Talk:Brilliant Light Power

Mills' credentials
There is no record that Mills ever attended MIT. There is no entry for a Randell Mills in the MIT alumni directory. He may have audited some classes but that would not be sufficient for the claim "He later studied biotechnology and electrical engineering at MIT". The citation for that statement is a magazine article. I vote for deletion of that statement and also taking a closer look at his other credentials.Zen-in (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Go ahead. All claims in Wikipedia articles need independent reliable sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC).


 * This is a link in wikipedia showing the alumnus at MIT. Mills name is shown in that listing.:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Massachusetts_Institute_of_Technology_alumni&pagefrom=McKellar%2C+Jessica%0AJessica+McKellar#mw-pages Cashmemorz (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a wp:reliable source. See wp:CIRCULAR. The category is on Randell Mills which is a wp:redirect page. I removed both the Harvard and MIT alumni categories as they are not mentioned / sourced on this article. Jim1138 (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Randell Mills is listed as an alumnus (scientist) of Harvard
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Medical_School#Notable_alumni
 * "Notable" as in meaning graduated cum laude or having graduated in a significantly shorter time than is the usual 3 or 4 years required for Doctor of Medicine Degree from Harvard Medical School in 1986.
 * When I originally found, by my due diligence, that Mills was not listed at MIT as an alumnus, someone decided to also remove his name from the Harvard alumnus topic on Wikipedia, overdoing that due diligence. Cashmemorz (talk) 03:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * By "may have audited" do you mean "may have attended"? It sounds like you have looked at something specific to say "no entry"—is there a link? Does anyone have information on the other claim at BlackLight Power ("degree in Chemistry from Franklin & Marshall College") which has [citation needed]? Johnuniq (talk) 01:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I meant that he may have just occupied a seat in a lecture hall a couple of times. If he attended his name would appear in the alumni register.   There is no entry for a Randell Mills in the MIT alumni register.  If you don't think I'm telling the truth you should ask another MIT alum to log in and verify that information.Zen-in (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * (ec) I found this.
 * Good find. Why don't the skeptics actually call MIT so they can see the truth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.93.181.106 (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Randell L. Mills, M.D. graduated Summa Cum Laude in Chemistry at Franklin & Marshall College in 1982 and graduated from the Harvard Medical School in 1986. While doing his intern work, he also went across the river to MIT and furthered his education with electrical engineering courses."
 * I don't believe a Harvard Medical School intern would be able to find the time to travel from Brookline MA to MIT a few times a week. Maybe once or twice but not every week.Zen-in (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * While I'm not inclined to credit it as a reliable source for...well, anything, I suspect that FUSION Facts: A Monthly Newsletter Providing Factual Reports on Cold Fusion Developments can at least be relied on to present one of its 1991 FUSION SCIENTISTS OF THE YEAR in the most favorable light possible. At best, then, he dabbled in a few engineering courses while a medical intern, and has since made a point of hyping it without offering any details.  (Technically, every statement I've seen would still be true if he took one course in biotech and one course in electrical engineering.  Heck, the statements would still be true if he audited the courses, or failed them, or did them as some sort of night-school continuing education offering.)  Definitely shouldn't be included without some meaningful details. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * When I read "studied at MIT" I interpret it to mean he attended lectures, recitations, handed in complete problem sets, and wrote tests.  Someone who audits a course has permission from MIT to just occupy a seat in the lecture hall.  They are not studying the subject.   If he was registered as a student, attended some courses and failed them he would appear in the alumni register.   Sometimes Harvard students audit MIT courses.   That might be what he did.   But I don't think it could be said he studied at MIT. No "night-school continuing education offering" is available at MIT.  OpenCourseWare videos are available for many MIT courses.  I don't think anyone who watches a few minutes from one of these videos can seriously say they studied at MIT either.  Zen-in (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as the article's content go, I don't think there's any disagreement that the MIT claims should be excised as needless puffery. With respect to Mills' attendance or registration status, I would be hesitant to rely absolutely on the alumni directory/register info.  Do we know with certainty that the same information and detail available for recent students is available for individuals who would have been on campus in the early eighties?  (Similarly, the type and breadth of program offerings in the early 1980s are probably different from what we see today.  Incidentally, MIT does indeed offer continuing ed courses.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, its just puffery. MIT's definition of who is an alumnus/alumna has not changed in that time. I can only speak about the courses and admission requirements at MIT in the early 80's because that was when I was a student there.   MIT does offer professional courses beyond the undergrad and grad curriculum, but it is doubtful a medical school intern could afford them.  I sometimes run into this kind of puffery and sometimes worse credential fraud.   I remember one individual who claimed he "studied" at MIT and at the Kennedy school of business at Harvard.Zen-in (talk) 05:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no need for a long discussion. If rock-solid independent sources do not support a fact (as appears to be in this case) then the fact goes out:WP:RS. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC).
 * "hyping it without offering any details"
 * Publishing a peer reviewed paper "Electron paramagnetic resonance proof for the existence of molecular hydrino" in the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy Volume 47, Issue 56, 1 July 2022, Pages 23751-23761
 * is considered as "hype" or not "offering any details"? Or the over 100 other peer reviewed apers published in many other journals, leading up to that latest paper? Cashmemorz (talk) 03:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's the proof he studied there, and he studied under the famous Professor Hermann Haus, which should also be added to the page:


