutions accordung to Mills' and the mathematical problems with that in the article. --Pjacobi 06:50, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Go for it. My general impression of Mill's work is that his theory is considered nuts but his experimental work is interesting. Well NASA was interested anyway. The article should reflect this state of affairs. Do you agree? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 08:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

At least Rathke agrees to some point. But all experimental results are from one group, right? --Pjacobi 09:23, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

I think so. I haven't finished searching though. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 19:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi guys. I originally wrote this article a long time ago but gave it up when what I considered a balanced description of what the theory was all about was repeatedly heavily edited with the comment "Pseudoscience Crap". I've been watching Mills for over ten years now, contributing now and again on the Hydrino Study Group. I don't mind and even encourage that the article is prefaced with a description that it is a theory with as yet no widespread acceptance. That's the simple truth. The majority has to make a decision at some point as to what is taught in schools and universities and that has to be considered the mainstream. However the term "pseudoscience" should be rejected. Psuedo is the Greek root for false or deceptive. Mills seeks to persuade by publishing in scientific journals, getting others to replicate his efforts and basing his claims on experimental evidence. This is science, not psuedoscience.

I also reject as a neutral source the comments of Doctors Bob Park Peter Zimmerman. They have a bitterly conflicted history with Dr. Mills originally involving attacks upon Dr. Mills honesty, integrity and business reputation countered by threats of legal action and finally with Dr. Park contacting the Patent office which resulted in Dr. Mills' patents being withdrawn even though they had been originally accepted and even published as issued. The legal action that followed (and Mills lost) did not consider the merits of Mills' patents but tested the power of the USPTO to withdraw a patent at such a late stage. The court ultimately held that the USPTO had the legal power to do so. See Bob Park's version of events here:

http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN02/wn090602.html and the Erik Baard overview article at the village voice: "The Empire Strikes Back" http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0017,baard,14377,1.html

Rathke's contribution seems based on his own interpretation of Mills' theory and may have been guided by an agenda. He conducted no experiments to justify his position and his declarations seem aimed solely to discredit Mills. When asked by a member to join HSG to put his case he replied:

"Thanks for notifying me of the discussion. My only interest in this topic was to save the European tax payers some money by keeping ESA from repeating NIAC's fault and studying this hoax. The paper was just a spin-off from an internal report. Hence, I consider my job done on this and I am not planning to enter your forum. Anyway I am very busy at the moment because we have just set up a nice litte antigravity device in the test center at ESTEC." - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hydrino/message/9217

No-one was sure if his last comment was snide or genuine :)

Mills has put out a response to Rathke in which he asserts that it is Rathke who has made the errors, it is a large file unfortuntately - http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/technical/PhysicalSolutionsNatureofAtomPhoton060805.pdf

Mills deals with Rathke on pages 24, 39, 94 and 95. Some extracts:

"Having presented the theory of CQM, the misunderstandings and errors of a critique by Rathke [1] were then addressed. Rathke missed the use of the stability to radiation as the constraint to solve the nature of the bound electron. The requirement that the electron equation of motion obeys a two-dimensional wave equation arises from the onstraint that the bound electron does not radiate according to Maxwell’s equations. It does not arise from a Bohr-type condition or some wave-particle duality notion. Nothing is waving including probability.

"The angular charge-density wave functions given by Eq. (31) are solutions of the two dimensional wave equation plus time. Rathke has copied the two-dimensional wave equation incorrectly and reversed the sign of the time differential. His other comments about incurable failures are made moot by this careless error."

"...

"In contradiction to Rathke’s claim that excited states can not be solved by CQM, the excited states of hydrogen and now helium are given in closed-form equations with fundamental constants only. These results are derived from Maxwell’s equations based on the physical process of excitation of the electron state by the photon. These results can not be reproduced by SQM. Even for the hydrogen excited states, the SQM methodology involves no physics and is arguably simply another form of the Rydberg formula to which it reduces. It is not predictive and is has many consequences that are not in agreement with observations [2-11].

"Hydrino states are predicted from Maxwell’s equations in an analogous manner as the excited states. The equations of the excited states and hydrino states and the mechanism for their formation are given in contradiction to Rathke’s claim. The data including an independent replication under NIAC [94] overwhelmingly demonstrates their existence and the exothermic reaction of their formation."

