Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:40, 16 August 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Brilliant Light Power article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 2 months

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows: Neutral point of view as applied to science: Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Misplaced Pages aspires to be such a respected work. Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: John Farrell (2007-05-07). "In Misplaced Pages we trust?". Media outlet/organization. Retrieved 2011-02-28. The hydrino theory listed above is just one example of crank science trying to gain credibility through the online encyclopaedia.

Skepticism B‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Brilliant Light Power. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Brilliant Light Power at the Reference desk.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Brilliant Light Power article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 2 months

The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Sidereal-Inverter (talk · contribs) / BlackLight Power This user has contributed to the article.

The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. 72.44.181.202 (talk · contribs) / BlackLight Power This user has contributed to the article.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Needs an update

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 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. 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." 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 Misplaced Pages. 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. Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories. Shouldn't this be posted to Misplaced Pages: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 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 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

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages
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 Misplaced Pages
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: 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"

"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)

False, malicious, and defamatory comments republished by other editors

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 Misplaced Pages: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: Misplaced Pages:Don't overlook legal threats and Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is in the real world "Misplaced Pages 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)

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 06:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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)

Factual statements vs. hyperbole

Hi,

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

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

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

They still haven't delivered anything working, implying otherwise would be wrong. In any case editors should avoid "lede bombing": the lede must summarize content that is in the article body (see WP:LEDE) and not introduce distinct material. The other removals are in line with WP:FRIND - is there some reason those guidelines should be suspended here? Alexbrn 05:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

No, there isn't, and thanks for the recent edits which I just admired. Blippy's comment above seems to suggest that the company's web pages can be copied here to show all the exciting breakthroughs they have almost made, but that is not Misplaced Pages's role. Johnuniq (talk) 06:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Please justify your claims Johnuniq. I don't see how being snide and inaccurate helps build a good article. Where am I suggesting copying BLP's website? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 00:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Blippy, you have been warned on your talk page and on this page that you are editing under ArbCom's Discretionary sanctions, yet you are edit warring over this one matter. Follow WP:BRD and seek a consensus solution with other editors. Don't restore that content unless a consensus says so. Seek a compromise instead. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Blippy, what is your position at BLP? -- Brangifer (talk) 00:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Whatever position you hold, the fact is that if anyone had an actual result (as opposed to a possible confirmation of some esoteric detail), the actual result would be trumpeted in every relevant scientific publication. While we wait for almost free energy to be delivered, there should be no attempt to puff up this article with claims that invite the gullible to believe something has occurred. Johnuniq (talk) 01:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

"f anyone had an actual result (as opposed to a possible confirmation of some esoteric detail), the actual result would be trumpeted in every relevant scientific publication." You're wrong because there are people who actually have access to the results. This satisfies the condition of "anyone" having an actual result. However, these "anyones" are bounded to non-disclosure agreements, which means you and the general public do not have access to these results, lest there be a breach in non-disclosure. When they who sign the legal paperwork discover that the technology is real, there is absolutely no reason for them to violate the non-disclosure agreement, because in signing to the agreement, they agree to the consequences of what happens if they violate the agreement, which likely includes loss of rights to do business with BlackLight Power on a privileged basis. Remember, BLP is a company. It is funded by investors, not public science grants, who see intellectual property as value that must be protected from copy cats. The access by the general media was purposefully restricted, and access was allowed for investors and key industry partners. If you can't see the real reason it didn't just pop up in the media (hint: it's not about "lack" of results), what else could I say really? You can choose to understand this or not. That's up to you.

Now that said, the only thing right about your comment is that we can't add it to the article yet per Misplaced Pages WP:RS. If BlackLight Power wants these primary sources to be justified in the article, it must first publicize to every Joe Blow out there. I estimate this process will take until a year from now. As much as I would like an encyclopedia that focuses on the truth, which would show that BlackLight Power is indeed correct, that approach simply isn't compatible with the Misplaced Pages model, and arguably, it isn't truly compatible with any model that claims any "worldy objectivity".2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Misplaced Pages 03:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• Pseudoscience articles under contentious topics procedure
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• B-Class Skepticism articles
• Low-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Articles edited by connected contributors