Talk:Kirlian photography/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Kirlian pictures

Dear MrX, your edition is perfect and the text is clear. There were only 2 errors in names, but now everything is correct. I would like to comment like specialist in spectroscopy the following 4 pictures - Kirlian photo of two fingertips, Kirlian photo of a leaf, Kirlian photo of two coins and Kirlian photo of two fingertips. The color picture was performed with amateur film. The final picture Kirlian photo of a Coleus leaf is perfect. It is visible from red color, which is not very real. There are special films in physics with 100% red color. Also the quality of black-white pictures is low in the process of preparation. My proposal is for the canceling of these pictures. There more colorful picture and each scientist will agree for the publishing of the photo only if you show the name, because the picture are object of copy right. Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I think also that for readers is very important to see on picture on film and one with digital methods. With digital method there are only blue and violet colors. Mbreht --Mbreht (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Mbreht, I agree that better photos are needed and that there should be both film and digital images. For example, the Coleus leaf photo was an amateur Kirlian photograph that I made more than 30 years ago.

Please understand that any photos that you upload generally have to be freely licensed to the public with a creative commons license. You can read more here: WP:IUP, and at the links at the bottom of the upload page. Uploaded images can include attribution of the creators (the scientists), however, once they are uploaded anyone in the world can use them on other web sites, books, magazines, and so on. There are exceptions to this, which you can read about here WP:NONFREE. Also, you must have permission of the copyright holder of any images that you upload. I hope this helps. — MrX 22:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear MrX, I know the conditions for the pictures perfect, nut the scientists are leaving in the world.what is the practice in this situation? In scientific circles are popular the results of Ignat Ignatov with Kirlian Photography of water samples on photographic film and digital. The research is in the same time with the same water samples. I have seen that in the pictures there is name of author and sign of copy right. http://www.medicalbiophysics.dir.bg/en/water_memory.html

Ignatov, I., Tsvetkova, V., Water for the origin of life and informationaability of water, Kirlian (electric images) of different types of water, Euromedica, Hanover, (2011). Also this pictures were published with the name of Dr. Ignat Ignatov:

Dr. Oleg Mosin: http://www.o8ode.ru/article/eng/engl/kirlian.htm http://www.o8ode.ru/article/learn/life/water_aura.htm

For Black-White Kirlian I will think what can do.

You informed me that Coleus leaf photo was an amateur Kirlian photograph that I made more than 30 years ago. If this is on Kodak film the quality can be high.

My proposal is you to publish the new Kirlian pictures, because you have experience in Wikipedia.

Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 04:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Mbreht, the Coleus leaf was photographed with Kodak film (Kodachrome, daylight balanced, if I remember correctly). I also created some using Polaroid instant film, which look completely different.

I will not be able to upload any photos unless I have permission from the copyright owners (the scientist who made them). For this, I would want letters signed by the copyright owners. In some cases, photos can be uploaded under fair use criteria (see WP:FAIR and fair use), but that is not something that would be comfortable doing myself. — MrX 12:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear MrX, what we can inform Dr. Ignat Ignatov to give the copy right of the pictures. His e-mail is public. Who can do that or this is difficult. Only Ignatov now in the world has a digital pictures and on film. I have not experience with pictures in Wikipedia. For me will be easy if I know the order. For example from Dr. Mosin for heavy water. I already published information for biological effects of heavy water. Simple: what I can do for copy right from the scientists for pictures.

Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 13:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Mbreht, I'm not certain that I understand your question "what I can do for copy right from the scientists for pictures[?]". If you are asking how to get permission from living scientists to upload their photos to Wikipedia, then you simply have to ask them and be sure they understand that once photos are uploaded, anyone can use them, for any purpose.

For any scientists no longer living, the copyright ownership usually goes to their heirs (children, family, etc.), so you would need their permission. There is an admin on Wikimedia Commons who may be able to help you EugeneZelenko. He speaks Russian/Belarusian.

Dear EugeneZelenko, in Wikipedia in Section Astronomy there are pictures which are object of scientific publications. This is the possibility the readers of Wikipedia to see the actual information. For example: Star Gliese 581:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliese_581 In Russian Wikipedia the situation is the same: For example: Star Gliese 581: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B5_581 Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 11:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

You should have no problem uploading. You simply click on the upload file link on the left and follow the instructions. I hope that helps. — MrX 15:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear EugeneZelenko, thank you very information. Thank you to MrX also. I am not sure that I know perfect the conditions of Wikipedia for pictures. My idea is the publishing 1-3 pictures with perfect quality and for me this is the maximum of Kirlian photography. This is important for readers. I have only the color Kirlain pictures of living scientists. Form dead scientists I have with the same quality like now in Wikipedia. Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Biological effects of heavy water. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_water#Effect_on_biological_systems Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 13:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear MrX, in physics there is special education for the range of the film. I am sure that for Kirlian effect is the same. The picture now results of non-professional work. The professional pictures are very colorful. You also had I idea for Application of Kirlian effect. From 1 till 10 of September I will not be online. I like to work with you! Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 13:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear MrX, your structuring of Kirlian page in interesting with difference between scientific research and paranormal research. The Application is new challenge and I am sure of your success. Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I removed this from the section that discusses Ignatov's experiments:

"In [the] Kirlian effect an auto-electron emission is also observed. The optic transitions depend on the energy of the emitted photons."

