This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Skepticism 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 Wikipedia. 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Energy Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Business Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

Change the url to use a template and to be in all lowercase as you would type the url (otherwise it's just a form of advertising!)

eg: Ruinlives (talk) 07:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 21:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want to point out that the page on this company contains very little info beyond the year 2008 and no info at all beyond the year 2013. Yet the company Brilliant Light Power still exists in 2022. As far as updated info on this company is concerned, the Wikipedia article is therefore useless in the year 2022. Furthermore, the page on the company Brilliant Light Power is not the place to report extensively (almost exclusively) on the theory supposedly underlying the products (or the lack of such products) of this company. All this particular page is supposed to provide is info - especially current one (i.e. more recent than 2008) on the company Brilliant Light Power. NOT whether the hydrino or whatever theory is unlikely or false or in contradiction to quantum theory. Info on this topic should be moved to a separate Wikipedia entry. Please correct this or remove this page altogether. In its current form it is misleading and uselessWkg4 (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If reliable sources haven't discussed the subject since then, neither do we. If reliable sources have discussed the topic, then by all means suggest updates based on them. Per WP:GEVAL, all articles will reflect the mainstream scientific consensus. VQuakr (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Electron paramagnetic resonance proof for the existence of molecular hydrino

Wilfred R.Hagen

Randell L.Mills

International Journal of Hydrogen Energy

Available online 11 June 2022 Cashmemorz (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360319922022406 Cashmemorz (talk) 20:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wkg4, could you give some examples of what you would like to see added to the article? (With sources, ideally.) ApLundell (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, one can find the following quote: "Since its inception⁵ the hydrino hypothesis has remained highly controversial^6-17 and laboratory verification studies by its proponents have been criticised^18,19. Remarkably, no experimental testing by independent researchers has been described in the literature over the past 31 years." - https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-144403/v1

There is this caveat though:

"This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice."

Signed, ^talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 15:32, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The state or condition of a papers print or reprint status does nothing to nullify or contradict that several properties of the hydrino atom haven been confirmed years later using accepted analytical methods by third parties as being the same properties as were predicted in 1990-2000 and later, by the theory behind it, Grand Unified Theory-Classical Physics. That indicates, to anyone qualified in the application of the scientific method, that this makes the pertaining paper to be science based and not pseudo-science. Why move the goal posts, ad nauseum? This moving indicates there is an agenda behind this back and forth. On the French version of Wikipedia, this topic is treated more fairly and is not high jacked to no good reason as on this English version, except maybe at the behest of the energy sector which is being threatened by the Hydrino having finally entered the real world of being able to produce energy much more cheaply than by the use of an other methods. Hiding behind Wikipedia's editors, you, does not make such editors any less complicit in the attacks by the energy sectors on the theory behind the Hydrino. Do get your collective minds out of the editorial gutter and do your job in a way that actually benefits mankind and does not hinders that important work, which is what you are supposedly doing on this site. Cashmemorz (talk) 23:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we're all being paid off by the energy companies, of course. I just cashed my check today. I'm gonna buy a boat.

But, this is not a moved goalpost. See WP:PREPRINTS. Wikipedia policy has been for many years that pre-prints count as self-published, and therefore not reliable. ApLundell (talk) 00:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The International Journal of Hydrogen Energy is for pre-prints or self-published studies and therefore is not reliable? Please explain your reasoning for diminishing such a prestigious journal to so low a status. 2601:586:C37F:93F0:F517:EE53:7551:F23B (talk) 14:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. +++ clears throat +++ See WP:PREPRINTS. You are welcome. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 14:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

International Journal of Hydrogen Energy publications like the one from Mills and Hagen are peer reviewed:

https://www.elsevier.com/journals/international-journal-of-hydrogen-energy/0360-3199/guide-for-authors

Peer review This journal operates a single anonymized review process. All contributions will be initially assessed by the editor for suitability for the journal. Papers deemed suitable are then typically sent to a minimum of two independent expert reviewers to assess the scientific quality of the paper. The Editor is responsible for the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of articles. The Editor's decision is final. Editors are not involved in decisions about papers which they have written themselves or have been written by family members or colleagues or which relate to products or services in which the editor has an interest. Any such submission is subject to all of the journal's usual procedures, with peer review handled independently of the relevant editor and their research groups. 204.26.30.5 (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, Dr. Hagen is an independent expert verifying the experimental evidence of hydrinos by EPR. From the peer-reviewed, published article with the experiments done by and independent expert:

Author contributions

RLM developed the theory and was responsible for the production and analysis of the samples; WRH did the EPR experiments and analyses and wrote the dedicated software; WRH and RLM wrote the manuscript.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests:

Dr. Mills is the founder, CEO, and President of Brilliant Light Power which provided the samples for independent analyses except for the gas chromatography which was performed in house. Dr. Hagen has no financial or personal relationships and did not receive and financial support from Brilliant Light Power.

