Jump to content

Talk:Kirlian photography/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

"Connected topics"?

Now, I'm just browsing here out of boredom, so I'm not an editor and won't generally make any changes. I can't see any connection at all between this article and the two it cites as "Connected topics": 

   * Kevin Trudeau
   * Metroids

Out of curiosity, I read both those articles to see if they even _mentioned_ Kirlian photography and they don't.

Not in the least. I took the liberty of deleting them. A cartoonist and a fictional flying leech have nothing to do with this topic. -- Kuroji 11:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

no heading

I'm not here to criticize this article, and I'm not personally advocating the validity of Kirlian photography, but this article seems to have a skeptical bias.



I've removed the following sections:


External links

James Randi's web site (http://www.randi.org) Auras in the "Skeptic's dictionary"


James Randi, for example, has for several years offered one million US dollars to any person capable of repeatedly detecting auras (or any other paranormal phenomenon; see his article). No person has yet succeeded in claiming the prize.


These have nothing to do with the subject at hand and are obviously biased. -- Redxela Sinnak 10:18, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

direct link to James Randi info on Kirlian Photography http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/Kirlian%20photography.html 70.253.79.131 02:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Mikhail Gaikin

I removed the following paragraph: "further research however has shown that the acupuncture chart correlates the strongest points in the energy field to those shown in the kirlian photographs. This was later translated into the tobiscope by a scientist called Mikhail Gaikin. The tobiscope was shown along side the Vostok spaceship at expo 67."

Now, I'm hardly an expert on Kirlian photography here, but frankly, I'm not convinced. This is sketchy and looks like it's been written by someone who really wants to believe this but doesn't have a lot in the way of solid facts. Google returns only a few hits on Gaikin, the first one of which is an article at atlantisrising.com [1], which provides absolutely no hard scientific data whatsoever and only mentions Gaikin very briefly. The other links aren't any better. Point is, I don't think there's enough solid evidence of any kind to provide verifiability and thus warrant the inclusion of something like this, particularly as no sources are cited. So, I took it off. -- Captain Disdain 00:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

biases

I am neither a believer or a skeptic, that is why i'm on this page, to find out more. but I feel this page is highly skeptical. it could use some info from the site that supports kirlian photography. Dwenaus 15:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel the page is skeptical about kirlian photography: it seems that it works and nobody doubts it. The controversy is about the interpretation of the photographies obtained with various objects. --Philipum 12:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Philipum. Science agrees that these photos are of something (likely the corona discharge effect), but the problem is interpretation. So many have tried to adapt it to new age beliefs that the whole area has been tainted somewhat in the eyes of a large portion of the scientific community. Bobak 18:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Because of the implicated inconclusivity of this article, I suggest that it be removed from the Pseudoscience category, which is perhaps the most biased part of the page. 66.196.23.86 20:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think removing it from the Pseudoscience category is a terrible idea. This effect will always be pounced upon by the new-age community in the absence of scientific interest, so it is important to make the reader aware of that. That said, this is one of the worst articles I've read on Wikipedia. It needs to be completely rewritten. 220.253.133.200 00:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This isn't nearly skeptical enough, WP:UNDUE maybe violated, I think we can get a lot more information in here from a reality based perspective. Tmtoulouse 19:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There was a slant towards the solidly skeptical. In one way, the use of the words "high voltage" was frequently used. As no such "high" voltage is used I fixed this. Also, there were a few gratuitous jabs at the subject and so this editorializing was also eliminated. Gingermint (talk) 20:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Image?

We really need an image of a Kirlian photograph. I realise not many Wikipedia contributors have access to such a machine, but if you work or go to school at a place that does, please see if you can acquire an illustrative image. Thanks. Deco 19:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Here! :) --Artman40 20:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Photo of a finger of a hand in high voltage electric field

Photo of a finger of a hand in high voltage electric field

Photographing process occurs in a dark room or at red illumination. On the device creating a field of a high voltage put not shown photographic paper. From above establish interesting object. It can be tree sheet. If to tear off a part of sheet and to repeat shooting on a place of a remote part of sheet the luminescence will be observed, but weaker on intensity. During high voltage giving the luminescence round object which lights photographic paper is observed. After photographic paper development the brightest places become dark as it is visible in a photo. As the hand finger concerned photographic papers (a circle in the center) this area remains not lighted.--Shatilov Konstantin 07:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Aura relevance

This article seems to spend at least as much time talking about "Aura photography" as it does about Kirlian photography, the subject of the article. Surely a simple statement that they are not the same would do.

I came to the article to learn about Kirlian photography as I hadn't heard of it, and I feel like I'm being lambasted for thinking it was aura photography - which I also hadn't heard of.

Hmmm, spooky; two things that are supposedly different, but are united by this article being obsessed with them, and my not having heard of them.... cue twilight zone music


unsigned comment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.104.157 (talk) 02:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed

removed "Needless to say, this study is consistently contested.[citation needed]" Apart from the lack of citation the wording alone is very negativley POV and I'm a skeptic :-/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.182.196 (talk) 09:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

A few other such effusions, for or against, may profitably be removed. Redheylin (talk) 02:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

??

Skeptics of the paranormal have long disputed the claims made concerning auras and Kirlian photography.

What means this exactly? Can we have some clear critique? Does it mean, for example, that it is not possible that the Kirlian effect is visible as clairvoyants claim? Or just that there is nothing special about the corona discharge from living organisms in the first place? Redheylin (talk) 11:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Missing Fact

Hi, I think it is important to mention the fact that you can see the energy field of a living thing, even when a part of it is not there anymore (there are Kirlian photographs exhibiting a whole leaf, when in fact it was torn in half before taking the photo). Kirlian photography is not an open and shut case, as it is still studied by the scientific community, and whoever wrote this article seems to be biased. Wikicmk (talk) 00:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)wikicmk

Care to offer a source for this information that can be used? Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Experiments conducted by researchers I. Dumitrescu, Allen Detrick, Dr. Thelma Moss.213.16.132.226 (talk) 10:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)wikicmk

I just added a refererence to Randi's opinion on the matter;

http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/Kirlian%20photography.html

Here's the quote of the most relevent section regarding the leaf:

"The most famous effect of Kirlian photography occurred when a plant leaf was “photographed,” then a section was torn away and the leaf was rephotographed. A faint image of the torn-out section was still seen in the second photo. Since the same glass plates had been used, it is believed that moisture from the missing portion was providing the ghostly image. Since the glass plates used as dielectric material would tend to break down along the edges of the object, allowing easier passage of the discharge, that may also account for the effect. The observed “phantom leaf” effect was not found again in better-controlled experiments, but has continued to serve as a point of argument for the believers." Kirlian123 (talk) 04:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Corona.

It has been shown that if two lovers fingertips together will create a link between them, while a recently divorced couple will show a barrier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.106.3 (talk) 06:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this statement? Tmtoulouse (talk) 06:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


A heartfelt apology...

I should hugely apologize for my extreme idiocy and absent-minded rudeness; I had signed up an account here, and reading through (well, more like skimming through) barely half of all that I should have read before I took any action,... I took action. I had previously been under the impression that each of these article pages were the work of a vast many, and had no idea they were works of individual people. Assuming this, like a moron, I had posted up an external link on your very nicely done page (and some others for which I should apologize to their respective creators for) without asking. Someone named Consumed Crustacean had taken the links down, and explained things to me in polite detail, that I should come to you first and discuss the addition of such links, here, on a talk page, as is apparently explained in the parts of the orientative reading, that I neglected to fully read through when I first opened my account here. Had I done so in the first place, my rude mistake could have been avoided. (There's still much for me to read, I'm ashamed to say... still reading it now.)

I feel like a complete @$$ and I'm really very sorry.

As it turns out, according to the discussion on the WikiProject Occult discussion page, the article I wrote detailing a technique to be able to see the aura with the unaided eye was not acceptable for use here due to the article's whereabouts (anyone can write about anything there without verifiability), the fact that every thousand viewers on that page makes writers earn a few pennies (unrealized fully by me until recently), and that it's "original research".

Once more, my deeply sincere apologies. It was never my intention to overstep my bounds and scribble over anyone's art/hard work.

I'm very sorry.

Coeur-Senechal (talk) 09:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You should be so hard on yourself! It's good to be bold in editing pages and remember that we always assume good faith. :) -- OlEnglish (Talk) 21:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


A.E. Van Vogt & The Anarchistic Colossus

A possibly includable in the pop culture section is a book that was significant in the output of the science fiction writer A.E.Van Vogt, entitled "The Anarchistic Colossus". In the book, "Kirlian computers" look after society which is in an engineered state of total anarchy. The computers attempt to determine somebody's intentions through real-time "Kirlian Photography" and if adverse will render them temporarily unconcious via lasers that are located on every street. Its like a mirror-image of 1984, probably the author's intention. Its complete bunkum and rides in on the 1970s craze for the paranormal, no doubt riding the massive ESP popularity spike that occured then (thankfully, long over). 118.209.8.96 (talk) 06:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

"Explanations?

Gee where is the water? The reason Kirlian photography went out of vogue was because of before and after photograph taken of a coin some time in the early 1970s. I believe it was a dime. The first photo the coin is dry and the second after being misted with a spray of water. Of course with the dry coin there was no trace of an aura and wet it exhibited its "soul". Now to leave out the most important aspect of this phenomenon seems rather odd. Water's well known abnormal effects in magnetic fields is well documented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevindavid (talk • contribs) 14:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This makes no sense. I *took* the coin photo at the bottom of the article and all the ones above it. I can assure you that dry coins photograph just fine! Anything metal is plenty conductive enough for the effect to work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.173.226.229 (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The physics of ionization and coronal discharges are well understood. The huge variability in the micro-coronas that result when measuring living tissues results from the many uncontrolled -- and often uncontrollable -- factors involved in the experiment. Every microscopic droplet of water in the tissue, on the surface of the tissue, and in the air around the electrode surface, and every ionized molecule dissolved in that water, can dramatically affect the pathways and intensity of the corona. So every experiment will produce hugely variable results. When analyzing this data, it is easy to mistake preconceptions and faulty statistical analysis for significant results. Reading any of the references cited for the psuedoscientific applications of Kirlian imaging with a critical eye makes it easy to spot the flaws in the logic, the weakness in the experimental design, and the blatantly faulty analysis. --MisterSpike (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:OR concerns

The "Research" sections draws several conclusions without any citation, and I think at least one of them may be incorrect.