It looks like this text was copied from another web site. Also, there a few concepts that have not been previously defined for the reader, namely

• Kirlian effect (is this the same as corona discharge?)
• auto-electron emission (is this the same as cold cathode emission?)
• optic transitions (vague)

I rewrote these sentences as best I could. If my edits are not sufficient, then these sentences would need considerable clarification and copy editing so that reader understands what is being presented. — MrX 02:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear MrX, I have seen your changes. The new text is correct in language in Physics. Thank you very much for your edition. It is better you first to make the text in Application. Your English is with perfect structuring for scientific-popular topic. Maybe you are author of books and journal. If you are not you can do that. I will write my proposal after your text only hear (Talk)Mbreht --Mbreht (talk) 10:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear MrX, I think that why GDV camera is not medical method is very simple. For precise diagnostics of human body the medical doctors need a lot of parameters. GDV camera studies the electrical parameters of 10 fingers. This is not directly measurement of electrical parameters. This results of gas discharge. From other side what is the statistical level of China diagnostics? The situation is the similar like bioresonace diagnostics and therapy. Resonance in biological systems is different. It is important to show the true to the society. For Kirlian effects there are 2 biophysical parameters – bioelectric field and dielectric permittivity. The measurement of these 2 parameters from Prof. Korotkov is enough. With dielectric permittivityis possible to measure the water drops of different types of water and liquids. For how many diseases is possible to make diagnostics with EEG? EEG is more precise method than GDV study. This is perfect that we make difference between real scientific research in physics with Kirlian effect and unreliable medical application of this method.

Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Not to turn this into a forum, but to address your statement which is somewhat related to the article (and this is all my opinion): I think a large part of the reason why Kirlian photography is considered to be pseudoscience by so many people, is because scientists such as Koroktov take legitimate science and exaggerate the "possibilities" of the science, using marketing language and technobabble. For example, these items are directly from his web site:

• Diagnosis and monitoring of the human energy-informational state and analysis of subtle energies
• Experimental research of human body activity after death
• Diagnostic Possibilities Of The Modified GDV Technique In Obstetrics
• The GDV Technique Application In Oncology
• Analysis of Stimulated Electrophotonic Glow of Liquids
• Science Confirms Reconnective Healing
• Energetic Properties Of Aqueous Gemstone Elixers

He writes all these article and does all this research, yet none of it appears in any of the hundreds of medical journals, science journals or other publications that considered authoritative by the scientific community.

Dear MrX, like scientist I absolutely agree with these 6 points. But in topic research is clear what is Kirlian effect like physics and what do Korotkov after the border of science. Accept my congratulations for your real position. The results from Russia, Poland and USA will show to the readers the true. I know that the life of Antonov, Inyushin, Adamenko had been only with real proofs in science, with scientific commissions and during the socialism this was not easy. The topic in Application Art is very interesting. Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 15:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your support Mbreht. — MrX 19:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

IMO, he uses these unproven (as far as I can tell) ideas to sell devices, books and lectures. This is virtually the textbook definition of pseudoscience. On top of that, everyone else with a web site then starts peddling their own version of this pseudoscience, making alarmingly bold medical claims and outright lies. So, a potentially legitimate and useful science is made a mockery of by vocal, self-promoting people who operate completely outside of the bounds of accepted scientific practices.

The bioelectric field (as explained by Koroktov and his followers) is conjectured. It has not been proven to exist, so talking about it as if it is factual, removes all credibility from any argument upon which it is based. — MrX 17:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear MrX, our comments are very interesting. I already published 2 reliable sources for biophysical fields.

1. Gulyaev, Yu. V., Godik, E. E., Human and animal physical fields, Newspaper of Acad. of Scie. SU, N8 (1983) 118.

2. Gulyaev, Yu. V., Godik, E. E, Human and animal physical fields, Scientific American, N5 75 (1990).

The academician reputation of Prof, Yuri Gulyaev is indisputable. One of the 7 biophysical fields is bioelectric field. Korotkov is not originator of this topic in physics. He is engineer. With GDV device is not possible to study full spectrum. For me is very strange that PhD like Beverly Rubuk explains "biofield". In physics there are 4 fundamental field. Also is very strange the she says "living" energy and this is vitalism. The correct is energy in biological systems. What says Korotkov is one and what is the reality in physics is different. What is measurement of living energy? What are the parameters of living energy. Paradox! Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm unable to respond substantively because I do not have access to those sources (Gulyaev). Thanks for sharing your insights. — MrX 19:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear MrX, I regret that I have this source only in Russian. Prof. Gulyaev is very famous in Russia. He has been director of Institute for Electronics, Russian Academy of Science. The level is visible for the publishing the same publication in USA. I know Prof. Gulyaev personally. Accept my congratulations for the page for Nikola Tesla. This is the publication in Russian: http://astrokey.org/issledovanija/fizicheskie-polja-biologicheskih-obektov-guljaev-godik

Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I found that http://translate.google.com worked well for this. It translated the article from Russian to English in a manner that is quite comprehensible. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree it does work well. I've been able to use when I can find text articles in Russian. Unfortunately, I don't think it works with PDFs.

&&Dear Amatulic#top, thank you very much for your efforts. Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 05:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realize (until just now) that Mbreht posted the article that he used for citation. I look forward to reading it. — MrX 21:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I shown this article for the reality of electric biophysical field and in some papers of electric aura. Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 05:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I read the (Gulyaev) article and I see that it refers to electromagnetic radiation (heat, light, magnetism, electrical fields, etc.) and acoustic (mechanical) vibrations. Certainly no scientist would dispute those claims. The article, however, does not mention Kirlian photography, and I have never seen any proof that Kirlian photography (or GDV) can be used to reliably visualize these fields, especially in a medical diagnostic application. — MrX 22:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear MrX, the article of Gulyev and Godik is connected with biophysical field. The Kirlian effect is not including, but in their publications there is electric aura. Kirlian effect is not including. The GDV method was not created of the time of the report (1983). I show this publication for the reality physical fields of biological objects (Gulyev, Godik, 1983) of biophysical fields (Ignatov, Antonov, 1983). They are professors and doctors in Physics. In physics is not correct biofield, energy field etc. Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 05:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Electric glow

PROPOSAL FOR ELECTRIC GLOW: In the scientific circles in Eastern Europe for Kirlian effect is popular electric aura or electric glow like result of this effect. Electric aura is difficult to explain to Western readers. There are 2 possibilities for Kirlian effect for water drops for example - electric glow of water drops like result of Kirlian effect or Kirlian photographs of water drops. For me second is more easy for readers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_glow_discharge Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 05:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Electric glow discharge refers to the light from a plasma, usually from a rarefied, ionized gas. It seems as if you are trying to attribute a mysterious, unknown property to the well-understood property of corona discharge. Using terms like "Electric glow"and "electric aura" is not helpful unless you define the terms. I would suggest that these concepts would not be difficult to explain to western readers if they were explained in English, using consistent terminology, grounded in known scientific principles and physical concepts. Perhaps the information would be better suited for inclusion on ru.wiki, where the language barrier would not be an issue. — MrX 13:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Kirlian device

Dear Amatulic, your color picture for Kirlian device is very clear and nice. The traditional Kirlian device in Russian school is with metal conducting plate. From 1984 Prof. Antonov and Bulgarian scientists make these research with transparent electrode. The image is better that the same image in the same time with metal electrode. One of the biggest secret is the liquid in the electrode. Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 17:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Applications: Biology and Kirlian photographs of water drops

Dear MrX, I publish the information in Application about Biology and Kirlian photographs of water drops. I hope that I am useful. I am sure of the information of these 2 topics. For the topic Sport and health I am not sure of the sources of Korotkov. What are the parameters of sport and what are the parameters of health is not very clear. For Flaw detection you can solve what can do. Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 09:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The Biology and Kirlian photographs of water drops sections recently added to not seem to fit the category of applications. An application is the use of the technique (Kirlian photography) for a practical purpose, for example manufacturing, curing diseases or water purification. Neither section describes a practical application, but more of a vague overview.

All of the sources for the biology section are research and study related. Unless there are practical applications, this content does not belong.

The Kirlian photographs of water drops section has similar issues. First, this content was previously removed from the article partly because the sources are not independent of the subject. A paper written by a scientist about that scientist's own research is not a sufficient source for inclusion. If this content is worthy of inclusion, it should be covered in books, magazines, newspapers, etc. Also, what are the practical applications? If these issues can not be addressed then this content also does not belong. — MrX 13:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear MrX, thank you very much for your information. You can solve if this information is for Application. If this information is for other place is perfect. I think that the readers can know for these two topics. The sources of the topic Kirlian photographs of water drops is connected with reliable scientific sources with reviewers. The application of the research of Prof. Antonov is connected with non-equilibrium processes in physics and theoretical biophysics. The research of Dr. Ignatov is with full spectrum of color Kirlian discharge. The experiment of Prof. Korotkov is with digital device and there is change of the signal and this results is not reliable. They are only in blue and violet part of the spectrum. Also the Bulgarian scientist measure the additional parameters of water - spectrum in IR range, dielectric permittivity, contact angle of evaporation. Without these additional parameters is impossible the publication of this type scientific journals. Prof. Korotkov has not these additional study. Also Antonov and Ignatov are working with control sample. In biophysics these absolutely necessary for non-equilibrium processes. The biggest problem of Masaru Emoto and Konstantin Korotkov are the measurements without control samples.

Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Mbreht, everything that you have described is research, and has not addressed any of the issues that I have raised. If you believe this information should be included under the research section, then please write it so that it is an overview of the subject, encyclopedic in composition, and in clear English. Thank you. — MrX 14:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear MrX, thank you. I will be ready in next 3 hours.

Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear MrX, I published the text with better edition. I hope that the text is interesting for the readers and you know the place. If you have the questions to me, please. Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I sincerely appreciate your efforts, but your edits still have not addressed the issues that I raised regarding notability, reliable sources and the fact that your edits discuss research, not applications. I don't think you are deliberately ignoring my concerns, so I can only assume that you do not understand what I have said. Perhaps other editors will share their views. — MrX 19:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear MrX, I understood perfect your information. Please, do that which is important for the readers of Wikipedia. The sources are reliable from the scientific journals in Eastern Europe. Mbreht —Preceding undated comment added 20:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear MrX, your edition is better that my structuring of the text. I hope that we will make the text with you for other topics. Now I read your page for Nikola Tesla. Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 17:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear MrX, there is only one error.

Your text is:

Galina Gudakova conducted biological research in Russia.[46][47] and Bulgaria[48]. He explored the growth of microbiological cultures using Kirlian photograph.

The text can be:

Galina Gudakova conducted biological research in Russia.[46][47]. She explored the growth of microbiological cultures using Kirlian photograph.

Galina Gudakova is woman from Russia.

Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 17:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that Mbreht, I should have been more careful. I will correct it. — MrX 17:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear MrX, the structuring of Slavic names is very interesting. In Russia and Bulgaria -ov is for the man - Ivan Ivanov, for woman -ova - Ivana Ivanova. In Poland and Czech Republic -ski for man Popovski, for woman -ska Popovska. The originator of Slavic alphabet had been from Bulgaria in IX century, Cyril and Metodiy. The Russian alphabet is from Bulgaria. Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

There is publication in Russian journal “Biomedical Radio electronics, Biomedical Technologies and Radio electronics” for the physical parameters of Kirlian effect in the research of water, biological objects and human skin tissue. The head editor of the journal is eminent Russian scientist Prof. Yuri Gulyaev. In the publication there are not scientific proofs that Kirlian method is diagnostical method for different type of diseases. Ignatov, I., Mosin, O. V. (2012) Kirlian Effect in Biomedicine Diagnostics and Research of Properties of Biological Objects and water, Biomedical Radio electronics, Biomedical Technologies and Radio electronics, №12, pp. 13-21. http://www.radiotec.ru/catalog.php?cat=jr6&art=11945 --Mbreht (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Research with no notoriety

Hello all. Mbreht is a long-known spammer in the Bulgarian-language version of Wikipedia; he is constantly making references to Ignatov and the Center for Medical Biophysics and is spamming the "external links" sections; you can take a look at their website. Needless to remind you, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and in Wikipedia's case, reliable sources. None of those pointed out by Mbreht are something else than WP:SPS. Moreover, the lack of citations and discussion about Antonov and Ignatov's research make it not worthy for inclusion in Wikipedia, as it has already been pointed out (I'm now discovering the Archive 1 of this talk, it's pretty informative for Mbreht's intentions). Cheers, −PetaRZ (talk) 12:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear PetaRZ, I do this edition of which I am sure.I future I will publish for different topics and scientists, when I am have reliable sources. I also improved Kirlian photography with MrX with information for scientists from Russia. --Mbreht (talk) 12:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for admitting that you don't have reliable sources. Please wait until you have a lot of them before you publish this information in Wikipedia. −PetaRZ (talk) 13:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear PetaPZ, I know perfect the activities of Bulgarian biophysicists. We already discuss the editors how reliable are the sources for Kirlian effect in talk page. The idea was to inform the readers for Kirlian effect.If you think that this information is useful for Wikipedia, please publish. There are not a lot of scientists in the world with results for Kirlian effect.

