In existographies, Robert Hanlon (2- AE) (1957- ACM) (LH:10) is an American chemical engineer, noted for his 2020 Block by Block: the Historical and Theoretical Foundations of Thermodynamics, wherein he gives an illustrative step-by-step history of thermodynamics using a physical-conceptual style of presentation, in a soft-laymanized manner, albeit threaded with a salient amount of "creation" terminology usage.
In the early 1980s, in graduate school, while working on his chemical engineering PhD at MIT, the following to quotes began resonate in Hanlon's mind, in respect to his desire to understand thermodynamics better:
- “Ah, that is the ultimate goal, isn’t it? To connect the micro with the macro!”
- — Preetinder Virk (c.1983), response to graduate student Hanlon’s query about why a certain physical phenomenon happened the way it did?
- “The way to approach this problem is to first picture yourself as the molecule. What do you see?”
Later, Hanlon, while working at Mobil Oil’s R&D Center, having calculated the temperature rise of a gas undergoing adiabatic compression, asked himself: "Why exactly does the temperature rise?". These three questions, beginning in about 2000, catalyzed his aim to search out the historical roots of thermodynamics; thereafter, he began to grow a personal thermodynamics library, as others have (see: Thims thermodynamics book collection).
In 2020, Hanlon completed his Block by Block: the Historical and Theoretical Foundations of Thermodynamics. He commented, in video, the following on the books origin:
- “Why I wrote Block by Block: the Historical and Theoretical Foundations of Thermodynamics, is that, simply put, I didn’t get it the first time around. And, frankly, when I graduated, did well in the courses, I was embarrassed that I really didn’t understand thermodynamics at a fundamental level. I felt like a bit of a fraud to be honest. I understood the basic concepts that were being taught and how to work with them, such as work, heat, energy, and entropy, but did I truly understand those concepts: no! I didn’t understand how the concepts were connected to or related to the atomic theory of matter, for example, the world of colliding atoms, I didn’t see how that all fit together. I was deeply bothered by that, so much bothered, in fact, that I started to do some research on these topics in my spare time. I dug into he science, and while doing so, found a whole treasure trove of history. One thing led to another, and I had to build a bookcase.”
- — Robert Hanlon (2020), “Block by Block: Why I Wrote the Book”, May 26 
Hanlon, in respect to visual illustration, was influenced by Edward Tufte’s 1983 The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, which itself was influenced by John Tukey’s 1960s efforts to make visual statistical graphics a respectable field of study. He then connected with artist Carly Sanker, who did the cover and 32-illustrations of Block by Block. Below, left, e.g., we see Hanlon's conceptualized "thermodynamics block wall", illustrated by Sanker, shown with the blocks: big bang, atom, energy, entropy, science and history, space (or cosmos), fire (or heat), (first law) and (entropy equation), and a gas particle in a box image:
Hanlon's wall is compared, above (right), to Judson Herrick's 1930 concept of the modern college student, who he envisions as a a soft shell Humpty Dumpty sitting on an invisible physico-chemical materialism wall, that is situated between the physical science and engineering departments, on one side, and and social sciences and humanities departments, on the other side, found on all modern university campuses, made of the foundation bricks: telos (or teleology), atoms, stars; the capstone bricks of: Aristotle, Lucretius, Bruno, and Darwin; where up in the clouds are hushed up and confused things, such as: life, soul, god, spirit, purpose, morality, and meaning, upon which the modern college student sits, tipping over backwards from confusions powered by the weight of his or her mental and physical passions:
Hmolpedia | Part by part
This "block by block" Hanlon-Coopersmith model of doing the history of thermodynamics (or energy), in some ways, seems to be similar to the original envisioned nature of Hmolpedia; in that, when Libb Thims launched Hmolpedia, in 2005 to 2007 (see: progress report), he had envisioned breaking down the corpus of thermodynamics, in entirety, component by component, term by term, scientists by scientist, experiment by experiment, conjecture, hypothesis, ideas, and all the related footnotes and citations to this, in exactly the same way that Howard Hughes, at the age of 14, in 1919, bought a Bearcat, the then-ranked fastest car in the world, tore apart, and put back together again, in less than a month, all so that he could see how it "worked". Thims, similarly, possibly similar to Hanlon and his "bricks", desires to take thermodynamics apart, understand ALL of its separate components, in pure form, then put it all back together again, so to see how it "runs" or "works", in a clear manner.