"The 13 papers published by the IEEE which included the phrase "gas discharge visualization" were all published in unrefereed conference proceedings."

To the best of my knowledge, IEEE conferences are peer-reviewed. I'm seeing 59 results from scholar.google with the phrase "gas discharge visualization" in the title. Rather than wading through all of these to see which are IEEE conferences and then verifying that they aren't peer-reviewed, is there a reliable source that can be quoted to that effect? GaramondLethe 15:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources for Kirlian effect

I cleaned this text: Kirlian photography has been a subject of psuedoscientific and paranormal research.[7][8] WHY: The sources 7 is not scientific reliable sources for Kirlian effect. (7) Stenger, Victor J. (1999). "Bioenergetic Fields". The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine 3. In Physics there is not Bioenergetic Fields. The author, who does not know the 4 fields is not to makes estimation for Kirilan effect.

The following sources are with positive position for Kirlian effect: Opalinski, John, "Kirlian type images and the transport of thin film materials in high voltage corona discharges", Journal of Applied Physics, Vol 50, Issue 1, pp 498-504, Jan 1979. Abstract: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=5105453 Boyers, David G. and Tiller, William A. (1973). "Corona discharge photography". Journal of Applied Physics 44 (7): 3102- 3112. doi:10.1063/1.166271 Bankovskii, N. G.; Korotkov, K. G.; Petrov, N. N. (Apr 1986). "Physical processes of image formation during gas-discharge visualization (the Kirlian effect) (Review)". Radiotekhnika i Elektronika 31: 625-643. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbreht (talk • contribs) 21:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I am canceling this text with source of the same author who says Bioenergetic Field!!! Sorry, it is clear in modern science that Kirlian effect is not medical method. I achieve the following text from Prof. Marionov and is visible that he is professor in Physics: "In the Kirlian effect, which is a high-frequency electric discharge in gas, the color of light depends only on gas. It does not depend on the electrodes. It is apparent that the color Kirlian aura carries biological information from the object itself. The observed phenomenon cannot be described and explained from the point of view of the modern physical notions for the color of the light of gas discharge." Kirlian photography has been used in legitimate scientific research as well as in pseudoscience and paranormal health claims.[1][2]

Frankly, I can understand at all what you are trying to say. I'm afraid that both your English as well as your understanding of our policies is poor. You removed well-sourced material, and added material that was either gibberish or unreliably sourced. Discuss your proposed changes here before trying to change the article. Try again to explain what you meant above. And please read up on our policies. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Dear Dominus Vobisdu, thank you very much for your information. I would like to be correct. The sources from Russia are reliable. Do you speak Russian? why this sources if real: Stenger, Victor J. (1999). "Bioenergetic Fields". The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine 3. In Physics there is not Bioenergetic Fields. The author, who does not know the 4 fields is not to makes estimation for Kirilan effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbreht (talk • contribs) 23:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
From other site I would like to be useful. What is your proposal to me? Mbreht —Preceding undated comment added 23:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Recent deletion

I've recently deleted material added by a user who has spammed several articles with information about Ignat Ignatov, a supposed scientist from Bulgaria whose existence and qualifications cannot be verified outside of self-published sources, and whose article is failing AfD en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ignat_Ignatov. It appears as if the diplomas, awards and publications of this author are not genuine. Removing again until someone can verify the material added. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't be so hasty; several of those references in the section you removed are by people other than Ignatov. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Two of the references list Ignatov as an co-author, and third A. Zellner Gernan (journal?) citation seems independent. Perhaps someone who reads German can determine if it is valid. — MrX 01:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't put much hope in the German source. It's a newsletter-type magazine for a professional association of women engineers, not a valid outlet for peer-reviewed science, or even qualified to give a significant opinion on science. Typing die ingenieurin ignat ignatov into Google search turned up nothing. I can't find any reference to the article at all except in WP. Suspect it's a reprint of a "press release" provided by Ignatov himself. Gogole Scholar give one relevant hit for an article published by him in a non-peer-reveiwed journal. I'm afraid we're dealing with a fake scientist here. His "institute" also turns up nothing but self-published hits, and his awards are questionable. In fact, there seems to be nothing about this guy that can be sourced at all. The user who added this is an SPA account that has only promoted Ignatov, together with a couple of socks. I can't assume good faith here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Total agreement. This guy's a pseudoscientist who believes in homeopathy, believes the ideas of Masaru Emoto, and thinks that Jacques Benveniste is a great scientist. Need I say more? We're dealing with someone who has little touch with reality. Those aren't reasons for why he couldn't have an article here, but he'd need to establish notability, and I'm not seeing it. Meanwhile the socking continues. Anything that isn't extremely well sourced should be deleted on sight. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Your opinions for Ignatov are very interesting, but he is with education in physics. Also the lower is able to discuss the activity of one person. We have not these rights and this is absolutely clear. First if you read precise the publications of Ignatov his conclusion for homeopathy is: “Studies of the properties of homeopathic solutions have one peculiarity. In the homeopathic solution the effect is influenced not only by the diluted substance and the potentiation, but also by a third feature that researchers do not report. The solution itself is potentiated in an electromagnetic device and electromagnetic fields indicate to the device an influence on the hydrogen bonds between water molecules. This means that this method of preparation of homeopathic solutions can not serve for the making of fundamental conclusions about informational properties of water” This is clear and Ignatov has not results with homeopathy. For Emoto his conclusion is: ““Double blind” experiments are required to check whether Emoto’s methodic is sufficiently differentiated.”
These conclusions are results of reliable biophysical studies. Ignatov don’t believe of homeopathy. For Emoto each day the water has different spectrum and that mean different snowflakes. Thank you for your attention. Mbreht
Mbreht, Ignatov may indeed have credentials as a scientist, however, the content that was attributed to his research was deemed as lacking credible third-party citations to justify inclusion in an encyclopedia article about Kirlian photography. Two of the references were rejected because he is a co-author of the material (see WP:PRIMARY). As mentioned by Dominus Vobisdu, the third citation is challenged as being an invalid source for the scientific claims in the content that was removed from this article. If you disagree with this, perhpas you can discuss it here in the context of Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources, and not on the basis of the actual technical content of the article.
If I understand you correctly, you seem to disagree with Brangifer about Ignatov's connection with homeopathy research. I don't think it really matters, since this is not an article on homeopathy. His beliefs are really not relevant. Content added to the article needs to be relevant to the topic of Kirlian photography and needs to be supported by reliable sources per WP:RS and WP:CSTS.
In your post above, you stated: "Also the lower is able to discuss the activity of one person. We have not these rights and this is absolutely clear." This doesn't make sense. Perhaps you could take another attempt to translate this into English. I'm not sure if you are referring to a Wikipedia policy, or perhaps something else. - MrX 22:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
There is not text that Ignatov believes the Benfenists is great scientist. Also he does not accept "memory' of water. For him is "informationablity" of water. Mbreht
Dear MrX, thank you very much for your efforts. I know the comditions in Wikipedia. I several times informed that like our comments in the world there is Act of copy right. In this Act is clear who is author and what. Nobody has not a right to change this Act. who is first author also is clear. The science is in development and there a lot of very popular sites and sources. Mbreht --Mbreht (talk) 05:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Mbreht, I seriously doubt that you "know the conditions of Wikipedia". I also have questions about your language. It's hard to understand you. Your English skills aren't good enough for us to understand you. This is the English Wikipedia, and you must communicate in English, and your sources need to be verifiable to English editors and readers. The sentences mentioned above are unclear: "Also the lower is able to discuss the activity of one person. We have not these rights and this is absolutely clear." What does "lower" mean in this context? Do you mean "laws"? Also you keep talking about copyright. I don't see any context in which copyright is relevant here. He can have hundreds of copyrights, or even patents, but if there isn't mention in multiple, very reliable and independent sources, it's of no relevance to Wikipedia. So, please don't continue to mention copyright unless it truly is relevant. Otherwise, please explain the sentences above. What do they mean? -- Brangifer (talk) 05:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Academical publications in Russia

Now I read in Russian to be more objective: In Russia Kirlian method is most popular and object of different doctor dissertation and scientific publications. We can be objective: Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 23:57, 11 August 2012 --Mbreht (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)Mbreht