With Google Scholar are visible the publications of Antonov and Ignatov. --Mbreht (talk) 13:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

PetaRZ. Please don't attack other editors or their intentions. Please do discuss content. I suggest you address portions of the content that you believe are not reliably sourced, or properly attributed, and then we can work from there. Sweeping generalizations about notability or pseudo-science will not get us very far. Perhaps you could present one of these extraordinary claims and we can discuss its sourcing. (Mbreht - would you please properly indent your talk page posts using colons (:) so that we can follow the thread? Thanks.) - MrX 14:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Please, point me out when did I attack anybody or their intentions. I'm only discussing the content which, as I pointed out, is either poorly sourced or incorrectly sourced. As you suggested, I'm going to discuss those claims one by one. Nevertheless, I remind you that Wikipedia has criteria for notability, and not criteria for dismissal. Hence the burden of proof that Mr Ignatov's research has to be included is on Mbreht, and not on any other editor. Would anybody be so kind to point out any secondary sources/reviews where Mr Ignatov's research is referenced OR reviewed OR praised OR dismissed? When such sources are not available for us, not a single generalization about notability is sweeping, hasty, or whatsoever. −PetaRZ (talk) 14:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear PetaRZ, please read the comments on Talk page of the topic Kirlian. Part of the sources are on the paper and I have its, because I am curious of this topic for reliable sources. I am working also in Russian Wikipedia for the topic Origin of life without name of Ignatov. But, the names are part of the research. The editors of Russian Wikipedia ask me for the publication of Oleg Mosin PhD --Mbreht (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

"Mbreht is a long-known spammer" <-- This is not nice.

Yes, let's take it piece by piece and gain consensus. Generally, I'm comfortable removing any research that is not cited by a third party reliable source. I think this would eliminate most of the Ignatov and Korotkov material which is referenced to primary sources. I have a few books on the subject, so I will check them for any mentions of these two scientists. - MrX 14:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear MrX, you know the history of the preparation of page Kirlian photography. You have better experience like editor and I am sure that you will do the best. --Mbreht (talk) 14:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear PetaRZ, I published information in BG Wiki for Prof. Marinov, Prof. Antonov, Dr. Ignatov and Prof. Vitanov. They are physicists and in Bulgaria there are not a lot of physicists with publications in scientific journals (Google Scholar) and public position. You are physicist also and please publish the achievements of Bulgarian scientists. I will not do that, because you are better editor.--Mbreht (talk) 15:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, let me correct myself: Mbreht has a long history of spamming on bg.wiki. Thank you for your willingness to look for references in third party reliable sources, their presence in the references is the only thing for which I insist. −PetaRZ (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Google scholar is not a scientific journal. −PetaRZ (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The books that I have: Kirlian Photography: Research and Prospects - Luigi Gennaro et al; The Unseen Self - Brian Snellgrove; and The Body Electric - Thelma Moss; do not mention Ignatov or Korotkov at all. None of these book are scholarly though. - MrX 15:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Piece by piece examination of Mbreht's contributions

Section Anton Antonov

All the references point out to Antonov's research. Hence, they are primary sources. See WP:PRIMARY for relevant general discussion about primary, secondary and tertiary sources. This section is original research at its best. Unless reliable secondary sources, where Antonov's research is reviewed, this section is to be wholly removed.

I agree. Unless better sources can be introduced, it should be removed. - MrX 15:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Section Ignat Ignatov

All the references point out either to Ignatov's research or research by his co-authors. The information is not relevant to the article. Secondary sources, explaining the notability of the experiment, establishing that his results depend on the dielectric permittivity of a water sample with its particular impurities are urgently needed. Otherwise, the section is also to be removed. The phrase Kirlian photography is used as an auxiliary method for Bulgarian scientists in research the properties of water is not verifiable. The next phrase (The primary method) does not have any particular meaning and is also not verifiable. −PetaRZ (talk) 15:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear PetaRZ, there is not like Ignatov measurement sensitive method of coronal discharge. His results are connected with dielectric permittivity of a water sample. The publications are in Google Scholar. The connection of dielectric permittivity of the object and image are in Doctor Dissertation of Antonov with different publications. Please, read these publications. --Mbreht (talk) 15:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, as it has been pointed out, a PhD thesis is a primary source. What we need is: "Somename, who is an expert in the field, reviews Ignatov's research and thinks it is, in a good or a bad way, important for something". Do you get it? −PetaRZ (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

@PetaRZ - I agree, secondary sources are needed. I would also be interested in what other editors think. - MrX 16:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Definitely. −PetaRZ (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear MrX, Did you remember our communication from the summer. Big part of the sources for Kirlian photography have not secondary sources. Please, read wich source from 58 is executig these conditions. The problem is also that part of the sources are only on paper, they are not in Google Scholar. I try to show additional sourses, because would like to be correct. For example Engeneer Journal from Germany -

1. Zellner, A. (2009) Energy, Color Kirlan Analysis of Ignat Ignatov, Die Ingenieurin, Nr. 89, Germany, pp. 26-27.

From Bulgaria: 2. Manolev et al. (1991) Dependence of Electrical Discharge of Fingers from Frequency, South-Western University Neofit Rilski, Blagoevgrad.--Mbreht (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

It is very important also that Antonov and Ignatov show that Kirlian photography is not diagnostic method in medicine.

I have the following 3 sources on paper for Bulgarian scientists:

3. Gudakova, G. Z. et al. (1988) Study of Parameters of Gas Discharge Glow Microbiological Cultures, Journal for Application Spectroscopy, V. 49, №3, Moscow.