Errors | Difficulties
In commentary on Joule, Hanlon says the following:
- “As Cardwell suggested, it’s actually hard to find any underlying philosophy, including religion, behind Joule’s work. His only philosophy was the pursuit of truth.”
- — Robert Hanlon (2020), Block by Block (pg. 252)
Correctly, Joule’s entire program was to measure the mechanical equivalent of heat so precisely, so that, in his mind, he would be able to quantify the description of the watery chaos part of creation as described in Genesis, of the Bible.
Hanlon devotes his final §43: “Shannon: Entropy and Information Theory”, devoted to pointing out the connection between Szliard’s demon and Shannon’s demon; the following are his concluding remarks to this chapters:
Shannon did not read German and so was not exposed to the work of Boltzmann. But Szilard did and was and shared ideas with von Neumann, who in turned shared ideas with Shannon. So it was that Shannon learned that in preparing a mathematical approach to information theory he had re-invented Boltzmann's mathematical approach to statistical mechanics. Once he realized this, he pulled terminology from Boltzmann into his work and so caused some confusion. Compounding the confusion was his use of terminology from probability mathematics to describe events in everyday life. Language can serve to unify and clarify or sow seeds of confusion. In Shannon's case, his language arguably tipped the scale more toward the side of confusion.
I intentionally left out some of the terminology that Shannon used so that you could experience for yourself the confusion. I'll now share some examples of them. Instead of creating a message, the sender chooses the message from a list of available symbols, each having a discrete probability. Information is a measure of one's freedom of choke in this statistical process and a message with varying probability the outcome. The receiver is uncertain of what the message says until the message is received and decoded. The information source is an ergodic system—a term that Boltzmann created—that continually transmits all possible messages. It's no coincidence that Shannon labeled the size of information with the letter H in light of Boltzmann's H-theorem. He called H the size of information which itself is confusing as H is really a ratio of two numbers. And as a final example, in seeking a tighter one-word term for H, he employed the word entropy. H is the entropy of the information source. While the end result was powerful and foundational, reading the language and terminology, such as the above-italicized words, is rather confusing, especially the use of the word entropy.
Boltzmann and Shannon started from two very different points and ended up at the same equation, but this doesn't necessarily mean that the two starting points are related. Boltzmann's entropy quantifies the number of different ways that discrete entities can be arranged based on location and momentum. Shannon's entropy quantifies the minimum number of binary digits necessary to encode the symbols used to transmit messages. While I leave it to others to argue about the similarity (or not) between these two entropies, my intent in presenting it here is simply to point out that, for many, Shannon started a paradigm shift from thinking about energy to thinking about information, even going so far as to suggest that information is more fundamental than energy.”
The statement that Shannon "It's no coincidence that Shannon labeled the size of information with the letter H in light of Boltzmann's H-theorem", is incorrect. Correctly, the "letter H", used in information theory, e.g. in Shannon's 1949 article, comes from Ralph Hartley's 1928 “Transmission of Information” article, wherein he gives the following formula:
where ‘H’ is the amount of information associated with n selections for a particular telegraph system, and information is defined as the "logarithm of the number of possible symbol sequences", symbol sequences here meaning 1s and 0s, or high and low voltages. The "H" of Boltzmann's H-theorem stands for "heat", specifically the velocity distributions of the atoms and molecules of the body of gas. Boltzmann, in fact, in his "Further Studies on the Thermal Equilibrium of Gas Molecules" (1872), never even used the symbol "H" in his distribution formulas, but rather employs the symbol "E" which he says is related to entropy.
This statement that Shannon "suggested that information if more fundamental than energy", is flatly incorrect. Shannon, correctly, had to publish his recant article "The Bandwagon" (1956) to tell everyone that his information theory, which by then had ballooned everywhere, does NOT apply outside of communications engineering and mathematics proper.
Hanlon ends the chapter by quoting Seth Lloyd:
- “To do anything requires energy. To specify what is done requires information.”
- — Seth Lloyd (2006), Programming the Universe (pg. 144); cited by Robert Hanlon (2020) in Brick by Brick (pg. 605)
Seth Lloyd, however, is nothing but a John Wheeler "humans are exempt from the second law" proselyte. Hanlon then footnotes this chapter by citing Arieh Naim, who he says has done as much as anyone to “outline statistical thermodynamics based on information theory”, and “highly recommends” his Farewell to Entropy (2008). Ben-Haim, however, is basically an intellectual buffoon, whose entire agenda seems to be an underlying theistic program.