I do appreciate that the editors of this topic have a very difficult task. Does Wiki merely report or judge? Is it meant to discourage interest, prove it right or wrong? How do you assess who should be allowed to officially comment? In any case I hope the article has as its ultimate objective to raise interest in the topic and result in greater attempts at replication by scientists which will prove or disprove CQM and make Wiki's job easier by providing cold, hard experimental results.

FYI Mills Theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics was published in an international peer reviewed journal entitled Physics Essays Vol 16. The webpage is here http://www.physicsessays.com/default.asp#03

You need a subscription for the article, although BLP has published the text here http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/TheoryPapers/CQM060905.pdf.

You might also want to add to the list of evidence Mills claim that his theory can calculate the ionisation energies for the first 20 atoms and he provides workable spreadsheets that can be downloaded. This is apparently a big achievement that no other theory can match. See: http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/TheoryPapers/Exact_Solutions_1-20_Electron_Atoms_102804.pdf and for the workable spreadsheets: http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/Spreadsheets/1-20%20Electron%20Atoms%20Spreadsheets%20Unprotected.xls

My regards to all the editors for working so hard on something you think is "nuts". And apologies for the length of this post. I wanted to be thorough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.136.26.219 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Rathke of course didn't do any experiments. He only used mathematics to solve an equation and discusses the solution. The equation was as published by Mills. Of course, after the unsatisfying nature of the solutions were clearly exposed, it was to be expected that the published equatation undergo some change, revision, interpretation or adding of new boundary conditions.

It is the nature of science, that other scientists can make sense out of your published equatations. So that test failed.

Pjacobi 17:53, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

You say "the equation was as published by Mills". Mills says Rathke made errors, misapplied the theory and used the wrong sign in an equation. Where Rathke is used as a source to discredit CQM, neutrality surely dictates that Dr. Mills' response should be included to allow readers to evaluate that source. I'm also not aware that CQM was adjusted in response to Rathke's paper. The boundary condition you refer to was perhaps the very first thing Mills came up with more than a decade ago.

All I can say about your definition of the nature of science is that such scientists would make better sense out of correctly transcribed published equations by reading a fair and unbiased wikipedia article that at least has them talking about the same theory- not what they think it is about or want it to be about. The electron models of QM and CQM are, to put it mildly, different. It's a point particle singularity vs a classical extended particle and a two dimensional extended particle with a dynamic shape at that. Both QM and CQM want to describe exactly the same properties of the electron using very different models. Mills' equations and treatment are going to be different from what has been applied for decades to considerations of a point particle electron. That doesn't make his theory wrong and I think we are probably all in agreement that CQM stands or falls based on reproducible experimental results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.136.26.219 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Mills himself would be better served by checking his OWN transcriptions and explanations. See my comment on his Presentational Inconsistancies. If your going to throw out QM, then your going to have to one, by one, re-intrepret its expermental results instead of just dragging a few Nobel Laruets names though the dumpster. Ref: [[5]]

[Interjected] I agree. Done and done.

See the following for Mills interpretation of two experiments.

http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/DoubleSlit.shtml

http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/Aspect.shtml

So it's only okay to drag Mills through a dumpster? I thought the whole point of science was to promote knowledge and breakthroughs. Feynman was a smart guy but if he was wrong, he's wrong. If you don't like reasoned debate and expressed differences of opinion, join a cult. The one fact you should get from this site, is that all Mills' critics posted here, have not attempted to do a single experiment to prove him wrong. Not a one. And some of them don't bring clean hands to this debate. Mills had his patents. He'd gone through the process, they had been allowed, he'd paid his fee. Bob Park makes one phone call to the PTO. He provides no evidence or proof of his claims and the PTO snatches back the patent. Park then crows about it in "What's New". It's like Jimmy Olsen blowing away a homeless person then writing a sob story about crime on the streets. It crosses the line to make and report the news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.136.26.219 (talk • contribs) 06:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Mills also states[[6]] ppg 1071: "However, animate matter can decrease its rate of decay at the expense of the surrounding matter." This is essentially the idea behind Mary Shelly's Frankenstien, and the idea behind Life after death. I now remember where I head of this before. The reanimation of dead tissue, by Baron Von Frankenstien.

[[7]] "Dead-tissue reanimation, projected in the 1980s to be standard medical practice by 2001, won't be possible for at least another decade, scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Science Research Center announced Monday."