4. Gudakova, G. Z. et al., (1990) Research of the crop growth of fungi С. Quilliermondy with method of Kirlian, Journal for Mythology and Fitology, issue 2, №2, Moscow.

5. Kiseliova, M. (2002) Brain Electrical Activity Study and Kirlian effect, Federal Center for Traditional Methods for Diagnostics and Treatment, Ministry of Health, Moscow.--Mbreht (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC) --Mbreht (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

6. Topusov, I., Antonov, A. (2002) Executing of High Frequency Photography (Kirlian effect)and Tehrmography for Diagnostics of Sports Traumas, Theory and Prsctice of Phisycal Culture, №2. Source №11 with Ignatov http://lib.sportedu.ru/Press/TPFK/2002N2/p15-17.htm --Mbreht (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I remember the discussions. Do you remember being reminded that our notability standards require that content in Wikipedia must be reliably sourced and important enough that other sources would write about it? Some of the sources that you present above have already been rejected. I've never heard of Journal for Mythology and Fitology, nor Journal for Application Spectroscopy although there is a Applied Spectroscopy (journal). Simply writing a paper on one's own research and having published is not sufficient. It must rise to the level of being significant enough for other reliable sources to cite it. - MrX 12:03 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Dear MrX, the sources are from Russia and Bulgaria and there are reliable. I know that the information in Wikipedia can be independence. You are editor with biggest practice. --Mbreht (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear MrX, Dear Peta RZ, I am leaving Wikipedia. For me was pleasure to work with you. Hear I feel like in prison without creation. For me in Wikipedia there is subjective human factor. I wish you success for the spreading of information to the readers. Good Bay. --Mbreht (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I think that you are realizing something very important: that Wikipedia is not a place to promote someone's original research. In the current level, you should really focus on promoting Ignatov's research outside Wikipedia, most important on peer-reviewed scientific journals. An Google Scholar is a search engine, it is not in any case a peer-reviewed scientific journal (but it may index some peer-reviewed scientific journals). It is very funny that you state that scientific sources can be reliable in Bulgaria or in Russia but not outside those two countries. −PetaRZ (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear PetaRZ, the science is worldwide and the scientific journals from Russia are valid in whole world. This is your opinion and please show the proof. Your opinion is discrimination of Russian science. Then why we write for Kirlian or Mendeleev, Oparin, Russian cosmic industry, Nobel holders from Russia etc. Again for the Kirlian effect there are not a lot of scientific publications. Again, please read the publication from Kirlain photography. Also what is the topic of Prof. Antonov dissertation? On which page is the information for dielectric permittivity, what are the sources...? --Mbreht (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia has notability criteria, and not exclusion criteria. The burden of proof that Antonov's publications have notability is on you, not on me. −PetaRZ (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

At the risk of hypocritically doing the same think I assused PetaRZ of upthread, I think this is clear case of IDHT and possibly CIR. There is no doubt that the policies and guidelines have been presented here again and again, to no avail. Even the simple requests to properly indent talk page posts seem to be ignored. These discussions have been repeated to the annoyance of other editors, including myself. At this point, I fully support removing anything from this article that is only referenced to primary sources. I doubt anyone other than Mbreht will object to this, but since he has announced his departure from the project, I'm sure he will not stand in the way of improving the article. - MrX 23:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry . You accused me of something, I advanced my arguments, you heard them, and now we agree on the content. All this is perfectly fine for me. We can wait a little and if no other editor objects, content supported by primary sources only (Antonov and Ignatov sections at least) should be removed. −PetaRZ (talk) 12:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear MrX, I had a lot of efforts of this page. I will work for the improvement of the page. The problem is time. I gave the maximum of the sources for Kirlian effect and I try to be useful. It is very important that the readers know that this is not medical and this is biophysical method. The problem is that there are a lot of parapsychological papers without scientific value and the selection of real scientific research was not easy. I already shown secondary sources from 1-6 for Antonov and Ignatov. --Mbreht (talk) 05

22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

New publications for Kirlian effect:

Dear MrX, In 2007 Prof. Pisotskaya published electronic paper with study of Kirlian effect of water drops with Black White Kirlian photography. In references were included Antonov and Ignatov. This publication is not online now. I just achieved new publication from Pisotskaya:

Lapitskiy V.N., L.A. Pesotskaya V.N. et al. (2012) Estimation of influence of schungite room on the state of human health by the method of Kirlian, Scientific Paper, N11.