 * Where did The Trends Journal (TTJ) get Mills' MIT background? It is an interview, not a definitive biography of Mills. I would think the author either got it from Mills directly, or from some literature, likely online. Why would the author care how factual this small tidbit of information is? I wouldn't see the author spending much time verifying it. There is no indication in the article of his source. Therefore, I don't see this article as a reliable source on Mills' MIT background. That information should stay off the page until an RS supplied. If Mills just audited a classes at MIT, I would question adding the MIT quote in the article.
 * "Investigating electrical engineering" (TTJ) or "studied biotechnology and electric engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology" (Quantum Leap Mag) could mean many things. Going to MIT's library and reading a textbook occasionally would qualify. Jim1138 (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

here is a nice new book that explains it all Randell Mills and the Search for Hydrino Energy — Preceding unsigned comment added by GUTCP (talk • contribs) 21:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The author, Brett Holverstott, is described by the publisher as having been an employee of Mills.. That hardly suggests an impartial observer. LeadSongDog come howl!  03:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Possibly self-published? Ravensfire ( talk ) 04:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 24 Dec 2017
In the Peer Reviewed Responses section Rathke is cited as saying there is "no theoretical support of the hydrino hypothesis" back in 2005. There is a more recent article (2013) which states:  "In summary, the hydrino states exist for both the Klein–Gordon and the Dirac equations, but they are sensitive to using a point-nucleus versus a finite-nucleus model, critically so in Dirac’s equation and less so in the Klein–Gordon equation." . Similarly, a paper from 2012 states "We propose a theoretical explanation of the effect based on the mathematical theory of physical vacuum...according to which hydrogen can be in the so called hydrino state with a small atom radius and the transition to this state is accompanied by considerable energy release". Another even claims to have detected hydrinos "we in fact measured fluxes of {proton + heavy electron} pairs. Such {proton + heavy electron} pair can be named a subhydrogen, an additional term for the known hydrex[11-15], hydrino [16-19] and pseudoneutron [24]". These seem to contradict Rathke, so some mention of them would be worthwhile, and perhaps some moderation of the Rathke assertion(s). I'd be happy to suggest appropriate edits, but it would be good to first reach consensus that some sort of edit is warranted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.97.117 (talk) 12:55, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Is anyone monitoring this section? Surely if it is semi-protected someone is aware of requests??
 * Indeed yes, people are aware. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 23:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Aware and unwilling to engage in a discussion per my request? 49.199.182.82 (talk) 06:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I think mainstream physicists would continue to claim that there is no theoretical support of the hydrino hypothesis, so there's no reason to make a change to that part of the article.
 * JCMNS is a fringe journal. Useful, perhaps, to describe fringe beliefs themselves, but not to comment generally on science. ApLundell (talk) 15:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

There are plenty of people alert to watch that fringe material is not inserted into Wikipedia unchallenged, but not to engage in tendentious debate on the subject, which is not the purpose of the talk page. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC).
 * Agreed. According to page information, there are currently 135 watchers. Given that BLP has been doing this for awhile, they should have accumulated a large quantity of hydrinos by now. I'm sure any chemistry prof would give their eye teeth for a significant sample. Need a postal address? Jim1138 (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * What has any of that to do with the references from reliable sources provided above? These are all more recent than the cited materials in the article, and would warrant some sort of moderation of what is currently clearly untrue statements.  "Thinking" what mainstream physicists would or wouldn't claim is no replacement for reliable sources - not to mention the fact that mainstream physicists who have read Mills' & co. papers have deemed them suitable to publish in journals.  If JCMNS is a fringe journal, please provide evidence to back that up - and by all means then disregard that single reference - but I note the others are not fringe, hence worthy of consideration.  Assessing the content of RS is not tendentious debate, it's editing.  As for the tendentious comments about accumulating hydrinos, this is both irrelevant to my request and demonstrates you haven't been paying very close attention to BLP.  49.199.112.144 (talk) 02:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't give a reference to every new paper that comes along. We wait for new papers to be assessed by the scientific community, which will confer its imprimatur by citing them in the mainstream scientific literature. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC).
 * and so far there have been no cites to these papers. I can't see the profit of debating ad nauseam with the IP spas that flock here with requests to de-protect and to accuse others of corruption DFTT. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC).
 * That can lead to corruption. The company has provided math based on classical physics. To date not one academic scientist has found an error in the math. Important updates continue to come out of BLP, but you people in power of wikipedia continue to resist and block. How you people sleep at night is beyond me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.93.181.106 (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I normally lay my head on my pillow and close my eyes. Usually works. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 16:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. And at least two of those references are examples of exactly that!!  They both cite papers by Mills et al. demonstrating that more recent scientific enquiry contradicts the older claims currently featured in the article.  Which is why I am suggesting that we moderate the language there by removing the impression that there is no theoretical support, when it appears there is some or limited theoretical support. 49.199.112.144 (talk) 06:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