In respect to "names", we find a similar pattern, particularly in respect to the red flag name "Shannon", in respect to comparing the term usage, based on Amazon key term search results, of Ingo Muller’s History of Thermodynamics (2007) with Hanlon’s Brick by Brick (2020), the numbers in brackets being the word/page usage ratio:
|Muller (2008) | 330-pgs||3 (0.0091)||45||15||60||26||62||26||8|
|Hanlon (2020) | 672-pgs||13 (0.019)||213||159||130||200||81||104||36|
Here, we see a 209% above-the-norm usage of the name Shannon (who has absolutely NOTHING to do with the history of thermodynamics). Historically, it is common for a creationist, as an informationist, to oversell Shannon.
While Hanlon, supposedly, skirts the issue, has he says, not overtly taking sides on the matter, his ending that Shannon initiated a paradigm change, that Shannon inferred that “information is more fundamental than energy”, which Shannon did not say, and also specifically warned against (see: Shannon bandwagon), and citations to Lloyd and Ben-Naim as “good” references, belies a great deal of ignorance. This is not helpful to the minds of students, who need honest opinionated guidance on this matter. By promoting the equivalence, in a soft manner, Hanlon, invariably, is promoting the "thermodynamic information fallacy". Here, we can compare Hanlon's talk on the matter with the honest and frank opinion of Ingo Muller:
- “No doubt, Shannon and Neumann thought that this was a funny joke, but it is not! It merely exposes Shannon and Neumann as intellectual snobs. Indeed, it may sound philistine, but a scientist must be clear, as clear as he can be, and avoid wanton obfuscation at all cost.”
- — Ingo Muller (2007), A History of Thermodynamics (pgs. 124) 
Hanlon, in short, is perpetuating wanton obfuscation and lack of clearness.
God | Sun god
Another salient difficulty, in Hanson's Brick by Brick (2020), is noticed when one key word searches the term "religion" in his book; where from one will quickly learn that he employs a capital "G" (see: God or god) when he refers to god (14+ times); the following is one example:
- “Let's return to Newcomen's idea for the direct injection of water. While this may seem obvious to us today, it wasn't so back then. In Papin's design concept, the cylinder cooled down naturally. In Savery's design, it cooled down with an external spray. Neither worked particularly well. With no science guiding him, Newcomen himself started with Savery's approach. But then serendipity struck and ‘Almighty God [had not providentially allowed] allowed something very special to occur.’ While operating his prototype, a leak opened up between the external cooling jacket and the interior of the cylinder. The cold water forced itself into the cylinder and immediately condensed the steam and created a vacuum. The piston slammed down into the cylinder with such force that it damaged the equipment. Such is the way discovery sometimes happens. Newcomen's subsequent incorporation of this design change was a significant advance, helping to increase the speed at which his engine operated.”
- — Robert Hanlon (2020), Block by Block (pg. 304)
This can be compared to Libb Thims' section on the origin of Newcomen's internal cooling method (§18.2 | Internal spray cooling) wherein no recourse to Thomas Savery's theological beliefs are used. Most of Hanlon's god-words, e.g. “Newton fundamentally believed in God and fundamentally believed simplicity to be at the heart of God’s creations, however complex they might appear” (pg. 147), are fairly neutral and historically unbiased, on superficial pass.
We do, however, point out, as illustrated adjacent, that god, theology, and thermodynamics each etymologically derive from the sun, sun symbol, and or sun god beliefs embedded therein. Specifically, both "god" (aka theos) and "thermodynamics" derive from the Greek letter theta, symbol "", the 9th letter of the Greek alphabet (1000BC), coded via isopsephy (“318”) as the Greek sun god Helios; the Greek letter (or English sound "th-) itself derived from the Egyptian sun hieroglyph "", the symbol of the Egyptian sun god. Hence, a person who writes a scientific book on thermodynamics, particularly its history, is dealing with a two-sided coin. As Benjamin Carson (2015) famously told us, the modern person has either to "believe in god" or to "believe in entropy".