That is the link! MIT. The reanimation of dead tissue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artoftransformation (talk • contribs) 09:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Sheesh! Talk about out of context. You're raising Frankenstein and you want hydrinos put into psuedoscience?! Firstly, I didn't see the word dead in the above quote. Those are your words, not Mills. Now try putting food into your mouth. Let your gut digest it, break it down and ultimately extract energy from it. Congratulations. As animate matter, you just decreased your rate of decay at the expense of surrounding (your BLT sandwich) matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.136.26.219 (talk • contribs) 06:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Request for reference

"Mills' hydrino theory was inspired by a physics paper by MIT electrical engineering professor, Herman Haus. This paper used classical physics to model radiation arising from the free electron laser." What is the ref? I spent a finite time looking, didn't find. GangofOne 07:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Try this one. I don't have a link to the text so you may need to check the journal. H.A Haus, "On the radiation from point charges," Am. J. Phys. 54 (12), 1126 (December 1986) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.222.89.113 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I read that one, doesn't mention FEL, but does say that it is rehash of this paper: Haus and MN Ishlan J. Appl Phys 54 4784 sept 1983, "Synchrotron rad. of wiggled e- beam in rectangular waveguide", which does mention FEL. I was expecting something about a semiclassical quantum model, but both papers are just classical electromagnetism. Applying that to quantum systems, (atoms) is all Mills's extension; I can see where Mills got some of his phrases. GangofOne 07:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Peer review?

Can anyone clarify (here and perhaps in the article itself) whether the papers on this subject have been peer reviewed? --zandperl 02:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The only paper from Mills that is listed in the article is "Classical Quantum Mechanics", Physics Essays, 16:4 Dec. 2003. The article can be found online at http://www.physicsessays.com/catalog.asp?code=1604 (for a fee, unfortunately). I am no physicist, but the journal itself (http://www.physicsessays.com/default.asp) seems legitimate to me: it has academics in its editorial board and it is peer-reviewed. The journal description indicates that they are open to new or controversial ideas: "

Different points of view will be accepted as long as they are logically sound and well balanced in their exposition, until the process of truth searching naturally reaches a stage of a convincing argument in favour of one point of view or the other. " (from the journal page linked earlier) -- 1:43, 7 Nov. 2005 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.62.109.62 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The Article "Classical Quantum Mechanics" Has been peer-reviewed, by a Canadian Based Journal called 'Physics Essays'.

and the corrsisponding critique: [[8]], in a Peer Reviewed Journal "New Journal of Physics 7"

Andreas Rathke, European Space Agency's Advanced Concepts Team

"“Dr. Mills has apparently completed Einstein’s quest for a unified field theory… without largesse from the US Government, and without the benediction of the US scientific priesthood.” - Shelby T. Brewer, former Assistant Secretary of Energy Read Review..." Shelby T Brewer is listed on the BlackLight website as a member of the board of directors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.232.116 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC) and —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artoftransformation (talk • contribs) 13:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Non-mainstream science vs Pseudoscience

I noticed that earlier versions of the article belonged to the Category:Non-mainstream science category and since then was changed to Category:Pseudoscience category. I disagree with this modification because this theory does not fall under pseudoscience (yet). A pseudoscientific theory is a theory that has been correctly disproven by the scientific method. Hydrino theory, though unproven as of November 6, 2005, has also not yet been disproven since the theory is relatively new and has not been peer reviewed yet. Therefore, I'm going to change the article category back to Non-mainstream science. Solarusdude 02:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Upon learning that Category:Non-mainstream science is a deleted category, I changed the category to Category:Protoscience. Sorry for the mixup. Solarusdude 02:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[Interjected] I would just catorgize this, in alignment with the primary rebuttle as Poor Science, like Bad Astromony. I see that Phrenology has a listing for both PsedoScience and Protoscience. I second your idea to classify Hydrino theory along with Phrenology 69.181.232.116 04:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC) Artoftransformation 04:49-06:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

"What he found initially were mathematical blunders and unjustified assumptions."

As I did in only a cursurary review. Its not worth arguing for. 69.181.232.116 04:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC) Artoftransformation 04:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Relatively new? This guy has been spouting the same nonsense "breakthroughs" garnering "millions in funding" since at least 1999. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-7 02:32

[Interjected] My research said '1991', so I posted the link. He is a cold-fusion Scientist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artoftransformation (talk • contribs) 06:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Its no wonder that He has been garnering 25 million in funding. 5 of his Directors are former Wall Street Bankers.