Acknowledgement

We are grateful to Dr Peter van Noorden for creating the liaison between the authors. 204.26.30.5 (talk) 14:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The wikipedia article should be edited to add this paper and the following conclusion from the paper (peer reviewed, by an independent expert):

In summary, the present study provides compelling EPR spectroscopic and gas chromatographic evidence for the existence of molecular hydrino, and, by inference, for the reality of atomic hydrino, and it provides plausibility of the electron model in GUTCP. In more general terms our results are a significant test against falsification of GUTCP. In view of the possible far-reaching implications of this conclusion for the theory of quantum mechanics, for hydrogen-related chemistry, for astrophysics of dark matter, and for energy transduction and production technology, it is also offered as an urgent invitation to academia at large to repeat and extend the described experiments in lieu of refutation on quantum mechanical theoretical grounds. 204.26.30.5 (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can predict the future. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. +++ clears throat +++ See WP:PREPRINTS. You are welcome. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 14:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Self-published sources (online and paper)

WP:PREPRINTS

WP:RSSELF

WP:RS/SPS

Main page: Wikipedia:Verifiability § Self-published sources

Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published sources are largely not acceptable. Self-published books and newsletters, personal pages on social networking sites, tweets, and posts on Internet forums are all examples of self-published media. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications 2601:586:C37F:93F0:95A:9917:3CD3:AD14 (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I checked WP:PREPRINTS it appears as though you need to re-read it yourself. The article was peer reviewed. 2601:586:C37F:93F0:95A:9917:3CD3:AD14 (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Wikipedia is not about following its own rules. If they did then why is it that on the French version of Wikipedia, on the same topic of Brilliant Light Power, there exists a more balanced treatment of that topic. Is it about differing cultures, as opposed to the English culture on Wikipedia, or is there another reason why Wikipedia rules are applied more strictly on the English version? Why does the English version of Wikipedia act so differently from the French version on the same topic? Cashmemorz (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because Brilliant Light Power sued Wikipedia and they are doubling down so as not to show any liability for their slander. 173.71.88.223 (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia will claim that it's all open source, and that they are not liable for any libel presented on its web site.

Did BLP really sue them? Would love to read about that case somewhere.

It is interesting WP says GUTCP is pseudoscience, while the EPR article uses actual science, in which a theory (GUTCP) predicts something (the existence of atomic and molecular hydrino, with diffusion, paramagnetic qualities, and g-factor different than molecular hydrogen), then an experiment is done to see if the results fit with the prediction. Spoiler alert: the experimental results fit nicely with the theory in the EPR hydrino paper. Thats why the article says there is "proof for the existence of molecular hydrinos." 204.26.30.5 (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://brilliantlightpower.com/on-wikipedia-dispute/ 173.71.88.223 (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The case involved accusation that a wikipedia editor stated, as fact, that BrLP was engaged in fraud. Wikipedia editors operating under the protection of anonymity are not permitted to engage in libel in a wikipedia page. I don't know if disciplinary action was ever taken against this editor by the Wikipedia authorities but absent identification of the individual involved, BrLP had standing against Wikipedia. Section 230 was never intended to protect edited content -- it was intended to extend common carrier-like protections to unedited platforms. Jim Bowery (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All just noise. To actually successfully sue someone for defamation they'd have to prove they weren't a fraud, and we all know they can't do that. This was just theater for their true-believers.

Also, notice that their statement linked above contains at least one lie. There's no wikipedia rule that legal actions against the foundation must be described on the subjects' page. In fact, that kind of self-reference is discouraged. ApLundell (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant Light Power and/or Randall Mills hold several patents related to energy generating systems according to a search on Google patents search page [1].

Given the prominence shown in the article to a patent that was granted and then withdrawn, presumably active patents are of as much interest and should be listed or at least summarized and referenced. Nxn (talk) 08:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got any sources discussing those patents? - Roxy the dog 09:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