Mbreht, no offense, but we do not fully understand what you are trying to say. If you want to include content from ru.wiki, it has to be accurately translated into English and it has to be properly sourced. The fact that it may already be on ru.wiki is not, in itself, sufficient for inclusion on en.wiki.
I suggest you post your proposed additions here with the appropriate citations(s). Please try to use the citation template built into the editor (Cite and then Templates dropdown box on the editor toolbar). Any content you add must be written in reasonably correct English or we just can't help you. - MrX 01:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Dear MrX, the Wikipedia is World Wikipedia. The sources in English are not enough. That this is English page for Kirlian is clear. My proposal to you is to read in more than one language to be more objective. This is Russian page in Wikipedia for Kirlian effect. I hope that this not a problem in English. TEXT FOR KIRLIAN EFFECT IN RUSSIAN WIKIPEDIA: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AD%D1%84%D1%84%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82_%D0%9A%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B0 Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 08:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I have read the Kirlian Effect article on ru.wiki. It is a short article that does not talk about magical water, Dr. Ignatov or pop culture references. To my delight, it actually does talk about Kirlian photography, something that the English article is sorely lacking. For the record, I am a advocate of sourcing information from Russian sources for this article, which I have also stated on your talk page.
I would like to see some of the material from ru.wiki incorporated into this article. Someone who can read Russian and write in English would have to do it though.
I know you're frustrated, but saying that other editors need to be more objective does not assume good faith, especially if you don't have examples to support this alleged lack of objectivity. - MrX 14:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear MrX, the publication in Russian Wikipedia is with sources from papers in Russian, which I have. They are not in web space. There is not information for "magical" water. This is error of google translator.If for you Russian Wikipedia for Kirlian is not objective, that means that each topic is possible to not be objective. Please, write to Russian editors on talk page for Kirlian effect. I will show the sources when I have time on my talk page. Thank you again for your answer. It is not possible for 24 hours to know a lot for Kirlian effect in Russia. talk page.--Mbreht (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you provide a list of the three best sources that you would like to include, who wrote them, when and where they were published, what level of peer review they received and, most important to me, a few additional articles that cite them. My concern is that while you have access to publications, these publications have not been vetted or accepted by the larger community. I that is the case, featuring these publications would lend them undue weight. GaramondLethe 22:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Dear Garamond Lethe, I will do that next week. Thank you very much for your proposal.Mbreht --Mbreht (talk) 23:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Dear Garamond Lethe, I hope that this information is useful. I also put the publication in Russian to be more easy for you. Do you needs the topics of 2 Doctor Dissertation with success - Prof. Victor Inyshin (Kazakhstan) and Prof. Anton Antonov (Bulgaria).
For biophysical fields the following publication is undisputed. There are including electric fields too:
1. Gulyaev, Yu. V., Godik, E. E., Physical fields from biological objects, Newspaper of Acad. Of Scie. SU, N8 (1983) 118.
2. Gulyaev, Yu. V., Godik, E. E, Physical fields from biological objects, Scientific American, N5 (1990)75.
SOME PUBLICATION FOR KIRLIAN EFFECT IN RUSSIA:
1. Inyushin, V. M., Gritsenko, V. S., The biological essence of Kirlian effect, Alma Ata, Kazakhstan, State Unuversity, 1968.
IN RUSSIAN:
1. Инюшин В.М., Гриценко В.С. и др. О биологической сущности эффекта Кирлиан (современная концепция биологической плазмы). Алма-Ата: КазГУ, 1968. От эффекта Кирлиан к биоэлектрографии // Информация. Сознание. Жизнь. СПб., 1998.
2. Korotkov, K.G., Hmirov, S.V., The photographing of the surface of hard body with discharge and atmosphere pressure, Scientific applied journal, 27, N 2, 1982.
IN RUSSIAN:
2. Коротков К.Г., Хмыров С.В. Фотографирование поверхности твердого тела посредст-вом разряда при атмосферном давлении // Журн. научн. прикл. Фотогр. и кинематогр. – 1982. –Т. 27, N 2. – С. 131-1
3. Korotkov K., Kaariainen P. Gas discharge visualisation technique applied to the study of a physical stress among sportsmen, Journal Pathophysiology. – 1998. – Vol. 5.– P. 53. Mbreht --Mbreht (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
ADDITINAL INFORMATION: I would like to present 3 additional publications:
1. Kirlian, S. D., Patent, N106401 USSR (1949)
2. Antonov, A, Yuskeselieva, L., Research of Electrical Discharge of Biological Objects, Signal AM, Moscow, 1979.
3. Antonov, A., Yuskeselieva, L., Research of water drops with High-frequency electric discharge (Kirlian) effect, Bulgarian Academy of Science, 2I, N5 (1968).--Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 09:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Mbreht, please remember that this in article about Kirlian photography. Any information that does not result in (or result from) producing photographic images is beyond the scope of the article. For example, "Research of water drops with High-frequency electric discharge". I'm curious know if the research involves photographing water droplets in a high voltage electrical field.
The patent would only be a reliable source for making a statement that a patent exists, and only in the context of other notable information about the subject.
Are the sources that you listed above independent of the researcher? For example, the two that are attributed to Antonov, A., Yuskeselieva, L..
Your inclusion of these sources will have more credibility if you format them with a citation template (also built into the editing window) so that other editors know the title of the journal, author, subject, volume, issue, page number, etc. (see WP:CIT) Also, please help us to help you, by signing all of your posts with four ~s and threading and indenting your comments (see WP:TALK, WP:TOPPOST and WP:SIGN). - MrX 14:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thelma Moss

I have one proposal. The name of Thelma Moss is not enough in topic Research. Also the sources for Moss are not reliable sources. 1. Thelma Moss, The Body Electric, New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher Inc., 1979. 2. UCLA lab researched parapsychology in the ’70s Though unfunded by university, group conducted experiments in clairvoyance and telepathy. Sean Greene, UCLA Daily Bruin, Oct 26, 2010. From Eastern Europe and Russia I have minimum of these type of sources. The reason that she has "laboratory at the university" is not reasons. There are a lot of doctors and professors in physics who are working in universities laboratory at the universities-Prof. Inyushin (Kazakhstan State University), Prof. Korotkov (Technical University), Prof. Marinov (Technical University), Prof. Antonov (Blagoevgrad University), Prof. Yuskesselieva (Bulgarian Academy of Science)etc. Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 09:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Kirlian photography has not been a widely studied topic. The research that has been done has been on the fringe of scientific research, at least in the US. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be included, it just means that their inclusion in articles must be made "with representation in proportion to their prominence." Thelma Moss is published, is notable and there is at least one source that can be relied on for inclusion in this article. The same criteria should apply to Russian researchers as well.
It is not our role as editors to automatically reject theories or research that does not neatly align with mainstream scientific thought. The key is due weight. - MrX 14:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear MrX, thank you very much for your important information. My position is Thelma Moss can be in Wikipedia. I know Thelma Moss and Beverly Rubic from 20 years and their development. These conditions can be valid for Russian and Bulgarian scientists too. Wikipedia is independence source and much more information is much better. Now in Eastern Europe are working with this method only Prof. Korotkov and Dr. Ignatov. They also make research with Kirlian method in Germany. Hans-Christian Seidle is not working. Other scientists are very old. I hope that I useful in my Russian and trips to Moscow. I would like to present 3 additional publications: 1. Dobson, P., Tchernychko, E., Investigations into Stress and it’s Management using the Gas Discharge Visualization Technique, City University Business School London, 1999. 2 Lester, J. R., Kirlian effect, Cancer, Coronas and Questions, The Journal of The Kansas Medical Society, 7(9), 1975, pp. 194-202. 3. Ignatov, I., Mosin, O. V., Kirlian effect for the study of properties of water and biological objects, Congress, Science, Information, Consciousness, Saint-Petersburg Technical University (2012). Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The history of the method before Kirlian

As early as 1777, while studying electric discharges, the German physicist Professor Lichtenberg observed the typical fan-like glow on a powder-covered insulator. A century later the glow was fixed on a photo plate and received the name “Lichtenberg figures”. In 1891-1890, the demonstration experiments of Tesla clearly exhibited the possibility of gas discharge visualization of living organisms. Tesla has obtained the photographs of the discharges by conventional photography. His studies were continued by Pogorelski in Russia and Navratilova in the Czech Republic. At the end of that century in Russia, the then famous scientist and explorer Narkevich-Yodko, while conducting experiments with different electric generators, discovered a glow emitted by human hands in the field of a high-voltage generator and learned how to fix this glow on a photo plate. Using this device he has made electrographic photos of medals, coins, tree leaves. For this scientist 1882 became the year of recognition of his discovery. Narkevich-Yodko has called his method of photographing “electrography”. While carrying out his numerous experiments, he noticed the difference in the electrographic picture of identical parts of the bodies of people healthy and sick, tired and excited, awake and sleeping. He also predicted the possibility of using this method for determining the psychological compatibility of people.Meanwhile at the other end of the world – in Brazil in 1904, the Catholic priest Landel de Morua created the first electrophotographic (electric discharge) camera and many photos were made with it. In 1930 in Prague Pratt and Schlemmer studied contact prints of various objects under electric discharge.However, the complexity of the apparatus used then to obtain electrographic images and its objective danger prevented the widespread use of the method at that time. After the death of Nordkevich-Yodko in 1905 and the emergence of new revolutionary situations in physics and society, these works have long sunk into oblivion. And only thanks to the Russian inventors, the Kirlian family, the method has been reopened in the late thirties. For several decades the Kirlians have investigated the characteristics of the glow of different objects, having received more than 30 author's certificates for inventions in the field of electrography. Therefore, in current world literature the name EFFECT OF KIRLIAN has been established. Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 18:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Physical parameters of Kirlian method

KIRLIAN METHOD IS NOT MEDICAL METHOD

PHYSICAL PARAMETERS (PROF. ANTON ANTONOV, BULGARIA)

The experiments are performed in the high-frequency (HF) electric field and also with a transparent hostafan electrode (Antonov, 1984). This variation of the Kirlian method is defined as a selective high frequency discharge (SHFD). Prof. Antonov from Bulgaria shows that the conductivity of the object does not interfere with the electric image. Its formation depends on the distribution of the dielectric permeability (doctor dissertation). Kirlain method is electrographical method.