There is obvious intellectual hypocrisy here. The zealous overprotection of the article does not comply with WP standards. Favouring 20 year old quotes over all the RS material that has since emerged is a beautiful example of circular reasoning. Some editors here claim that scientists would be clamouring for hydrinos yet fail to realise that the exact human frailty on display here operates amongst scientists as well. If you have already decided something can't be true, then no end of evidence will persuade you to do your due diligence, you will instead invest heavily is smear, innuendo, and most of all - ingorance. Ignorance derives from the root "to ignore" - just like these sorts of edit/discussion requests are ignored. Self-fulfilling blindness is how people sleep well at night, and if they're lucky their passive-aggressive ignorance will slow down developments enough that they can retire whilst still clinging to and cherishing their favoured world view. It is no accident that science progresses one funeral at a time. So too with WP!! 180.250.27.131 (talk) 05:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia cautiously reflects the scientific mainstream. This is a general-audience tertiary source, not a journal nor any other publisher of original research. If this is a failing of scientists, so be it, but it is not one that Wikipedia is equipped to solve. Grayfell (talk) 05:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is suggesting WP solve such problems. The main issue here is entirely internal to WP - the observation above merely points out how WP is reflecting the political defects of science.  Note also that it is simply not possible to reflect the so called mainstream - aferall, who knows what that is??  All we have are RS to draw upon.  But some editors would rather prop up their own belief of what the mainstream is rather than factoring in what actual RS materials say.  It is notable that there is yet to be a single argument against moderating the language from "no" theoretical basis to "limited" - just a lot of ignoring inconvenient RS content. 180.250.27.131 (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's policy on fringe science is very clear.
 * If you want to debate policy, go to the Village Pump.
 * ApLundell (talk) 15:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So please explain how this policy endorses the use of old, inaccurate sources in preference to newer RS? 49.183.58.243 (talk) 01:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are not grasping wp:REDFLAG: To support an extraordinary assertion requires extraordinarily good sources. You could always debate it with Francis Bacon. LeadSongDog come howl!  17:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What is so extraordinary about changing "no support" to "limited support"? And, even if such an edit is deemed to be extraordinary, then the good sources to justify it would be the existence of peer reviewed journal articles, as have been provided.  I don't see how facetious comments about debating a long dead individual progresses the issue in hand - although it does highlight the narrow minded/self justifying approach on display here.  In fact, the extraordinary claim here is that there is "no support"!!  Please prove this assertion.49.199.190.137 (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't pretend that Jello can provide "limited support" for a skyscraper. LeadSongDog come howl!  16:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are becoming increasingly obtuse. I have no idea what point you are attempting to make. My point is a simple one - I assume you would agree that if there are no peer reviewed journal articles supportive of the hydrino prediction that would demonstrate that there is no support for it. Conversely, if there are several peer reviewed journal articles (many if you count those published by Mills et al.) then this demonstrates that there is, at least, limited support for the theory. Snarkily clouding the issue with claims about bacon infused jelly doesn't make simple logic go away. 49.199.204.128 (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems pretty clear to me. We have a direct attributed quote from a reliable source at a specific time saying that there is "no theoretical support of the hydrino hypothesis" in relation to Mills. Undermining this quote as you suggest would be WP:SYNTH, among other problems. If you have a reliable source which specifically says there is now "limited" theoretical support for the hydrino hypothesis, bring it forth for discussion, but this would merely be necessary, but not sufficient. As this is an extraordinary claim, this would require a high quality source and at least some context. Grayfell (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Is any purpose served by continuing to argue with the few-edit spa IPs? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC).
 * Ok. So here is a direct quote from a reliable source at a more recent time saying "A number of papers have reported empirical support for Mills' theory."  49.185.191.224 (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And immediately after that sentence, they list the papers to which they are referring.
 * All of them list Mills as the primary author. ApLundell (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That is not the issue, especially given those references aren't self published but are peer reviewed. The author also says "A new theory proposed by Dr. Randell Mills reproduces and surpasses the predictions of quantum mechanics" (emphasis added).  These statements/judgements are about Mills' work by that author, it isn't for us to try and second guess/judge how/why they reached their conclusion - that is beyond the scope of WP.  The fact is the RS just provided does exactly as was requested viz. it provides a high quality source with a directly attributable quote at a more recent specific time that says there is empirical support for the theory.  This is even better than theoretical support.  And if the referees of the quality peer reviewed journal deemed the evidence print worthy, it doesn't matter who the author is.  At least, it shouldn't matter to WP if we are judging the quality of the sources rather than just obstinately relying on prejudice.  And here is another which directly refers to Rathke's claim: "In a recent paper, Rathke [8] criticised the unconventional theory of Mills [9] concerning the existence of the hydrino state of the hydrogen atom. The present paper shows that one can find arguments in favour of the hydrino state also in the standard theory of relativistic quantum mechanics" (emphasis added). .  So these are two separate authors post-Rathke claiming that there is theoretical support for Mills' prediction.  49.185.191.224 (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That Selke paper that you're quoting seems to be written rather...informally. It also shows just one week from submission to online publication (received 19 November, accepted 24 November, published online 26 November).  As a scientist, I can appreciate the value of efficient manuscript processing&mdash;nevertheless, one wonders if this might be too much of a good thing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