Also there are sources in English: http://www.nvngu.in.ua/index.php/uk/?option=com_content&view=article&id=517:2011-10-19-17-05-44&catid=208:2011-10-19-11-44-31&Itemid=53&lang=ru

Second publication with clear information that Kirlian effect is not medical method is in Wikipedia, Kirlian photography, 39: In the journal with Head editor Prof. Gulyaev. He is author of

1. Gulyaev, Yu. V., Godik, E. E., Newspaper of Acad. Of Scie. SU, N8 (1983) 118.

2. Gulyaev, Yu. V., Godik, E. E, Scientific American, N5 (1990)75.

Ignatov, I., Mosin, O. V. (2012) Kirlian Effect in Biomedicine Diagnostics and Research of Properties of Biological Objects and Water, Biomedical Radio electronics, Biomedical Technologies and Radio electronics, №12, pp. 13-21. http://www.radiotec.ru/catalog.php?cat=jr6&art=11945 --Mbreht (talk) 06:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You definitely refuse to hear any other arguments than your own. −PetaRZ (talk) 12:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

New information from Russia and USA

Dear editors, I am Doctor in Physics from Russia. I’ve read carefully the information on Kirlian photography. I am familiar with scientific sources from Russia and the bibliography is accurate in English Wikipedia. There was a great interest in the Kirlian method in Russia in the sixties years in order to show that this is a medical method. Since it is not medical, the scientific interest in it declined. Few scientists, mainly biophysicists influenced by the Russian school continue to real scientific research for the biophysical parameters for Kirlian effect. We can estimate their real scientific efforts, because they are part of history of Kirlian photography. I think that your editorial work is optimal. I can quote you a Russian journal regarding the study of the electric indicators of the human body in space orbit. You understand that some of these studies are not subject to significant disclosure.

For the following 2 authors the situation is similar like Korotkov:

Die neue Dimension der Diagnose, Hans. Christian Seidl, Germany Marina Shaduri, Georgia

--Analiticus (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

This is the journal from USA, The International Journal of Healing and Caring, FIELDS AND ENERGIES RELATED TO HEALING: A REVIEW OF SOVIET AND WESTERN STUDIES*

Daniel J. Benor, MD http://www.wholistichealingresearch.com/user_files/documents/ijhc/articles/Benor-4-1.pdf --Analiticus (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

This is exellent level for scientific pulication in Journal of Applied Physics :

Kirlian‐type images and the transport of thin‐film materials in high‐voltage corona discharges J. Opalinski --Analiticus (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

This is also excellent publication for the Kirlian effect for water drops in Journal of Applied Physics:

Influence of ionic composition of water on the corona discharge around water drops Skarja, M --Analiticus (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Microwave Electromagnetic Field Affects the Corona Discharge Pattern of Water in Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine

Primož Kmecl, Igor Jerman and Metod Škarja --Analiticus (talk) 21:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Installation for study of light activity of the water with the help of surface gas discharge in Modern Problems of Radio Electronics, Ukraine

Y Dobrovolskiy, V Petrenko, L Pidkamin

There are secondary sources about the research of Kirlian effect for water (water drops). --Analiticus (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Analiticus. Please let us know if you come across any peer-reviewed scientific journals, magazines, newspapers, or major news sites that comment on these researcher in any depth. You may want to read WP:N, WP:RS, WP:CITE, WP:MEDRS, WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, WP:SOAP and WP:MEATPUPPET to gain a better understanding of our source requirements and related policies.

Primary resources are of little value, unless they are also accompanied by secondary and tertiary sources. In other words, if you simply list every academic paper written by these Russian researchers, you will likely not gain any support for them being included in the article. - MrX 22:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear MrX, good morning from Russia. This text is without real scientific proofs and secondary sources “Izabela Ciesielska at the Institute of Architecture of Textiles in Poland experimented with corona discharge photography (CDP) to evaluate the effects of human contact with various textiles on biological factors such as heart rate and blood pressure, as well as corona discharge images“ The sources, which I was published, are from American journal Applied Physics. They are secondary for the Kirlian effect with water or water drops. The best journal in Russia for Kirlian effect is the journal “Biomedical Technologies and Radio electronics“of one the most eminent Russian scientists – Prof. Yuri Gulyev.

Dear MrX, good morning from Russia. This text is without real scientific proofs and secondary sources “Izabela Ciesielska at the Institute of Architecture of Textiles in Poland experimented with corona discharge photography (CDP) to evaluate the effects of human contact with various textiles on biological factors such as heart rate and blood pressure, as well as corona discharge images.“ The sources, which I was published, are from American journal Applied Physics. They are secondary for the Kirlian effect with water or water drops. The best journal in Russia for Kirlian effect is the journal of one the most eminent Russian scientists – Prof. Yuri Gulyev.

1.Gulyaev, Yu. V., Godik, E. E (1990) Physical Field of Biological Objects, Scientific American, №5, p. 75. 2.Gulyaev, Yu. V., Godik, E. E. (1983) Physical Field of Biological Objects, Newspaper of USSR Academy of Science. SU, №8, p. 118.