"BlackLight had already raised the $25 million before the Voice reported on it."

1. MICHAEL H. JORDAN - Mr. Jordan was a partner with Clayton, Dubilier and Rice, one of the oldest and most respected private investment firms in the world. Before that, he spent 18 years with PepsiCo, Inc.
2. MICHAEL P. KALLERES. VADM USN (Ret) - Vice Admiral Kalleres is President of Dare to Excel Inc. (DTE), a business/financial planning and consulting firm for government-associated corporations.
3. SCOTT C. PENWELL - Mr. Penwell is a member of the Board of Trustees of The Emerald Mutual Funds
4. GEORGE A. SAWYER - Mr. Sawyer has been a General Partner with J.F. Lehman & Co., and its affiliated companies. J.F. Lehman & Co. is a partnership focusing on aerospace, marine and defense corporate mergers, acquisitions, and restructuring.
5. NEIL MOSKOWITZ - Mr. Moskowitz is Chief Financial Officer of Credit Suisse First Boston.

Neil Moskowitz, chief operating officer of the CSFB equity division. Neil Moskowitz was on Credit Suisse First Boston's BOD when Frank Quattrone was convicted of obstructing federal investigations into stock offerings at Credit Suisse First Boston. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.232.116 (talk • contribs) 04:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC) Artoftransformation 04:49-07:55, 7 November and 13:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Presentational Inconsistancies

At [[9]] Step 3, It states "The catalyst (in this case, Potassium) recombines with electrons in the plasma. This releases photons that contribute to the plasma's brightness. The catalyst can then be used again." However, the movie does not even show the catalyst, in this case Potassium. Fundamental to ALL catalitic reactions is the returning of the catalyst to its origional state.

It also states that K^3^+ + 3 e^- -> K + 81.7526 eV. Um... Where is the photon in the equation? The equation only reflects the energy released.

Also: the value of 81.7526 eV, does not show up as an example of his results summaries. He does not list his primary catalitic example as an expermantal result. [[10]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.232.116 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC) and —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artoftransformation (talk • contribs) 13:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Not sure if the above is correct. I had a look at the movie in Step 3. It represents a potassium atom resonantly reacting with an H atom and 3 electrons being ionised. The 81.7526 eV then mentioned refers to the total energy that is released as photons when the K^3 recaptures three electrons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.136.26.219 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

A quote from the Book: "The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics"

SECTION V Prospect Quarks to Cosmos to Consciousness, ppg 1065

"NATURE OF CONSCIOUSNESS Consciousness arises from a "negative" entropy state of a being at the expense of its surroundings wherein the being increases the spontaneous decay rate of the surroundings. The relationship between the energy decay rate according to Maxwell's Equations, spacetime expansion due to energy decay with the rate given by General Relativity, entropy due to spacetime expansion, and the imaginary nature of coordinate time due to spacetime expansion permits the phenomenon of consciousness."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.232.116 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

In summary, He is saying that the arrival of Conciousmess, causes spontaneous decay around it. However, Maxwell's Equations are about the relationship between Magnetic and Electic forces, and not about the effect of consciousness on the decaying entropy state of being. Artoftransformation 07:11, 7 November and 13:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I can't seem to find that section in his online book any longer, but I don't think your first sentence is accurate. He's not saying the arrival of consciousness causes spontaneous decay. He's saying that a negative entropy state of a being (which is necissarily at the expense of the surroundings) allows for consciousness. A being can be in a negative entropy state and not have consciousness, the negative state is merely one of the necissary factors for consciousness to arise (and exist). Which makes sense if you think about it. A being (like a fish, a human, or a plant) cannot exist unless it can be ordered (so-called "negative" entropy), which is at the "expense" of the system (pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system [11]).

As for Maxwell's Equations, I'm as confused as you are on how they exactly relate. But I can't find online the source for that section to look in on it. Maybe he was meaning Maxwell's demon. I don't know. Mathias 09:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Checking Refrences on Mills Work

R Mills: ppg 348: "Recent evidence suggests that energy packets like photon torpedoes are creeping toward reality [7]." Cites: on page 368 "[7] R. W. Ziolkowski, K. D. Lewis, Phys. Rev. Letts., Vol. 62, No. 2, (1989), pp. 147-150."