6,2d22 –(αT-6,2δ-312)d2+312δ=0 δ = d1/ε1+ d3/ε3 d1-the thickness of the object ε1- its dielectric permeability ε3 ,d3 – parameters of the recording medium d2-the distance of the disgorge from the object to the medium T is the duration of the discharge

1. Antonov, A., Yukesselieva, L., Methof for registration of electrographical copy on dialectical medium, Patent 14662, Bulgaria, 1969. 2. Antonov, A., Yuskesselieva, L., Selective high frequency discharge (Kirlian effect), Acta Hydrophysica, Berlin, 29 (1985)5 3. Antonov, A., Galabova, T., Selective high frequency discharge (Kirlian effect), Reports from the 6th Nat. Confer. of Biomedical Physics and Engineering, Bulgarian Academy of Science, Sofia (1992). 4. Antonov, A., Yukesselieva, L., Kirlian effekt, Wisenshaft. Zeitschrift Der TU, Magdeburg, 31 (1987) 57. 5. Antonov, A., Yukesselieva, L., Kirlian effect, Internatinal Agrophysics, 2 (3) 1986 (3). 6. Antonov, A., Yukesselieva, L., Kirlian effect, Acta Hydrophysica, Berlin, 29 (1985)5. 7. Antonov, A., Yukesselieva, L., Kirlian effect, Compterend. de l'Acad. Bulg. des. scie., 37, (1984), 1203. Mbreht --Mbreht (talk) 13:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

COLOR KIRLAIN SPECTRUM (PROF. MARIN MARINOV, DR. IGNAT IGNATOV, BULGARIA)

Experiments were effected with color Kirlian photography for the purpose of seeking a dependence between the colors of the electric glow certain person. An auto-electron emission is also observed. The optic transitions depend on the energy of the detached photons. In the red color, this energy is 1.82 electron volts (еV). In the orange color – 2.05, in the yellow – 2.14, in the blue-green (cyan) – 2.43, in the blue – 2.64, and in the violet – 3.03 electron volts. The green color is not exists in this type of discharge. With Kirlian effect, which is a high-frequency electric discharge in gas, the color of light depends only on the gas. It does not depend on the electrodes. It is apparent that the color Kirlian aura carries biological information from the object itself. The observed phenomenon cannot be described and explained from the point of view of the modern physical notions for the color of the light of the gas discharge. The fact that different colors are observed, clearly confirms the possibility for selective influence of the researched object.

Mbreht --Mbreht (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Kirlian method in USSR

Gleb Frank, Scientific Drector of the Institute for Biological Physics: “This is entirely new form of photograpy”. In the Kuban Agricultural Institute directed by Prof. Varikoi was made the research of plants. Prof. Topchieva from the Presidium of Academy of Science in USSR informed:”The Kirlian method presents scientific interst”. Prof. Tumermann was made the research with Kirlian method in Institute for Radiation and Physico-Chemical Biology.

Publications:

  1. Inyushin, V., Grishchenko et al., The Biological Essence of the Kirlian Effect, Kirov State University, Alma Ata, 1968.
  2. Juravlev, A. E., Living Luminescence and Kirlian effect, Academy of Science in USSR, 1966.
  3. Pressmann, A. S, Electromagnetic Fields and Living Nature, Moscow, Science, Academy of Science in USSR, 1968

Sourse from USA: Krioner, S., Rubin, D., The Kirlian aura, Ancor Press/Double Day, Garden City, New York, (1974). Mbreht --Mbreht (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Mbreht. You have put a great deal of information on this talk page in the past few days. What specifically are you proposing to add to the article and in what section(s)? Keeping in mind that the article should be a concise summary of the subject as opposed to an academic dissertation. - MrX 14:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Dear MrX, thank you very much and this great honor for me. Now I am sure that Wikipedia is independence source. The biggest problems for Kirlian methods are two. First is that it is medical method. In the following publication Katorgin, V. S., Meizerov, Actual questions GDV in medical activity, Congress Traditional Medicine, Federal Scientific Clinical and Experimental Center of Traditional Methods of Treatment and Diagnosis, Ministry of Health, pp 452-456, Elista, Russia (2000). the authors show that there are not reliable for medical diagnostic of GDV method of Prof. Korotkov. The method is only biophysical. The second problem is that some author without education say that Kirlian method shows aura. No, Kirlian method shows bioelectrical glow. I wiil publish my propsals in 10 days at Talk page. Thank you again: Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Kirlian photograpy - first edition

Kirlian photography is a collection of photographic techniques used to capture the phenomenon of electrical coronal discharges in the presence of moisture. NEW TEXT At the end of XIX century the Belarusian scientist Narkevich-Yodko, while conducting experiments with different electric generators, discovered a glow emitted by human hands in the field of a high-voltage generator and learned how to fix this glow on a photo plate. FINISH OF TEXT It is named after Semyon Kirlian, who, in 1939 accidentally discovered that if an object on a photographic plate is connected to a high-voltage source, an image is produced on the photographic plate.[1] The technique has been variously known as "electrography",[2] "electrophotography",[3] "corona discharge photography",[4] "bioelectrography",[2] "gas discharge visualization (GDV)",[5] "eletrophotonic imaging (EPI)",[6] NEW TEXT high-frequency electric discharge (7), selective high-frequency electric discharge (8) FINISH OF TEXT and, in the Russian literature, "Kirlianography". CANCELING Kirlian photography has been used in legitimate scientific research as well as in pseudoscience and paranormal health claims[7][8]. FINISH OF CANCELING NEW TEXT Kirlain photography has been used in biophysics. There are not proofs for the application of this method in medicine like diagnostics (9). FINISH OF TEXT

WILL BE GOOD IF SOURCE 1 WILL BE CHANGES WITH ORIGINAL

1. Kirlian, S. D., Method for Receiving Photographic Pictures of Different Types of Objects, Patent, №106401 USSR (1949) 7. Adamenko, V. G., Research of the structuring of the images in High-frequency electric discharge, Thesis for Awarding of the Degree ”Doctor of Physical Sciences” Minsk, 1975. 8. Antonov, A., Research of the Non-equilibrium Processes in the Area in Allocated Systems, Thesis for Awarding of the Degree ”Doctor of Physical Sciences”, Blagoevgrad – Sofia (1995). 9. Katorgin, V. S., Meizerov, E. E., Actual questions GDV in medical activity, Congress Traditional Medicine, Federal Scientific Clinical and Experimental Center of Traditional Methods of Treatment and Diagnosis, Ministry of Health, pp 452-456, Elista, Moscow, Russia, 2000. Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Mbreht, here are my comments. Hopefully other editors will comment as well.
  • I think the first sentence that you added needs a citation and also his first name, area of research and a more precise date.
The name is Jacob Narkevich-Yodko, source Decrespe, M. La vie et les œuvres de M. de Narkiewicz-Iodko, membre et collaborateur de l'Institut impérial de médecine expérimentale de Saint-Pétersbourg, membre of correspondant de la Société de médecine de Paris, ets, ets. / Marius Decrespe.– Paris: Chamuel, 1896.
CV of Jacob Narchevich-Yodko from Rissian Wikipedia
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87-%D0%98%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BA%D0%BE,_%D0%AF%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D0%9E%D1%82%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87
Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 21:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • high-frequency electric discharge and selective high-frequency electric discharge do not seem to relate to Kirlian photography. Also, doctoral theses [7] and [8] are not acceptable as reliable, notable independent sources. This seems to be a recurring theme in this article. Content added to Wikipedia needs to be notable enough to have been written about by reliable, independent sources.
High-frequency electric discharge is the definition of Victor Adamenko of Kirlian effect and Selective high-frequency electric discharge is the definition of Kirlain effect of Anton Antonov. I have the original of two dissertation and also this is popular in scientific circles in Eastern Europe.
Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 21:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Can you clarify citation [9]? What is the name of the journal? Ministry of Health in what country (Russia?)?
The Federal Center is with director Prof. Alexey Karpeev, Moscow, Russia.
Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • My other suggestion is that you add content to the body of the article, not the lead. Then we can easily summarize it for inclusion in the lead. Generally one would not add new information to the lead unless it were already in the article. - MrX 20:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
MrX, your second point is incorrect. Wikipedia:Reliable sources (the WP:SCHOLARSHIP part) specifically says that doctoral dissertations are acceptable: Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. Dissertations are peer-reviewed and considered reliable sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry. I stand corrected on the admissibility of doctoral dissertations. - MrX 20:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Not a problem I will show independence sources - the disseration of Victor Adamenko is for PhD and of Anton Antonov for DPhSC
INDEPENDENCE SOURCES FOR PROF. ANTONOV:
  1. Antonov, A, Yuskeselieva, L., Research of Electrical Discharge of Biological Objects, Signal AM, Moscow, 1979.
  2. Antonov, A., Yuskeselieva, L., Research of water drops with High-frequency electric discharge (Kirlian) effect, Bulgarian Academy of Science, 2I, N5 (1968).
  3. Antonov, A., Yukesselieva, L., Methof for registration of electrographical copy on dialectical medium, Patent 14662, Bulgaria, 1969.
  4. Antonov, A., Yukesselieva, L., Kirlian effekt, Wisenshaft. Zeitschrift Der TU, Magdeburg, 31 (1987) 57.
  5. Antonov, A., Yukesselieva, L., Kirlian effect, Internatinal Agrophysics, 2 (3) 1986 (3).
  6. Antonov, A., Yukesselieva, L., Kirlian effect, Compterend. de l'Acad. Bulg. des. scie., 37, (1984), 1203.
Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 21:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
PUBLICATION FOR VICTOR ADAMENKO:
  1. Adamenko, V. G. Objects moved at a distance by means of a controlled bioelectric field. In Abstracts,International Congress of Psychology, Tokyo, 1972.
Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd say a dissertation would be inadmissible if it wasn't complete, or failed to result in a PhD, or isn't publicly available, or was written for a degree-mill institution. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I think the most common criteria for rejecting a dissertation is that the dissertation hasn't received many subsequent citations, which gets you into WP:UNDUE problems. That's my most serious concern with Mbreht's cites: they don't need to be in English, they don't need to be widely available, but I would like to see some evidence that other scholars writing accessible publications in English have taken note of them. GaramondLethe 21:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Dear Garamond Lethe, I estimate effort. The following publications in Kirlian photography are not academical - with numbers 1, 2, 3, 7, 12, 18, 19, 20. I give the scientific publications from scientific journal. For expample Prof. Antonov has around 250 sources in this type like the number. Please, make the standart the same for everybody Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 22:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
ATTENTION: For me is not very easy for scientific publication of the scientists from Eastern Europe. Part of them dead. Also the publications are in different libraries on paper. Also these people were lived in socialism, when was very difficult for the exchange the information with Western Europe. For example Prof. Antonov and Prof. Marionov were worked in Nuclear center of Dubna with special conditions. Please, estimate that. These scientists deserve to be in Wikipedia. For that I make efforts Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Scientific explanations-edition