in all seriousness: anyone reading the blatant bigotry of the Wikipedia page absolutely dare not publish an opinion online, now. I have heard of scientists that have read Mill's mathematical work, they absolutely dare not discuss it publicly for fear of retribution and having their funding cut "because Wikipedia says BLP == toxic". personally, I have naively mentioned it online for the mathematical interest (very exciting innovative mathematical application of Maxwell's Equations and Spherical Harmonics) and was psychologically terrified by how quickly people quoted this Wikipedia page as a "reliable source" of how I was citing inappropriate "unscientific" material. efforts to contact the forum owner to report the violence of the attacks were themselves so terrifyingly non-empathetic and unsafe that I was forced into the position of withdrawing entirely from interacting with that community. bottom line is that due to the massive "multiplier" effect on authority that is endowed by Wikipedia, through its pagerank and reputation, discussion of BLP and Mills online has become alarmingly life-altering for people. Lkcl (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following paragraph under the Criticism section doesn't match up with the surrounding text in a way that makes sense: "A hydrino laser patent and a hydrino energy patent have not been withdrawn by the USPTO.US 7773656US 10443139" Are these patents related to the one that was retracted or the following criticisms in the article? I would make an edit request, but I don't know if this should be worked in somewhere, added later as a footnote, or removed outright. Reconrabbit (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Xxanthippe I don't see a place for the reverted information in this article. I agree that it may be relevant information, but unless there's related information that contextualizes it somewhere in the article that I missed, it is just confusing. Reconrabbit (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of article is the reason I will not donate to Wikipedia. It is clearly heavily biased against Dr. Mills. 23.88.132.242 (talk) 16:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If what the vast majority of literature written about Brilliant Light Power and Randall Mills in what we consider to be reliable sources is biased, the resultant article based on those sources has no choice but to appear biased. Reconrabbit 16:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there is a rather unfortunate conflation going on: the opinions of reviewers are being recorded (which is a necessary role of Wikipedia, as you point out, recon rabbit), but they are noted - without warning or "protection phrases" - in a way that is as personal as the opinions of the reviewers. the introductory paragraphs are just breathtaking in their clear bias and bigotry. it is now sadly normal and well-known for scientific innovations to meet first with scathing scepticism, and over time to progress through to acceptance and actual commercial use. in victorian times and before, the bigotry was much less common, as people knew that they didn't know much, so it was crucial to explore avenues that were, how-to-say... "less acceptable". notable exceptions where published scientific innovation resulted in torture and death: Alan Turing, Galileo. both Da Vinci and Tesla's work were seized by "authorities" after their death. so we know it can happen: bigotry and ignorance results in peoples' lives being destroyed. what isn't acceptable is for Wikipedia to become a place which collates and amplifies that bigotry. even the presence of such, if not put in an objective responsible fashion, has a "chilling effect". for example: I've been reading the MASSIVE 1,700 page book by Mills for about 10 years now, trying to understand it. I just read the Wikipedia article tonight, spotted an error made by a prominent renowned scientist carrying out reviews, and due to having been psychologically tortured and abused, I absolutely in no way can risk even mentioning where that mistake was, nor mention what it was, in case it results in someone here on Wikipedia initiating yet another attack similar to ones I have been subjected to in the past. I leave it that I wish those first paragraphs were not so intimidatingly worded. Lkcl (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"resultant article based on those sources has no choice but to appear biased." Reconrabbit, the way it can be presented is as the opinion of the source. what has instead happened is that editors have, after reading those abusive personal opinions, taken them as if they were fact, repeated them (which has legal implications as you know), amplifying them and causing a devastating chilling effect world-wide due to wikipedia's "authoritative" status. consider this: if you make false statements to investors, it is Investor Fraud, which is a criminal offense, and you can go to prison. has Mills been thrown in prison? no has he been arrested? no. so the investors clearly trust him (obvious caveat: so far). and that is one hell of a lot of money invested. the logical deduction: there has to be something not made public that the investors trust. which Wikipedia editors and blatantly-biased "reliable" sources clearly don't know. bottom line, whilst I 100% agree with you that "reliable" sources can and must be quoted, having the rest of the page (especially the introduction) be as blatantly and violently hostile and abusive as those same sources is deeply alarming, damaging, and irresponsible of Wikipedia to continue to propagate and host. Lkcl (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a WP:BIGMISTAKE. Wikipedia follows reliable sources and calls out recognised bullshit as bullshit. End of story. Bon courage (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363023774_Electron_paramagnetic_resonance_proof_for_the_existence_of_molecular_hydrino

I don't believe this research has been investigated since the last edits? the article is 2022. am not a fan of Elsevier journals, but the article is surprisingly Open Access. I would love to see some discussion on this article but cannot personally risk being involved in that discussion due to having been psychologically tortured from a DV relationship. I therefore leave it to everyone else to read, review, and comment (if you feel safe coming forward, given the bigotry displayed on the main article, which I absolutely don't in any way) Lkcl (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For an article with these implications it is hardly cited at all by future publications, even compared to contemporary articles in this journal. It would be hard to justify including this in the article without any published third-party analysis. Reconrabbit 18:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]