[12] "Evidence of Localized Wave Transmission"

by Richard W. Ziolkowski and D. Kent Lewis University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California 94550

[13] "D. Kent Lewis (M.S., 1978)"

I found a typo! R Mills owes me $5.00 USD, and an aplogy for the change of sign. Artoftransformation 09:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

R. Mills apparently has avoided pubslihing in mainstram journals:

"Q: Why doesn't Mills publish in peer-reviewed journals like everyone else?

[Hydrino.org ]

"Mills has attempted to get physics papers published in mainstream journals but they have been rejected because they fundamentally challenge established quantum theory, a successful challenge to which at this stage is considered, using the term of one journal referee, "unlikely". Mills has published papers in Fusion Technology, but some may not consider this to be a mainstream journal."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Artoftransformation (talk • contribs) 09:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[[14]] Lists only two refrences to Mills work on Hydrino's

1. Rathke's rebuttle [A. Rathke, A critical analysis of the hydrino model, New Journal of Physics 7, 127 (2005).]
2. A pure therotical paper on ( a good one! ) written by Jan Naudts, Departement Natuurkunde, Universiteit Antwerpen UIA, Belgium.

"As long as these more sophisticated calculations are not accomplished, there are no serious arguments from quantum mechanical theory to reject the existence of the hydrino state."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Artoftransformation (talk • contribs) 09:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Another paper on hydrino states has recently been posted to the arxiv here: ["The hydrino and other unlikely states", by Norman Dombey] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waif (talk • contribs) 16:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

(no comma in the URL) JohnAspinall (talk · contribs) 17:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Just to be clear about it, the Dombey paper is talking about "classical" hydrinos (i.e. solutions to various QM wave equations that were considered non-physical, for reasons discussed above). Dombey provides additional reasons to consider the solutions non-physical. Since Mills' theory rejects the entire QM apparatus, the Dombey paper is not relevant to this discussion. JohnAspinall 17:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Slashdot

{{slashdotted}}

a better backlink is http://science.slashdot.org/science/05/11/06/1923218.shtml?tid=232&tid=14 This story has been on slashdot twice before in the last 5 years. http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/12/22/109245&tid=14 ans " NASA to Investigate Hydrinos" http://science.slashdot.org/science/02/06/07/2159210.shtml?tid=134 GangofOne 00:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Choice of Qualifiers in describing results

"In 1996 a NASA labor did a partially successfull test run to reproduce the observed excess heat in a Water-Potassium Carbonate-Nickel Electrolytic Cell. But as no followup research occured and the result, is only quoted by BlackLight Power, the significance of this result is in doubt."

It is not only quoted here, but it is assumed to be a rigorus validation of the claims, whereas the NASA results clearly deny the claims: BlackLigh Power Inc, Clained to NASA that the Electrolytic Cell, that they built, generated excess heat in the order of 60W for weeks. NASA was able only to detect 11W of excess power, or less than 19%. ( and has nothing to do with the claims of the Potassim fusion reacation. )

Rank order these adjectives:

Overwhelmingly sucessfull.

Resoundingly sucessfull.

Vindicatingly sucessfull.

Definativly succsessfull.

Decisievly successfull.

Completely successfull.

Hugely sucessfull.

Mostly sucessfull.

Partially sucessfull.

Marginally sucessfull.

Slightly sucessfull.

Somewhat sucessfull.

Almost sucessfull. (Almost famous, almost pregnant)

Which one of these accuratly characturizes 19%?

"a string of failed experiments were reported." Cold_Fusion Which is how these types of experements was charactized on another page of wikipedia.

All the cirtasisms of Cold_Fusion#Arguments_in_the_controversy apply to this theory also. This is merely a cold fusion experment with potassium, K.

Or we can just redirect their inuqirues to this article Pokémon evolution. "Evolution in the fictional world of the Pokémon video game franchise refers to a sudden change of form in a Pokémon, usually accompanied by a dramatic increase in statistics. It should be noted that this is not an evolution in a biological sense, but rather the metamorphosis of an individual creature."

Now with a bit of editing... "Hydrino Theory in the fictional world of cold fusion energy franchise, refers to a sudden change of form in a Hydrogen atom, usually accomapnied by a dramatic increase in funding. It would be noted that this is not an evolution in the physical sence, but rather the metamorphosis of carefull scientificstudy into something resembling claims for Supercentenarianism."

I will now investigate the US Navy claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artoftransformation (talk • contribs) 02:11-02:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

If the abstract is nowherer available, except on the company's site, the entire entry can be deleted as non-verifiable. --Pjacobi 08:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

There is NO refrence to any work done by the U.S. Navy on blacklightpower.