The commonly accepted explanation of these images is that they are caused by a high voltage corona discharge, similar to those seen from other high voltage sources such as the Van de Graaff generator or Tesla coil. In a darkened room, these discharges are visible as faint glows. Using light-sensitive film or other photographic methods can record these transient coronas. Color photographic film is calibrated to faithfully produce colors when exposed to normal light. The corona discharge can interact with minute variations in the different layers of dye used in the film, resulting in a wide variety of colors depending on the local intensity of the discharge. NEW TEXT: Antonov shows that the conductivity of the object does not interfere with the electric image. Its formation depends on the distribution of the dielectric permeability. (1) Ignatov studies the full spectrum of Kirlian glow with energy of photons with colors – red – 1.82, orange color – 2.05, yellow – 2.14, blue-green (cyan) – 2.43, blue – 2.64 and violet – 3.03 electronvolts (eV). (2). The green color is nor exists in the spectrum of Kirlian glow. The color Kirlian images are photographed on a film. The image quality is much higher than the electric images filmed with digital methods and with Polaroid. FINISH OF NEW TEXT

1. Antonov, A., Yuskesselieva, L., Selective high frequency discharge (Kirlian effect), Acta Hydrophysica, Berlin, 29 (1985)5. 2. Ignatov, I., Marinov, M., Color Kirlian Spectral Analysis. Color Observation with Visual Analyzer, Euromedica, Hanover, (2008). Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Mbreht, is the new text part of the scientific explanation of why coronal discharges register in a wide range of colors on color film? If so, I think it would benefit from being simplified for the reader. Perhaps the color and electron energy information could be put into a table. Regarding the sentence: "Its formation depends on the distribution of the dielectric permeability." Does that refer to the dielectric permeability of the film, the object, the atmosphere or something else? - MrX 14:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Dear MrX, the sentences is "Its formation depends on the distribution of the dielectric permeability of the OBJECT." The range of the color film is from 400 till 770 nm without green color from 490 till 560 mm. The picture with the emission is hear:
http://www.o8ode.ru/article/eng/engl/kirlian.htm
The information for you can be in table or picture. Mbreht --Mbreht (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Research - edition

CANCELING Kirlian photography has been a subject of psuedoscientific and paranormal research . FINISH OF CANCELING. NEW TEXT: The scholars in the field of Kirlian study are – Victor Injushin (Kazakhstan) (1), Victor Adamenko (Belarus), Konstantin Korotkov (Russia) (2), Anton Antonov (3) and Ignat Ignatov (4) (Bulgaria) etc. FINISH OF NEW TEXT Thelma Moss of UCLA devoted much time and energy to the study of Kirlian photography when she led an independent and unsupported parapsychology laboratory at the university,[16] until her laboratory was shut down by the university in 1979.[17]

1. Inyushin, V. M., Gritsenko, V. S., The biological essence of Kirlian effect, Alma Ata, Kazakhstan, State Unuversity, 1968. 2. Korotkov K. G., Kaariainen P., GDV applied for the study of a physical stress in sportsmens, Journal of Pathophysiology, Vol. 5., P. 53. Saint Petersburg (1998). 3. Antonov, A., Yuskeselieva, L., Research of water drops with High-frequency electric discharge, (Kirlian) effect, Bulgarian Academy of Science, 2I, N5 Sofia, (1968). 4. Ignatov, I., Mosin, O. V., Kirlian effect for the study of properties of water and biological objects, Congress, Science, Information, Consciousness, Saint-Petersburg Technical University (2012). Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Sources with publication of the research of Prof. Injushin, Dr. Adamenko, Prof. Korotkov, Prof. Antonov and Dr. Ignatov

1.Kulin, E. T., Bioelectrical effects, Science and technology, Minsk, 1980. Information about (Injushin, Adamenko, Korotkov, Antonov). 2. Manolev et al. Dependence of electrical discharge of fingers from frequency, South-Western University Neofit Rilski, Blagoevgrad, 1991. (Antonov, Ignatov) 3. Tocheva, V, Research with Black-White Kirlian photograpy, Cenral Laboratoty for Bioresearch, Ministry of Health, Bulgaria, Plovdiv, 1991. (Antonov, Ignatov) 4. Petrosyan, V., I., et al, Bioelectrical Discharge, Biomedical Radio-Engineering and Electronics, №3 (1996). (Injushin, Adamenko, Korotkov, Antonov, Ignatov) 5. Kiseliova, M., Brain Electrical Activity Study and Kirlian effect, Federal Center for Traditional Methods for Diagnostics and Treatment, Ministry of Health, Moscow (2002). (Antonov, Ignatov) 6. Lebedeva, N. E., Study of the Functional Changes in Spirostomum ambigum Ehrbg. During Bioinfluence, Moscow State University (2001). (Ignatov) 7. Yaneva-Balabanska, I., Scientific Results in Practice of Bulgarian Biotherapists, National Center for Public Health, Sofia (2001). (Antonov, Ignatov) Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 09:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

8. Kulikova, A. D., Unique Bulgarian Biophysical Device for Kirlain effect with originator Ignat Ignatov, IV Int. scientific congress “Manking health 2011”, Prague, 2011. Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

How about: "Scientists who have studied Kirlian photography include Victor Injushin (Kazakhstan) (1), Victor Adamenko (Belarus), Konstantin Korotkov (Russia) (2), Anton Antonov (3) and Ignat Ignatov (4) (Bulgaria)" ? Scientists is a little more specific and authoritative than just scholars - MrX 15:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Dear MrX, for the proffesinal translators in Eastern Europe scholars are the same like scientists. Now I feel the difference – scientists. Thank you. Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Claims of Aura Photography-edition

MY proposal for the title is CLAIMS OF BIOELECTRICAL AURA PHOTOGRAPHY

ATTENTION: This interpretation for canceling of Kirlian effect is not from original source. Patent of Kirlian is for: “Method for photographs the object in currents with high frequencies”. Some scientists explain that this is bioelectrical aura. RELIABLE SOURCE IN INTERNET:

Predein, A., Research for the application of Kirlian effect, Vladimir State University, 2000. http://referat.ru/referats/view/3646

In Russia there are scientifically reliable sources for electrical, infrared, magnetical etc. fields from human body. 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).

From Bulgaria:

3. Ignatov, I., Antonov, A., Galabova, T., Medical Biophysics - Biophysical Fields of Man, Gea Libris, Sofia (1998).

FROM RUSSIAN WIKIPEDIA: Kirlian aura is glow of electro discharge at the surface of objects. http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AD%D1%84%D1%84%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82_%D0%9A%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B0

ATTENTION: In what believes Kirlian is not important for Wikipedia.

CANCELING Kirlian believed that images created by Kirlian photography might depict a hypothetical energy field, or aura, thought, by some, to surround living things. A typical demonstration used as evidence for the existence of these energy fields involved taking Kirlian contact photographs of a picked leaf at set intervals. The leaf's gradual withering was thought to correspond with a decline in the strength of the aura. In some experiments, if a section of a leaf was torn away after the first photograph, a faint image of the missing section would remain when a second photograph was taken. FINISH OF CANCELING The coronal discharges identified as Kirlian auras are the result of stochastic electric ionization processes, and are greatly affected by many factors, including the voltage and frequency of the stimulus, the pressure with which a person or object touches the imaging surface, the local humidity around the object being imaged, how well grounded the person or object is, and other local factors affecting the conductivity of the person or object being imaged. Oils, sweat, bacteria, and other ionizing contaminants found on living tissues can also affect the resulting images.[11][12][13]

ATTENTION: The sources 12 and 13 are not scientifically reliable END

In the leaf example, the greater the rate of transpiration, the higher the moisture content on the surface of the leaf, and the higher the local humidity surrounding it. These factors reliably create greater and more dynamic electric discharge coronas. As the leaf dehydrates, the coronas will naturally decrease in variability and intensity. As a result, the changing water content of the leaf can affect its so-called Kirlian aura. This does not provide evidence for an energy field other than the electric fields produced by chemical processes, and the streaming process of coronal discharges.[4] In the torn leaf example above, if the imaging surface is cleaned of contaminants and residual moisture before the second image is taken, then no image of the missing section appears.[14] Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 10:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

[12] and [13] may not be reliable for scientific claims, but the skeptical viewpoint needs to be represented in the article. Perhaps it should be disclaimed as "Skeptics refute claims that..."
If you introduce phrases like "Kirlian auras" and "stochastic electric ionization processes" then I think they should to be defined relative to a cited source, or wiki-linked to articles that define them.
On a purely logical level: What you have written in this section seems to suggest that "coronal discharge"/"stochastic electric ionization" is the synonymous with "Kirlian aura". This requires some explanation. If then, this so-called "Kirlian aura" is supposed to be synonymous with "Biophysical Fields", this requires a great deal of explanation, as it would seem to be non sequitur.
With regard to reference [3] that you introduced above; you will not be able to use this reference for claims made by Ignatov, Antonov or Galabova. Also, if Gea Libris is self-publishing house, it would run afoul of WP:SELFPUBLISH. - MrX 14:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Gea Liblis is publishing house. The book was published from Gea Libris and is not executing the conditions from Wikipedia ::"Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published",
Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Dear MrX in scientific publications Kirlian effect is "coronal discharge"/"The stochastic electric ionization" is hypothesis. Kirlian aura is not synonymous of biophysical fields. Kirlian aura is bioelectrical aura like results of discharge. The biophysical field from the research of Godik and Gulyaev are electric and magnetic fields, infrared thermal field, radiothermal field, hemiluminescence and acoustic fields.
Physical fields of biological objects – Yuri Gulyaev, Eduard Godik
Biophysical fields – Ignat Ignatov, Anton Antonov
For Ignatov and Antonov if you need scientific publication of this topic I will show. ::Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification Mbreht. - MrX 20:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
QUESTION: Dear MrX, now you the information from me for Kirlian photography. Also there are from the comments the possibilities for new edition of the page Kirlian photography. When that will be ready.
I am scientist with the research in physics (spectroscopy) and medicine (vision analyzer). I am also specialist for Act of copy right. I am fluent in Russian, French, German and English.
Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Mbreht, I have done the best I can to provide feedback on your proposed changes. With regard to your above questions or statements, I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. It really does not make sense. It seems that you desire to edit the article but, as I and others have said, this requires a reasonably good command of English. It seems as if you are using Google translator, or some other translation technology for your contributions to English Wikipedia. If you add content to this article and it does not make sense, then it will probably be removed. I hope this helps. — MrX 02:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Mbreht, I too share the concerns of others here. You are not "fluent in English" at all. It's very difficult to understand you, and you seem to have difficulty understanding us, because you often don't reply to specific comments or questions, or your responses don't make sense.
You have been told before that copyright doesn't seem to be relevant here, so please stop mentioning it unless it really is an issue. You don't understand our sourcing requirements either. I suggest you stop your attempts here until you can work together with a Bulgarian who does speak English better and you can then work together. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Dear BullRangifer, I regret that my English is not perfect. During the conferences I have not the problems with presentations in physics and medicine. For me is important that I speaks 5 languages. I also give part of scientific information and I am not sure that everybody understand that without education in natural sciences. Mbreht --Mbreht (talk) 11:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Application of Kirlian photography