What do hear this editor PetaRZ without experience for Kirlian effect? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:PetaRZ&action=history --Analiticus (talk) 03:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I had phone conversation with my friend from France who is this Bulgarian PhD PetaRZ from the Laboratory for Theoretical Astrophysics. He is excellent scientist, but without experience for Kirlian effect. Why the people without experience of the topics in Wikipedia are working hear like editors. This influence on Wikipedia like independence sourse. I regret, but my place is not hear. I am busy. --Analiticus (talk) 04:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

For me the editor like PetaRZ who is again Google Scholar and Russian scientific school is not normal. I think what can do with this editor in Russian Wikipedia and in Wikipedia. He feels like mesa and this is not normal. --Analiticus (talk) 05:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear MrX, thank you very much for your message. For me is important to be useful for the readers. I have information for Kirlian effect from 30 years and the edition in English Wikipedia is better than in Russian. This is difficult topic, because this is “border area of science”. Part of scientist are from one side (biophysics) and part of “scientists“ try to make “medical diagnostics“. I will think what I do. Thank you to you. --Analiticus (talk) 08:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not against Google scholar, neither against Russian science. I simply say that if something is on Google scholar it doesn't mean anything, because everybody can publish content that can be indexed by Google scholar. Including pseudoscientific stuff. Next, I'm not against Russian science. Possibly, if you make a greater effort in overcoming the language barrier, you could understand that I never said such a thing. −PetaRZ (talk) 10:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

If you are busy: don't waste your time here. Thank you for admitting that we are dealing with fringe science. Take a look at this page: „Важной лакмусовой бумажкой для определения значимости и степени признания маргинальных концепций, связанных с естественной наукой, историей или другими академическими областями, является наличие или отсутствие их экспертной оценки“. Скажите мне, где скрыты "экспертной оценки" для работы Игнатьева и Антонова? −PetaRZ (talk) 10:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear editors, I have all publications in Russian for Kirlian effect. These sources (1-5) are more reliable than publications from 14 till 18. We can be independents. The reader, who read talk page and report, can not has feeling for double standard. These authors show that Kirlian effect is not medical method. I know the name of Prof. Antonov from Dubna. Please, read the originals of publications:

Ass. Prof. Oleg Mosin is holder of award of science of the president of Russian federation: http://scholar.google.bg/citations?user=j-yDMDYAAAAJ&hl=bg&oi=ao Mosin is Lawyer, International Law with publications, Google scholar.

1.Skarja, M., Berden, M., Jerman, I. (1998) The Influence of Ionic Composition of Water on the Corona Discharge around Water Drops. Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 84, №5, pp. 2436-2442.

2.Lapitskiy V.N., L.A. Pesotskaya V.N. et al. (2012) Estimation of Influence of Schungite Room on the State of Human Health by the Method of Kirlian, Scientific Paper, №11.

3. Antonov, A., Yukesselieva, L. (1987) Kirlian effekt, Wisenshaft. Zeitschrift Der TU, Magdeburg, p. 57.

4. Antonov, A., Yuskeselieva, L. (1968) Research of Water Drops with High-frequency Electric Discharge (Kirlian) effect, Bulgarian Academy of Science, 2I, №5, pp. 34-36.

5. Ignatov, I., Mosin, O. V. (2012) Kirlian Effect in Biomedicine Diagnostics and Research of Properties of Biological Objects and Water, Biomedical Radio electronics, Biomedical Technologies and Radio electronics, №12, 13-21. --Analiticus (talk) 06:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

14,000 Romanians

I tagged the claim that 14,000 people worked in this area in Romania, though this is sourced the claim is too bold so a better source than some phrase in a newspaper article is needed. Besides, the quoted source sounds very much like an advert.Isbromberg (talk) 09:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree and I edited it out. It was sourced to a tabloid newspaper that is not considered a reliable source.- MrX 13:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

About Replication/Research--second reference

See also the summary of research and replication studies in the article beginning on page 25 of: http://www.gahmllc.com/digital_issues/biofield2015/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.134.178 (talk) 00:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

False statement about lack of replication in the article.

The current version states, "Paranormal claims of Kirlian photography have not been observed or replicated in experiment..."

This is simply not true.

See: Pubmed abstract at this .gov site: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25603488

See also: http://www.gahmllc.com/digital_issues/biofield2015/ page 25 to 34 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.134.178 (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Someone who cares, should correct the error — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.134.178 (talk) 23:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

some categories

• category:parapsychology: 22:15, 27 May 2009
• category:paranormal & category:pseudoscience: 23 August 2012

7 years and 4 years! It is very strange. Extra, it seems anomalous.

— Yuriy Dzyаdyk (t•c), 10:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC).

• These categories are wrong, so deleted. — Yuriy Dzyаdyk (t•c), 12:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC).

  No they're not. They are defining characteristics as evidenced by the sources in the article. There's an entire section called Parapsychology research. Health claims based on Kirlian photography are widely considered pseudoscience.- MrX 13:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kirlian photography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303202347/http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Medicine/Biofield.html to http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Medicine/Biofield.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)