"BlackLight Power and researchers at the weapons division of the Naval Air Warfare Center at China Lake, California, confirm that they are heading toward a research and development pact that would allow the navy to produce energy and materials from hydrinos and to develop applications of the new compounds. A spokeswoman for the Indian Head Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Maryland says in an e-mail letter that after a meeting with Mills "there was considerable interest in the reported properties of the new hydrogen-containing compounds, and in obtaining samples for independent analysis and evaluation."

. NO verification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artoftransformation (talk • contribs) 08:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Point of View, and Persistance of Vision

"I don't think we can believe any disputed new theory, because a company's website say so."

I think that we are charged with presenting a balenced case. We cannot afford to believe anyone. We can reproduce the companies claims, and the claims of the detractors, and the counter claims of the companies about the detractors, and the detractors rebuttles. This in pecticular is difficult and challenging.

The challenge is to reproduce the claims and counter claims with equal vigor. Artoftransformation 02:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, BlackLight Power Incorporated is an example of a "new-age energy" website which makes various cranky claims. Randell Mill's so-called grand unification is listed at Crank Dot Net. ---CH 06:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

'Mainstream' acceptence

The very first paragraph was worded "The hypothesis is not accepted by the mainstream physics community". This is an overly negative POV and ignores the on-going debate in the scientific press and in independent research labs. A small, but growing, number of well-respected researchers have begun to take an interest. Some for, and some against, Mills' ideas. Clearly, work to verify Mills' claims have expanded beyond the BLP premises. A better, more neutral approach would be to acknowledge the controversy and note that resources are being devoted to verify or debunk the claim. This is on-going work, by no means has this been settled, as is implied by the above statement. I have modified to be more NPOV. Ronnotel 17:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

You are entirely wrong. Look at citations etc. Or simply compare with something, that is really hotly debated.

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=ads-cft

• 607 results, 12 of them with more than 100 citations each

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=hydrino

• 64 results, 57 citations total (!), mostly Mills citing himself

Pjacobi 17:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

To support my claim that there is a debate on-going, consider Rathke v. Mills/Phllips, or Phelps v. Phillips, etc. Not all of the debate has been published. Indeed, the circumstances of Rathke v. Mills/Philips indicates that one side of the argument is facing undue bias. (case in point, Mills has been denied a chance to respond to Rathke, even to point out simple mathematical errors). A blanket statement that the hypothesis is not accepted does little to inform the reader, essentially saying, 'move along, nothing to see here'. This is not NPOV at all. Ronnotel 17:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

That's not "hotly" for any defintion of "hotly" I can think of.

Removal of This hypothesis is not accepted by the physics community. isn't a much better idea than "hotly debated". Do you want to imply, that it is sort of accepted or are we going for "largely ignored". The latter one would be fine with me.

Pjacobi 18:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Does a distinction need to made at all? With a controversial topic like this, I suggest that it's better to avoid any sort of value judgment or interpretation in the initial paragraph. If it's absolutely vital to the article that a value judgment be made, then yes, I agree that the topic has been, to date, largely ignored. Although I must question why a 'hypothesis' that can predict atomic ionization energies better than the accepted 'theory' is being ignored so studiously. But then I'm not a physicist, so I guess I don't have a dog in this fight. Ronnotel 18:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

It strikes me that this is somewhat like Intelligent Design and its supporters' calls to "teach the controversy", when there exists no controversy among mainstream scientists. People like to root for a perceived underdog, but it's inaccurate to characterize the (scientific) situation as "hotly debated".

Regarding the ionization potentials, that sounds more like quantum chemistry to me. They have accurate methods AFAIK, but there's a tradeoff between computational time and accuracy. - mako 04:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

To be clear, I haven't made up my mind either way. In particular, I find the CQM 'explanation' for the classic dual-slit experiment unsatisfying at best. However, the SQM explanation for many of the CQM results are equally unsatisfying. To wit:

• replicatable excess heat and persistent plasma generation at low input energy levels (but only in the presence of predicted catalysts).
• NMR of hydride materials with predicted ionization spikes
• more accurate prediction of ionization levels (if you have a reference to SQM results I'd appreciate it)
• evidence of line broadening, many centimeters away from the electrodes
• prediction of an accelerated universe expansion before it was confirmed experimentally