Dear MrX, thank you very much for your proposal:

I. Kirlian photography of water drops:

It is proved that Kirlian photography provides information about the distribution of an electric field in an air passage between an object and a registering medium during the discharge (Antonov, 1979). In 1968 Antonov performed Kirlian black-white photography of water drop. In 2004 Korotkov measured the Kirlian glow for drops of different liquid. In 2010 Ignatov’s experiments showed that for different water a different electric color image is obtained. Kirlian images of water droplets show that different water perceives differently the electric field.

  1. Antonov, A., Yuskeselieva, L., Research of water drops with High-frequency electric discharge (Kirlian) effect, Bulgarian Academy of Science, 2I, N5 (1968).
  2. Antonov, A., Yuskesselieva, L., Selective high frequency discharge (Kirlian effect), Acta Hydrophysica, Berlin, 29 (1985)5
  3. Korotkov K.G., Krizhanovsky E.V. et. al., The dynamic of the Gas Discharge around drops of liquids. In book: Measuring Energy Fields: State of the Science, Backbone Publ.Co., Fair Lawn, USA, 2004. PP. 103-123.
  4. Korotkov K., Korotkin D. Concentration dependence of gas discharge around drops of inorganic electrolytes. J of Applied Physics, 2001, 89, 9, 4732-4737.
  5. Ignatov, I., Tsvetkova, V., Water for the origin of life and informationability of water, Kirlian (electric images) of different types of water, Euromedica, Hanover, (2011).
  6. Ignatov, I., Mosin, O. V., Kirlian effect for the study of properties of water and biological objects, Congress, Science, Information, Consciousness, Saint-Petersburg Technical University (2012).
  7. Skarja M., Berden M., and Jerman I. Influence of ionic composition of water on the corona discharge around water drops. J. Appl. Phys. 84, 2436, 1998.

Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 09:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

WHAT IS GDV of Prof. Korotkov? The GDV Pro camera complex of Korotkov consists of hardware and software for the direct computer recording processing and interpretation of GDV images. GDV pictures are created using unique patented optical system and CCD camera in daylight conditions with real-time processing. The camera is portable, can be battery operated and is safe for both the patient and the operator. The GDV Software offers advanced features and yet it is easy to use. It has a friendly state-of-the-art graphic interface and is supplied with manuals and help.

ATTENTION: The Kirlian pictures are photographed on a special film. The image quality is much higher than the electric auras filmed with digital methods like GDV method. With GDV method there is detection only of 2 colors - blue and violet. Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 09:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

II. Kirlian photography of electric glow around non-living biological objects:

  1. Kolmakow S., Hanninen O., Korotkov K., Kuhmonen P. Gas discharge visualization system applied to the study of non-living biological objects // J. Pathophysiology. 1998. 5. 55.

Korotkov K. Light After Life. Backbone publishing, NY. 1998.

III. Kirlian photography of electric glow around living biological objects and explanation of Kirlian effect:

SOURCE 1 IS VERY IMPORTANT:

  1. Pehek J.O., Kyler K.J., and Faust D.L. Image modulation in Corona Discharge Photography. Science 1976, 194, 263-270.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/968480 Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 11:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

  1. Antonov, A., Galabova, T., Selective high frequency discharge (Kirlian effect), Reports from the 6th Nat. Confer. of Biomedical Physics and Engineering, Bulgarian Academy of Science, Sofia (1992).
  2. Antonov, A., Yukesselieva, L., Kirlian effekt, Wisenshaft. Zeitschrift Der TU, Magdeburg, 31 (1987) 57.
  3. Antonov, A., Yukesselieva, L., Kirlian effect, Internatinal Agrophysics, 2 (3) 1986 (3).
  4. Antonov, A., Yukesselieva, L., Kirlian effect, Acta Hydrophysica, Berlin, 29 (1985)5.
  5. Antonov, A., Yukesselieva, L., Kirlian effect, Compterend. de l'Acad. Bulg. des. scie., 37, (1984), 1203.

IV. Sport and health

  1. Bundzen P., Korotkov K., Balandin V., Volkov I., Kollodi O. Innovation processes in the technologies of psychic preparation and psycho-diagnostics in the Olympic sport. Theory and Practice of the physical culture. N 5, pp. 12-18, 2001.
  2. Shaduri M.I., Chichinadze G.K. Application of bioenergography in Medicine. Georgian Engineering News. N 2, pp.109-112, 1999.
  3. Bundzen P., Zagrantsev V., Korotkov K., Leisner P., Unestahl L.-E. Comprehensive Bioelectrographic Analysis of Mechanisms of the Altered State of Consciousness. Human Physiology, 2000, 26, 5, 558-566.
  4. Bundzen P., Korotkov K., Massanova F., Kornysheva A. Diagnostics of Skilled Athletes PsychoPhysical Fitness by the Method of Gaz Discharge Visualisation Proceedings 5th Annual Congress of the European College of Sport Science. – Jyväskylä, Finland, 2000. – P. 186.
  5. Bundzen, P.V. and Korotokov, K.G. Health evaluation based on GDV parameters. In Proc International Scientific Congress on Bioelectrography, St. Petersburg, Russia, 2000, pp 5-7.
  6. Bundzen P., Korotkov K. New computer technology for evaluating the psycho-physical fitness of athletes. Physical Education and Sport. Warszawa, 2002, 46 (1), 392-393.

Mbreht --Mbreht (talk) 09:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

V. Flaw detection, Biology

  1. Boichenko, A. P., Electrical transparently of dielectrics in gas discharge (Kirlian effect), Flaw detection, №6, Moscow, 1995.
  2. Boichenko, A. P., Research of topography of gas discharge image (Kirlian photography), Journal for Application Photography, №3, Moscow, 2002.
  3. Gudakova, G. Z. et al., Study of parameters of gas discharge glow microbiological cultures, Journal for Application Spectroscopy, issue 49, №3, Moscow, 1988.
  4. Gudakova, G. Z. et al., Research of the crop growth of fungi С. Quilliermondy with method of Kirlian, Journal for Mythology and Fitology, issue 2, №2, Moscow, 1990.
  5. Antonov, A., Yuskesselieva, L., Research of electrical discharge (Kirlian effect) from the biological objecfs. Signal AM, №7, Moscow.

This research is connected with Kirlian photography of leaves from Saintpanlia ionanta Wendl, human skin and human skin with inflamation. Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 11:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

VI.Medicine

Kirlian method is not medical method. There are not statistically reliable results with application of GDV method of Prof. Korotkov for medical diagnostics. The information is official from Russian Ministry of Health.

Katorgin, V. S., Meizerov, Е. Е., Actual questions GDV in medical activity, Congress Traditional Medicine, Federal Scientific Clinical and Experimental Center of Traditional Methods of Treatment and Diagnosis, Ministry of Health, pp 452-456, Moscow, Elista, 2000.

I hope that I am useful with this information for page Kirlian photography. Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 11:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Some needed improvements

While were on the subject of WP:RS there some other questionable sources throughout this article. For example,

  • www.korotkov.org/ - for the section on, you guessed it, Konstantin Korotkov. Also the other five reference for that section seem pretty weak.
  • www.randi.org/encyclopedia/Kirlian%20photography.html An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural. James Randi Educational Foundation. - for the section How it worksAs far as I know, James Randi is a magician, not a scientist.
  • IEEE Xplore search: "Kirlian" OR "gas discharge visualization" - Not even a source, but a search followed by some [[WP:SYN]

Also, the sections How it Works and Explanations are kind of the same thing, aren't they? These sections should be combined and condensed. How about a adding a section on History. Or perhaps a section on Practical Applications (if there are any).

I think there have been a lot of good contributions to the article over time, but I think it needs a more work to make it more cohesive and reliable. — MrX 02:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree about Korotkov, and have removed the paragraphs about him. I looks like promotion. As for Randi, he's not just a (former) stage magician, but a leading and highly respected debunker of woo-woo, and has an excellent reputation for fact-checking. In any case, he is reliable for the claim attributed to him in the article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
The removal of the Korotov material is a good step toward improving the article and it should not be added back in unless it can be properly cited. The difficulty I have with Randi is how he is used in the article. He is not a scientist, and if he makes conclusions that are not supported by scientific proof, or attributed to valid scientific theory, then the material should be removed.
There seems to be some WP:SYN in the research section, but it may just not have good inline citations. Also, the article seems to gravitate toward explaining electrical coronal discharge, but very little on the photography aspect.
I will attempt to make some incremental changes to the article later. I'm going to be pretty bold in removing statements that are not referenced in reliable sources, or that are original research. If I can't summarize the edits in the edit summaries, I will bring the justifications here. - MrX 13:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I removed the following from the article...

