The following unflattering article published in COSMOS MAGAZINE regarding Dr. Mill's HYDRINO theory was originally intended to be posted over in Luke's HYDRINO discussion group but Luke respectfully rejected it for a number of legitimate reasons. This included the fact that the presumably lesser known author of the Cosmos article "John Farrell" is likely to have his name confused with the better known associate "John Farrell" who does support Dr. Mill's theories. After pondering the subject material a while longer I decided to go ahead and post it here anyway since there are many here who might appreciate the complexities and controversy in regards to the on-line encyclopedia, Wikipedia, being accused of giving an air of unwarranted legitimacy surrounding a controversial theory.
Ultimately, what concerned me personally, and why I felt compelled to post it here, was the author's seeming unwavering faith in Dr. Park's conclusions, that Dr. Park seems to be the ultimate judge concerning the "hydrino" matter and its status in Wikipedia. I'd even go so far as to suggest that portions of Farrell's article seem to approach defamatory status. The author directly associates Dr. Mills' hydrino theory with "Crank Science", which IMO goes too far. He also labels Dr. Mills a "medical student" a misleading title, since by omission it indirectly implies Dr. Mills has yet to graduate from any academic institution – so why (it is inferred) take any of his theories seriously. Dr. Mills is simply referred to as "Mills" or "Randall Mills". I presume BLP's detective service is probably well aware of this unflattering article. After all, if I can find it using Google's automated news search feature using key words: "Alternative Energy", I have to assume they have to be just as aware. What I don't know is whether BLP feels it is worth their time and effort to respond, or whether it would be better let the article continue to gather the dust of indifference in some forgotten corner of cyberspace. See: http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1339 Specific excerpts: ******************************************************
... The hydrino theory listed above is just one example of crank science trying to gain credibility through the online encyclopaedia. But there are hundreds of others, with legions of supporters willing to donate their time and - often anonymously - promote questionable science. ... For ideas like hydrino theory, which have the potential to generate serious financial investment, Wikipedia can be a way of conferring legitimacy on something that wouldn't stand up to scientific peer review. Proposed by medical student Randell Mills, the hydrino theory suggests that large amounts of energy could be tapped when hydrogen atoms make a transition from their ground state of energy to a hitherto unknown state, supposedly below this level.
According to Robert Park, a physicist at the University of Maryland, USA, Mills was even able to persuade NASA to take his idea seriously. The U.S. space agency was convinced enough to purchase some cold-fusion-cell-like devices and test Mills's prediction, with "inconclusive" results. Park keeps an eye on the hydrino theory from his blog. "I have mentioned Mills and hydrinos several times," he says. "Each year I put out my 'March Madness' issue, which began with the 'discovery' of cold fusion by Pons and Fleischmann on March 23, 1989." He is not surprised that Mills and others with questionable theories have set up camp in Wikipedia. "This, of course, is what everyone predicted would happen to Wikipedia. Too bad. Science owes its success and credibility to openness. Wikipedia, it was hoped, would simply take openness to a new level. This is a level too far. Maybe we can work through this trend," he says. ... ******************************************************
-- Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