Hanlon, compared to his basically secular and sparse use of the term "god", does rather favorably employ the term "creation" (42+ times), e.g. the "creation of potential energy", "his creation of U", "creation of terminology", not to mention that of his 43 chapters, the one time he employs the term "creation" in a title chapter, is §33: The Creation of Thermodynamics, which seems to be themed on the Crosbie Smith (1976) usage. Consider, e.g., the following example, wherein Hanlon uses the term "creation" three times in respect to internal energy U and the first law:
- “Consider that when Clausius created U, he was able to reasonably grasp the physical meaning behind it since he based the creation on two comprising properties that he grasped quite well, the vis viva of the moving atoms and the work needed to separate them. In other words, he first learned the pieces than created the whole.”
- — Robert Hanlon (2020), Brick by Brick (pg. 457)
This seems to be "implicit theism"; a softer salient variety than compared to the overt "explicit theism" seen in the writings of Friedrich Rossini (1971) and Gordan Wylen (1985), who explicitly and openly define the laws of thermodynamics as the work of god or a creator:
- “The point of all of this is that our creator has fashioned laws that are deep seated and broadly applicable, that science is heavily intertwined in our everyday life, frequently without our realization, that we need to break down the compartmentalization of knowledge, that we need to work for a unification of learning, and that we need to understand better the meaning and purpose of life.”
Work of a creator
Likewise, to cite a more famous example of overt creation thermodynamics:
- “The second law of thermodynamics is man’s description of the prior and continuing work of a creator, who also holds the answer to the future destiny of man and the universe.”
- — Gordon Wylen (1985), Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics (pg. 233) 
Historically, the attempt to mix theology or creationism with chemical thermodynamics, tends to lead to heated debate, as evidenced by the Rossini debate (2006), which irrupted in the Journal of Chemical Education. Hanlon's creation-friendly word usage could, accordingly, be bordering on closet theism (or closet creationism)? This inference is corroborated, to some extent, via the Beg analysis method of comparing the "key term" usage, based on Amazon key term search results, of Ingo Muller’s History of Thermodynamics (2007) with Hanlon’s Brick by Brick (2020), the numbers in brackets being the word/page usage ratio:
|Muller (2008) | 330-pgs||5 (0.015)||7 (0.021)||2+ (0.0061)||110 (0.33)||173 (0.52)||150 (0.45)||121 (0.37)|
|Hanlon (2020) | 672-pgs||42 (0.063)||14 (0.021)||9+ (0.013)||483 (0.72)||402 (0.60)||348 (0.52)||159 (0.24)|
Here, we see Hanlon the employment the word "creation" at a 420% usage above the norm; presuming Muller's term usage to be the normal or typical word usage rate, for a stand book on the history of thermodynamics (which are few and far between). Moreover, given dominance of the terms "work", on the science side (S-Term), and "creation", on the religious side (R-Term), it would seem to be the case that Hanlon's "history of thermodynamics" is, in his mind, code for the history of the "work of creation"? Hanlon's term usage, can be compared to the term usage ranking in all Hmolpedia articles, where we see "entropy" aligned in the top usage rankings, and "creation" near the bottom.
Creation / Arrival
One telling “creationism-themed” term usage switch, is found when we compare Hanlon's “personal” WordPress blog version of his article “170th Anniversary of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics”, shown below:
- “Upon publishing my book, Block by Block: the Historical and Theoretical Foundations of Thermodynamics, Oxford University Press kindly invited me to write a post related to my book for their academic blog. I gladly accepted and chose as my topic the ‘creation of’ the 1st Law of Thermodynamics by Rudolf Clausius’ work of 1850.”
- — Robert Hanlon (2020), “170th Anniversary of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics”, RobertTHanlon.com, WordPress, Jun 3 
with the peer-vetted Oxford University Press version of the same article:
- “This year marks the 170th anniversary of the ‘arrival of’ the 1st Law of Thermodynamics to science, for it was in 1850 that Rudolf Clausius used the findings of James Joule to correct Sadi Carnot’s “flawed masterpiece,” as historian Robert Fox put it, and in so doing arrived at the equation .”
- — Robert Hanlon (2020), “170th Anniversary of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics”, Medium.com, Oxford University Press, Apr 24 
Here, we see Hanlon, in the vetted (by Oxford University Press) version, use the neutral term “arrival of” the first law, whereas in his personal blog, he reverts to the theistically-loaded “creation of”.