Original Research

The research that is published in peer-reviewed scientific journals generally addresses the physics of plasma coronas and the factors that affect them. The IEEE has published six peer-reviewed journal articles (as of June 2012) that include the word "Kirlian" in the title or abstract.[3] However, these articles are strictly science-based, and when they address the psuedoscientific claims made by paranormal investigators, they expressly refute those claims.[citation needed]

The 13 papers published by the IEEE which included the phrase "gas discharge visualization" were all published in unrefereed conference proceedings.[citation needed]

...which essentially says, "I did a search and found some articles that mention Kirlian photography and some more articles that mention something related to the electrical phenomenon that is used in Kirlian photography. It doesn't add any information the article. Any conclusions drawn are the result of on the part of the editor. It would be like searching for "cure for cancer", seeing that most articles mention chemotherapy and then concluding that chemotherapy is the cure for cancer. MrX 19:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Just skimmed your recent changes. Looks good. Thanks for putting in the time to improve the article. GaramondLethe 17:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm happy to help. Thanks for your support. - MrX 21:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Pop Culture

I have removed some of the content under In popular culture which was lacking source citations. I don't think this article needs to be a repository for every garage band, novel, and television program that has ever mentioned Kirlian photography. — MrX 19:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Additional edits planned in the near future

I have four books on Kirlian Photography on order, and I'm hoping to get access to JSTOR, HighBeam Research, Questia and Credo soon. This should allow me to make some substantial contributions to the article.

I also plan to restructure the article, especially the sections Technique, Claims of aura photography, Scientific explanations and Research. Here is my proposal:

  1. Lead
  2. History
  3. Overview (discussion of basic techniques and scientific explanations)
  4. Research
  • Paranormal/paraphychological research
  • Scientific research
  • Pseudo-scientific claims (Aura photography, etc.)
  1. Applications
  • Medical
  • Materials science/Engineering (?)
  • Biological sciences
  • Art

Can anyone think of any major points I might be missing? Comments are welcome. — MrX 19:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear MrX your plan is very interesting. I would like to be correct. In September and October I have 3 scientific projects and congresses for 1 week each. I am free in August and for me is challenge the page Kirlian photography. The task is not easy, because 80% of the publications are in Russian. When I am free I will send quickly answers. 

Mbreht --Mbreht  (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

History

I have a added a History section, with some of the chronological events involving Kirlian photography. I moved the Thelma Moss content to History, which leaves a gaping hole in the Research section. Perhaps this would be a good place to put current research. — MrX 18:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear MrX, your level like editor is high. The readers will know the real history of Kirlian effect. Also is very important the information about the difference between Western and Eastern Europe, USA of this topic. The book "Psychic Discoveries Behind the Iron Curtain" is your source with chapter Kirlian photography - pictures of the aura ( from 200 till 213 page). I have only one proposal for proof edition:
The text is:
In 1898, Russian engineer Yakov Narkevich-Todko demonstrated electrography at the fifth exhibition of the Russian Technical Society.
The text can be:
In 1898, In 1898, Belorussian engineer Yakov Narkevich-Iodko demonstrated electrography at the fifth exhibition of the Russian Technical Society.
Yakov Narkevich-Iodko has been from Belarus and with practice in Russia. His second family is Iodko (NOT Todko).
Mbreht --Mbreht (talk) 11:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
EASTERN EUROPE: In the book Psychic Discoveries Behind the Iron Curtain there is chapter for Vanga (from 265 till 288 page). Vanga hes been assistant in Bulgarian Academy of Science. In Eastern Europe the research of the people with bioabilities, Kirlian effect etc. is real science. I would like to show only one example from the cosmic industry in Russia. The publication is: Zagryadskiy, V., Electrodiagnostics and correction of human organism for long cosmic expeditions, Cosmos - Information, New Technologies, Russian State Found for Cosmic Research, 2000. The cosmonauts Volk and Atkov were performed electropuncture diagnostics at the board of Salut 7 in 1984. The measurement is of electroparameters of fingers like Kirlian effect.
Dear MrX, if you in Research shows the information for Kirlian effect like in History will be perfect for readers. Now in Germany and Austria there are GDV devices of Prof. Korotkov. I am sure for 2 places - Berlin and Wien. Mbreht :--Mbreht (talk) 11:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Mbreht, would you please use colons (:) to indent your comments on the talk page (read WP:INDENT). That way we can keep everything easily readable on the talk page. Thanks in advance.
Do you have a better source that mine to support "...Belorussian engineer Yakov Narkevich-Iodko..."?
Yakov Narkevich-Iodko (1847—1905), Bibliographical book, National Academy of Science of Belarus, Commission for History of Science, Central Scientific Library “Kolasa”, Belorussian Science, 2010. and Russian Wikipedia: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87-%D0%98%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BA%D0%BE,_%D0%AF%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D0%9E%D1%82%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87 Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 08:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
In the paragraph above that begins with "EASTERN EUROPE:" I assume that this is content that you want to add. You should feel free to, however, it will need to be re-written so that it makes sense and fits into the overall narrative of the article. I think someone (User:Laveol) on your talk page offered to help you. Perhaps that would be an option for you.
Dear Laveol, your proposal is very important, because there is difference between of Western and Eastern Europe for the research with Kirlian effect. Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 09:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Since much of content that you deposited above suggests that some Kirlian photography research has moved in practical application, we might want to have a new section called Applications, if the content is eventually added to the article with reliable sources. — MrX 14:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Dear MrX, the second family Todko of Yakov Narkevich-Iodko is not correct. This is only error of the source. My language is in Cyrillic alphabet. Yakov Narkevich-Yodko also is possible, but Iodko is more correct. I have big practice with translation of the names.
Mbreht --Mbreht (talk) 09:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Why are we discussing the English transliteration of a Russian transliteration of a Polish name? Jakub Narkiewicz-Jodko was Polish, not Russian or Belarusan, and came from a well-known Polish aristocratic family known or their medical and scientific achievements. We even have a Wikipedia article on Konstanty Jodko-Narkiewicz, who appears to be his son or nephew, and continued the work of Jakub. I suggest we use the Polish spelling than a transliteration of a transliteration. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Dear Dominus Vobisdu, I know that you are living in Poland and that you have interest for history of Eastern Europe. My source is Russian Wikipedia and encyclopedia in Belaruss. The family of Jacob Narkevich-Iodko is Iodko Gerba-Lis. This is the family from Belarus and Poland and he is not Russian. He was born bear Minsk, Belarus and he is not Russian. The correct is Iodko, Yodko or Jodko in this order, but not Todko. In Cyrillic his name is Якуб Наркевіч-Ёдка. You can be sure that I am absolutely precise.

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87-%D0%98%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BA%D0%BE,_%D0%AF%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D0%9E%D1%82%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87 Mbreht --Mbreht (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Now everything is clear from Russian bibliographical source in ENGLISH:

Yakov Ottonovich Narkevich-Iodko (1847–1905). http://www.therussianbookstore.com/10026396 Mbreht --Mbreht (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

We have to defer to the sources, and the only source we have clearly says Russian and 'Yakov Narkevich-Todko'. Mbreht changed it to -Iodko, which I reverted, having mistaken the I for and l. I then changed it from -Todko to -Yodko after reviewing the ru.wiki article, which seemed reasonable since he was Russian, according to the source.
I'm sure you would agree that Yakov, Jacob and Jakub (Jakob, James, Jacques, etc.) are all versions of the same name, transliterated into English from different languages. The same is true with Yodko, Iodko, Jodko and (possibly) Todko.
With regard to whether he was Russian, Belarusian or Polish, we have to realize that territorial boundaries have changed much in that past 150 years. The bottom line is that information we put into Wikipedia needs to be sourced, and right now, the only source for this is Man, Myth and Magic (which I acknowledge is a less-than-reliable source), but it's better that no source. Unless someone has other sources to contradict what is already written in the article, then I recommend we leave it as is for now. If additional sources reveal contradictory information, then it should be noted in the footnotes, or we can discuss here which source we trust the most.
As I mentioned elsewhere on this page, I have ordered several books on Kirlian Photography, which will hopefully shed more light on this. — MrX 12:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, I'm fine with changing it to -Iodko as suggested by Mbreht. We can footnote the name variations. According to [this], he was born in what was then Russia, and is now Belarus. No doubt, at some time in history, it was also in Poland. I will leave others to sort that out.
I appreciate everyone's efforts to research the subject. This really helps toward making this a good article. — MrX 17:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Dear MrX, this Wikipedia and I have published the information and sources, which are 100% sure from original sources. 90% of the information for Kirlian effect is not clear, because part of the people, who do that are academical level. Also their desires are more than level. Mbreht --Mbreht (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Topic Research

In research there is text:

Kirlian photography has been a subject of psuedoscientific and paranormal research.

7. Stenger, Victor J. (1999). "Bioenergetic Fields". The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine 3 (1).

8. Skrabanek, P. (1988). "Paranormal Health Claims". Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences 44 (4): 303-309.

Dear MrX, with topic Kirlian photography we can be very precise for the direction psuedoscientific and paranormal research. I already informed that source 7 is not reliable. Please, show in source 8 the information about Kirlian effect, because I didn’t receive it.

“Bioenergetical Fields” is not correct. The definition from author, who is not physicist is nothing and has not value in WIKIPEDIA like reliable source. For biophysical fields the following publications are undisputed. There are including electric fields too: 1. Gulyaev, Yu. V., Godik, E. E., Physical fields from biological objects, Newspaper of Acad. Of Scie. SU, N8 (1983) 118. 2. Gulyaev, Yu. V., Godik, E. E, Physical fields from biological objects, Scientific American, N5 (1990)75.

In USA there is a publication of Prof. Robert Jahn: Jahn, R., The Persistent Paradox of Phychic Phenomena: An Engeneering Perspective, Proceedings of the IEEE, 70 (1982) http://teilhard.global-mind.org/papers/pear/IEEE_PEAR.pdf

In this publication in reliable source there is research of human abilities. The devices of this study are not abject of “psuedoscientific and paranormal research”. Then why Kirlian method can be estimate like psuedoscientific. The desire of the people, who say that this is aura is one and the research of the scientists is different. The sources like 7. and 8. in Eastern Europe there are a lot. From other site there are real research of doctors and professors in science. What is the reliability of Kirlian method is different. In WIKIPEDIA we can show the reality. Aura camera is psuedoscientific method and this is clear. We have not right to show the names of the people, who make pseudoscience. Then Prof. Robert Jahn can be of this page, but this is not that, because the measurement of the phenomena didn't influence on his academical name. Why the publication is in IEEE journal? With research of physical fields from biological objects Prof. Gulyev is not pseudoscientist and thermovision, devices for measurement of electro and magnetic field are not part psuedoscientific methods. He is one of the most eminent scientist in Russia for XX century. Pceudoscience is not correct application of one method from the people, who have education and this is iformation from Wikipedia.

Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 07:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Mbreht, citation [7] (Stenger, Victor J. (1999). "Bioenergetic Fields". The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine 3 (1).) is from a peer-reviewed journal that evaluates claims of alternative medicine on a scientific basis. In the five paragraphs about Kirlian photography, Stenger criticizes some of the claims made by some alternative medicine practitioners for their foolish and dishonest claims. His use of the word "Bioenergetic Fields" comes from Joanne Stefanatos in "Introduction to Bioenergetic Medicine."
I don't have access to [8]. If you do, and can attest that it does not discuss Kirlian photography, then you can remove that source (and the content that depends on that source) from the article.
I will look at the IEEE article that you linked and comment on it later.
If I understand your point correctly, you believe that the article gives undue weight to the pseudoscience aspect of some of the claims made by "researchers" who have co-opted Kirlian photography for various reasons, such as promoting alternative cures, books, medical devices, seminars and workshops. A simple Google search reveals this zeitgeist abundantly. My goal is to get some of the more serious research into this article. However, we can't just insert every scientific paper ever written. We have to use more tertiary sources that summarize the field with due weight to all perspectives. — MrX 13:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear MrX, Thank you very much for your deep understanding. This is that “some of the claims made by "researchers" who have co-opted Kirlian photography for various reasons”. I have interest of this topic from 1986 and I know personally the scientists, who make professional research. There are not more than 10. You have already the publications of topic Kirlian (Application). From other side in the world there are a lot of people with low level Kirlian devices, GDV camera and they make free explanations and stories for medical effect of Kirlian, study of the human aura. There are not reliable sources. We can selected in Wikipedia the real, interesting information. I wish you success to you.

Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 14:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Aura in Physics and Kirlian aura

In Physics - Aura, a phenomenon in which gas or dust surrounding an object luminesces or reflects light from the object. SOURCE IS ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA: Optical effects: Aura, a phenomenon in which gas or dust surrounding an object luminesces or reflects light from the object.

In Eastern Europe in the scientific publication is accepted that Kirlian or bioelectrical aura is real phenomena in physics. In Russian Wikipedia there is text in the beginning of page Kirlian photography: Kirlian aura is glow of electro discharge at the surface of objects.

That means, that aura has not only esoteric definition and we can be precise with Kirlian aura. Much better is to show the definition from Russian Wikipedia like collection from different scientific sources.

Mbreht --Mbreht (talk) 12:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Aura commonly refers to a purported paranormal phenomena in English. The optical effect that you mention is called a halo, although the glow around objects under the influence of high-potential electrical fields is commonly called coronal discharge. The use of the word aura on the ru.wiki article seems to be colloquial, or at best, an alternative name to what is otherwise referred to plasma glow electric discharge (плазменное свечение электроразряда).
From ru.wiki: "Kirlian effect, Kirlian effect, "Kirlian aura" - plasma glow electric discharge on the surface of objects, which are pre-placed in an alternating electric field of high frequency 10-100 kHz , at which a surface tension [ unknown term ] between the electrode and the object under study from 5 to 30 kV . Effects similar to static discharge or lightning is observed on biological objects, as well as inorganic samples of different nature."
— MrX 14:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Dear MrX, aura has different explanations and in aura is also physical phenomena. This text is correct like translation "plasma glow electric discharge on the surface of objects". The text for English Wikipedia can be "glow of electric discharge on the surface of objects". The idea that this is plasma is of Prof. Inyushin, but this is not correct. Prof. Inyushin is doctor in biology and it is normal to be not perfect in physics. I already publish the conclusion of Prof. Antonov, who has scientific publication regarding Prof. Inyushin. This text is not correct translation from Russian "which a surface tension [ unknown term ] between the electrode and the object under study from 5 to 30 kV.". The text means "between the object and electrode there is voltage from 5 to 30 kV". Russian is emotional language with a lot of combinations of words. My Russian in Physics is perfect.
Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 15:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Aura may indeed mean something else in Russia, but this is English Wikipedia. Aura has specific meanings and connotations in English, as I've tried to explain above. If you want to define "corona discharge" as "aura", it probably will not stand on en.wiki. As far as I know, the light produced by corona discharge (and recorded by Kirlian photography) is due to electron avalanche ionization of mostly nitrogen and oxygen molecules, causing electrons to emit photos as the electrons (valence electrons, if I remember my college physics correctly) fall to their previous lower energy state.
It is not problem if English Wikipedia there is not word Kirlian aura. Will be possible to show the text that in Russia and Europe there is word Kirlian aura. This is true.

"Kirlian aura is glow of electro discharge at the surface of objects." Also the readers can know that there is different explanation like proposal of User Laveol. This different standard makes some misunderstandings. For that we can be precise with topic pseudo science.

Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Please let me know if I am missing your point, but I don't see how redefining words helps this article. — MrX 15:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
What is Kirlian effect from reliable sources of Prof. Anton Antonov:

The experiments are performed in the high-frequency (HF) electric field and also with a transparent hostafan electrode (Antonov, 1984). This variation of the Kirlian method is defined as a selective high frequency discharge (SHFD). Prof. Antonov from Bulgaria shows that the conductivity of the object does not interfere with the electric image. Its formation depends on the distribution of the dielectric permeability (doctor dissertation). Kirlain method is electrographical method.

Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The following publication from Russia is the best for the colors of Kirlian photography.

http://lebendige-ethik.net/4-fiksazija_fotoplenki.html The conclusions are the same like Dr. Ignatov color Kirlain spectral analysis, but he measure real biophysical parameters.

1. Ignatov, I., Marinov, M., Color Kirlian Spectral Analysis. Color Observation with Visual Analyzer, Euromedica, Hanover, (2008).

2. Ignatov, I., Tsvetkova, V., Water for the origin of life and informationability of water, Kirlian (electric images) of different types of water, Euromedica, Hanover, (2011).

3. Ignatov, I., Mosin, O. V., Kirlian effect for the study of properties of water and biological objects, Congress, Science, Information, Consciousness, Saint-Petersburg Technical University (2012)

Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AD%D1%84%D1%84%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82_%D0%9A%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B0#.D0.AD.D1.84.D1.84.D0.B5.D0.BA.D1.82_.D0.9A.D0.B8.D1.80.D0.BB.D0.B8.D0.B0.D0.BD.D0.B0_.D0.B8_.C2.AB.D0.B1.D0.B8.D0.BE.D0.BF.D0.BE.D0.BB.D0.B5.C2.BB Во многих псевдонаучных материалах эффект Кирлиана упоминается, как якобы доказывающий существование так называемого «биополя»[7]. Однако поскольку он наблюдается только при действии на организм внешнего источника высокочастотного напряжения, никакого отношения к «биополю» эффект Кирлиана не имеет. Text from Russian Wikipedia: In a lot of pseudo scientific publications there is information that Kirlian effect shows "biofiled". There is source with high-frequency voltage and that means Kirlain effect has not connection with "biofiled". In Russian Wikipedia is clear Kirlian effect is effect, pseudo science is different.

Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear MrX, the sources 21 and 22 are very strange and don't understand what is the connection with Kirlian photography. And why sites. You know that sites and selfpublishig books are not reliable sources. Please, see all sources again:

21. Images reproduced at; http://www.buzzfeed.com/twentyfourbit/david-bowies-kirlian-photo-before-and-after-1wab

22. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077808/

Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Mbreht, I think I need to clear up a possible misconception. I am not in charge of this page. I have contributed some in the past month or so, and plan to contribute more, but I have no more authority over content than you, or any other editor on Wikipedia. I can not defend citations that I did not add, and would not have added, in the two cases you list above. If you think that removing that content is best for the article, then be bold and remove it. If another editor disagrees, they will revert your edits, or discuss them here on the talk page. — MrX 16:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Dear MrX, I know that perfect. When you will be ready with this page and I will discuss the sources with editors.Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Awesome. I apologize for my error. — MrX 17:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Dear MrX, thank you very much for your proof edition in History and the difference between Eastern and Western Europe, USA. I published the information in research with reliable sources. Please, you can do Applications of Kirlian effect. Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome. I will look at the article and try to help with some copy editing tomorrow. I am working on some of the 'applications' content in my sandbox, but it's not quite ready to add to the article yet.
Thanks for your efforts. — MrX 22:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Dear MrX, thank you very much. Now I am sure that Kirlian photography is one of the best in the world with our common efforts and interesting for a lot of readers. In next future with Application it will be the best. The text in Research is optimal in scientific-popular language. Prof. Antonov, Prof. Inyushin and Dr. Adamenko now are around 80 year old and they will be very happy, that the results of their life is in Wikipedia. Prof. Antonov has been in specialization of Nobel holder Prof. Manfred Eigen in West Germany and Clive Backster in USA. This was very, very difficult during the socialism. Mbreht --Mbreht (talk) 04:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
No problem, Mbreht. I understand that it must be difficult getting scientific knowledge from the former USSR into the mainstream. I have copy edited the material that you added yesterday. Please let me know if I inadvertently changed the meaning of anything, or otherwise erred in my edits. — MrX 14:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ Stenger, Victor J. (1999). "Bioenergetic Fields". The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine. 3 (1).
  2. ^ Skrabanek, P. (1988). "Paranormal Health Claims". Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences. 44 (4): 303–309.
  3. ^ IEEE Xplore search: "Kirlian" OR "gas discharge visualization" (Accessed July 1, 2012).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kirlian_photography/Archive_1&oldid=524441239"