I haven't yet seen convincing arguments from the SQM side that explains any of these phenomena. Nor am I willing, yet, to believe that all of the evidence presented has been either fabricated or produced by experimental error. Am I cheering for the underdog? Not likely. My business is speculation - I'm just trying figure out whether it's time to start shorting natural gas companies. Something doesn't jive here and I'd like to figure out what it is, hopefully before the rest of the market. Ronnotel 16:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider these things to be in the domain of quantum mechanics. Most of plasma physics is classical. Ionization stuff is chemistry. Line broadening has been attributed to the doppler effect. Universe stuff is cosmology. We shouldn't look to quantum mechanics for answers to problems in the macroscopic realm. It's a valid criticism of QM that it doesn't work for everything (hence the search for a Grand Unified Theory), but you have to use the right tool for the job.

The distributed Folding@home project has a Quantum Molecular Dynamics core available. It's not for everyone; the computing requirements are very high. However the FAQ does say that it's more accurate than the standard core. As this is protein folding we're talking about, with lots and lots of atoms, I assume they consider QM to be reliable enough for the job. There's apparently a whole field of computational chemistry devoted to this stuff.

If you're looking for data, NIST is where to go. - mako 00:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

But back to my general point, there are interesting, unresolved issues surrounding CQM. Mills' has a closed-form solution for ioniziation energy that uses only physical constants and can be solved on a spreadsheet. Occam's Razor suggests this is preferable to an approach requiring supercomputers. If nothing else, shouldn't physics texts be updated to include this formulation? It would save a lot of computer time, I think. Ronnotel 02:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I can't say I know what "closed-form" means. I do know that the usual rule of thumb for ionization energy is 13.6*Z^2, which is accurate enough for hand calculation, and it can be made more accurate by taking the mass defect into consideration. In any case, it takes years for things to make it into textbooks. We have yet to see if CQM can be applied to large molecules like proteins.

And again, ionization is largely in the domain of chemistry. Introductory physics is mechanics, thermo, E&M, and maybe optics and QM. A typical QM class would focus on the postulates and mathematics. - ::mako 05:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Closed-form in the sense of using only +,-,*,/,^ operators and physical constants. Ronnotel 14:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Back to the NPOV business. I don't read the statement as pushing a POV; it's merely reporting how things are. There are lots and lots of scientists in this world, and Mills' theory has been available for many years now. You'd think that someone would have done an investigation, but it appears that nobody else has, except Mills and his collaborators. That tells me that people's personal investigations have gone nowhere, or they just didn't deem it worth their time. (An aside: I'm taking a class in nuclear fusion, and my professor mentioned that after the news of the cold fusion experiment came out, everybody came around to ask him for heavy water. Of course we all know how that panned out.)

That said, I do think the introduction needs a value judgement. I'm okay with wording like "largely ignored" or "seen little attention from". - mako 23:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree if it really were true that *all* of the confirmation has come from collaborators. However Marchese and Naudt seem to have nothing to do with BLP at all - Phillips, as well, seems to work independently. In addition, a considerable amount of Mills' work has survived peer-review to appear in established journals. Perhaps the phrases such as 'has drawn considerable skepticism', or 'has been harshly criticized' would be apt? Ronnotel 05:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

In Marchese's writeup, he says his group consulted with and borrowed equipment from BlackLight Power. Naudt is an oddity; his paper just rehashes some QM, finding one below-ground state that has long been rejected as unphysical, and calls that support for Mills' theory of many below-ground states. Phillips' experiment was done in association with Mills. - mako 05:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a stretch to impeach all of this work because they might have picked up the phone. From their bios, these are all serious researchers with serious reputations on the line. With respect, I think this proves my point, i.e. that there *is* on-going scientific debate. I, for one, found Phelps and Rathke's critiques of Phillips and Mills' less persuasive than the original work they were endeavoring to disprove. I think the ball is in the critics court right now. To the point, can we agree on the phrase 'has drawn considerable skepticism'? Ronnotel 14:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

If we strike 'considerable', then yes. We can't overstate the magnitude of the debate; it exists, but it's vanishingly small compared to, for example, the hot topic Pjacobi mentioned above.

You don't usually put somebody's name on a paper if s/he hasn't made a significant contribution to it. You would cite phone calls as "personal correspondence".

You may want to check out the HSG forums. People are poking pretty big holes in the theory, and the supporters are falling back on the experiments. - mako 23:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)