This term switch, brings to mind the famous “Edwards vs Aguillard” (1987) evolution vs creation science court case, illustrated adjacent, following which, it was found, via systematic examination of the “term” usage in US creation biology textbooks, that all usages of the term “creation” and “creationist” were scrubbed out and replaced with “intelligent design” and “design proponent”, respectively, as as a linguistic ploy to sneak religious-based science into the education system.
In sum, the capitalization of "God", while lower-casing "entropy"; the employment the word "creation" at a 420% usage above-the-norm, particularly in respect to the laws of thermodynamics; the favorable citations of informationists, such as: John Neumann, Claude Shannon, Seth Lloyd, and Arieh Ben-Naim, each of whom being theists and or closet creationists; would seem to imply that Hanlon leans towards the theistic thermodynamics side of the fence, subconsciously, moreso than with atheistic thermodynamics (in some unresolved in the mind way)? This, in short, seems to be a "creative energy" painting of the history of thermodynamics.
In 1985, Hanlon completed his PhD in chemical engineering at MIT with a dissertation on “Realised Catalyst characterization and secondary reaction effects in iron-catalyzed Fischer-Tropsch synthesis”. He then did post-doctoral research at Karlsruhe University in Germany. He then spent 23-years in industry, at Mobil Oil Research & Development Corporation, the Rohm and Haas Company, where he specialized on catalyst technologies, among other things. In c.2010, became a lecturer in the school of chemical engineering practice at MIT.
Quotes | Employed
The following are quotes employed by Hanlon:
- “Suppose a piston moves inward, so that the atoms are slowly compressed into a smaller space. What happens when an atom hits the moving piston? Evidently it picks up speed from the collision. You can try it by bouncing a ping-pong ball from a forward-moving paddle, for example, and you will find that it comes off with more speed than that with which it struck (Special example: V an atom happens to be standing still and the piston his it, it will certainly move.) So the atoms are ‘hotter’ when they come away from the piston than they were before they struck it. Therefore, all the atoms which are in the vessel will have picked up speed. This means that when we compress a gas slowly, the temperature of the gas increases. So, under slow compression, a gas will increase in temperature, and under slow expansion it will decrease in temperature.”
- — Richard Feynman (1963), Lectures on Physics, Volume One (pgs. 1-4); cited by Robert Hanlon (2020) in Block by Block (xiii)
- “You may wonder. Why is nature constructed along these lines? One can only answer that our present knowledge seems to show that nature is so constructed. We simply have to accept it. One could perhaps describe the situation by saying that god is a mathematician of a very high order, and he used very advanced mathematics in constructing the universe.”
- “I tried reading Gibbs and couldn’t get past the third page.”
- — Anon (c.2000), comment of PhD student to Robert Hanlon
Quotes | On
The following are quotes on Hanlon:
- “Hanlon has written a masterpiece, 18-years in the making, a lifetime of learning, has resulted in perhaps the most thoroughly readable book on thermodynamics out there. It's not a textbook by any means, it's a journey through time. Hanlon takes you on a personal tour of the museum of thermodynamics. There is a nugget of knowledge on every page. I found myself learning so much about one of my favorite subjects. It just goes to show you that no matter how much or how little you know about a subject, there is still more to learn. My favorite part of this book is the treatment of the second law of thermodynamics, the least understood concept in all of thermodynamics. I won't give away the secret sauce here, but Hanlon's discussion on this subject is unique and fresh and manages to make the second law of thermodynamics an interesting study. Remarkably, we not only learn about the history of thermodynamics in Block by Block, we learn about the fundamentals of thermodynamics without getting overwhelmed with equations and mathematics.”
- — Mike Pauken (2020), Amazon Review, May 26
Quotes | By
The following are quotes by Hanlon:
- “Clausius’ 1850 equation: , is defined such that Q quantifies the heat ‘gained by the system’ (positive value), while W quantifies the ‘work done by the system’ (positive value), such that a system gains energy for positive Q and loses energy for positive W (by doing work).”
- — Robert Hanlon (2020), Block by Block (pg. 117)
- Hanlon, Robert. (2020). Block by Block: the Historical and Theoretical Foundations of Thermodynamics (Illustrators: Robert Hanlon and Carly Sanker) (Bib). Oxford University Press.
- Coopersmith, Jennifer. (2010). Energy, the Subtle Concept: the Discovery of Feynman’s Blocks from Leibniz to Einstein. Oxford University Press.