That's the best you can do to justify ignoring all of these RSs? The link is to a slightly improved version of the original paper - presumably why it was so 'efficient'. 49.185.191.224 (talk) 05:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies, it's actually the Naudts paper which links to v.2, not Selke. But speculating about the implications of publishing efficiency is hardly the point here.  The substance of these papers warrants a change to the article.   49.185.191.224 (talk) 05:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * No it doesn't. Applied Physics Research, published by the Canadian Center of Science and Education has been credibly accused of being predatory open access publishing. Not happening. Grayfell (talk) 06:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * "Not happening." - what happened to bringing forth RS for discussion? A blanket accusation hardly applies to every journal and paper... in fact professionals in the field think that paper suitable to cite in their work - which should trump any vague accusation.  Plus there are other RS provided above, much like this one: "...new states called 'hydrino' or 'peculiar' states may be in principle observable..." .    49.185.191.224 (talk) 07:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think you understood what I was asking for. I asked for a reliable source. This isn't. It's a questionable non-notable journal associated with a non-notable for-profit outfit which has been connected by reliable sources to predatory practices. You are mistaken in claiming that this paper's raw cite count trumps such accusations, and predatory open access publishing isn't vague. The PDF is not usable either, as it isn't published in a Journal as far as I can tell, nor would a WP:PRIMARY submission be sufficient for actively refuting this claim anyway per WP:OR. The reference to hydrinos is cited to Naudts, making it part of the same walled garden. As I said, a reliable source would be necessary, but not sufficient. Grayfell (talk) 08:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Who said anything about refuting Rathke's claim? The request seems to be to include additional information that moderates the impression of that claim.  Adding WP:PRIMARY quotes or summarising them per the "limited support" suggestion is no more WP:OR than the Ratche quote 49.199.224.87 (talk) 08:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We're not adding in weasel words to someone's quote just for the sake of it.
 * Nothing you've linked to here rises to the level of being even "Limited" support from the scientific community, or even reputable sources that should be quoted by an encyclopedia. I'm sorry if you don't understand why, but there reaches a point where it stops being our job to explain the obvious just for the sake of educating you on Wikipedia policy and the difference between reputable sources and unreliable self-published sources from a walled garden of fringe science.
 * If you honestly confused and want to understand, you can educate yourself by studying Wikipedia policies linked in this discussion. If you're just here to advocate for Mills, then you're wasting your time and ours. ApLundell (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2019
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)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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)

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


 * 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)


 * For what it's worth, one can find the following quote: "Since its inception5 the hydrino hypothesis has remained highly controversial6-17 and laboratory verification studies by its proponents have been criticised18,19. 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * No problem. +++ clears throat +++ See WP:PREPRINTS. You are welcome. -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 14:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I can predict the future. - Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 15:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * https://brilliantlightpower.com/on-wikipedia-dispute/ 173.71.88.223 (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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

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)


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

Placement of non-retracted patents
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)


 * 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)