- Herrick’s Humpty Dumpty – Hmolpedia 2020.
- Block by Block (origin) – RobertTHanlon.com.
- Hanlon, Robert. (2020). “Block by Block: Why I Wrote the Book” (YT), Robert T Hanlon, May 26.
- Carly Sanker – Instagram.
- Home – RobertTHanlon.com.
- Why is this site here? – Hmolpedia 2020.
- Joule, James. (1847). “On Matter, Living Force, and Heat”, Lecture at St. Ann’s Church Reading room; in: Manchester Courier newspaper, May 5 and 12; in The Scientific Papers, Volume 1 (pg. 266). The Physical Society, Great Britain.
- Ben-Naim, Arieh. (2010). Discover Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics: a Playful Way of Discovering a Law of Nature (§: “Snack: Who’s Your Daddy?”, pg. 12). World Scientific.
- Shannon-Neumann anecdote – Hmolpedia 2020.
- Shannon bandwagon – Hmolpedia 2020.
- Thims, Libb. (2012). “Thermodynamics ≠ Information Theory: Science’s Greatest Sokal Affair” (pdf) (annotated review: pdf, by Robert Doyle, 2020), Journal of Human Thermodynamics (Ѻ), 8(1): 1-120, Dec 19.
- Information entropy quotes – Hmolpedia 2020.
- Transmission of information – Hmolpedia 2020.
- H-theorem – Hmolpedia 2020.
- (a) Boltzmann, Ludwig. (1872). “Weitere Studien über das Wärmegleichgewicht unter Gasmolekülen” (pdf), Sitzungsberichte Akademie der Wissenschaften, 66: 275-370.
(b) Boltzmann, Ludwig. (1966). "Further Studies on the Thermal Equilibrium of Gas Molecules", Kinetic Theory, Volume Two (translator: Stephen Brush) (§2:88-175); in: The Kinetic Theory of Gases (§2.2:262-349). Imperial College Press, 2003.
- Muller, Ingo. (2007). A History of Thermodynamics (§: Other Extrapolations. Information, pgs. 123-25). Springer.
- Thermodynamic information fallacy – Hmolpedia 2020.
- (a) Triewald, Martin. (1734). Short Description of the Atmospheric Engine. Publisher.
(b) Rolt, Lionel and Allen, John. (1977). The Steam Engine of Thomas Newcomen (pg. 42). Moorland.
- Thims, Libb. (2020). Human Chemical Thermodynamics — Chemical Thermodynamics Applied to the Humanities: Meaning, Morality, Purpose; Sociology, Economics, Ecology; History, Philosophy, Government, Anthropology, Politics, Business, Jurisprudence; Religion, Relationships, Warfare, and Love (pdf) (§18.2 | Internal spray cooling). Publisher.
- Smith, Crosbie. (1976). “William Thomson and the Creation of Thermodynamics, 1840-1855” (pdf), Archive for History of Exact Sciences, 16:231-88.
- Rossini, Frederick D. (1971). “Chemical Thermodynamics in the Real World” (abs) (pdf), Priestley Medal Address, delivered Mar 29 at the national American Chemical Society meeting, Los Angeles, California; in: Chemical Engineering News, April 5, 49 (14): 50-53.
- (a) Wylen, Gordon and Sonntag, Richard. (1973). Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics (2nd ed) (section: 7.16: Some General Comments Regarding Entropy, pgs. 247-48; creator, pg. 248). Wiley.
(b) Wylen, Gordon and Sonntag, Richard. (1985). Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics (3rd ed) (creator, pg. 233). Wiley.
- Rossini debate – Hmolpedia 2020.
- Science vs religion legal cases – Hmolpedia 2020.
- Hanlon, Robert. (2020). “170th Anniversary of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics” (Ѻ), RobertTHanlon.com, WordPress, Jun 3.
- Hanlon, Robert. (2020). “170th Anniversary of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics” (Ѻ), Medium.com, Oxford University Press, Apr 24.
- Hanlon, Robert T. (1985). “Catalyst characterization and secondary reaction effects in iron-catalyzed Fischer-Tropsch synthesis” (WC), DSc, MIT.
- Robert Hanlon (about) – Exon20Group.org.
- Dirac, Paul. (1963), “The Evolution of the Physicist’s Picture of Nature” (pg. 53), Scientific American, 208(5):43-53, May.