1

Brilliant Light Power is a company that claims, on their web-site, to have:

developed a new commercially competitive, non-polluting, plasma-based primary source of massive power from the conversion of hydrogen atoms of water molecules to dark matter, the previously unidentified matter that makes up most of the mass of the universe. The SunCell® that was invented to harness the new power source catalytically converts hydrogen directly into dark matter form called Hydrino® releasing brilliant high-energy light which is down-converted in energy to facilitate the production of electricity using commercially-available concentrator photovoltaic cells.

Their Wikipedia page says:

Brilliant Light Power, Inc. (BLP), formerly BlackLight Power, Inc. of Cranbury, New Jersey is a company founded by Randell L. Mills, who claims to have discovered a new energy source. The purported energy source is based on Mills' assertion that the electron in a hydrogen atom can drop below the lowest energy state known as the ground state.

Have Brilliant Light Power demonstrated a new energy source?

  • 2
    Doesnt the linked wikipedia article - or more exactly its linked citations - answer this for you? – Jamiec Apr 28 '17 at 8:04
  • 1
    I'm sincerely impressed that they appear to have been able to keep this company going since 1991 (founding of Brilliant Light Power), with this presentation just two months ago. – Nat Apr 28 '17 at 18:20
  • 1
    Nobody knows what dark matter is. Anybody who claims to be making it is automatically dubious. – GordonM May 2 '17 at 9:35
8

No, the claims are completely untrue. The science of why is a little complicated.

The opinions of the users of Physics.SE are that it is:

improbable to the point of being gibberish.

The opinions of the users of Quora are:

The obvious problem with Mills theory is Hydrinos don't exist. It's 99.99999% chances to be a scam. [...] What we are looking at with BLP is nothing more than a elaborate scam involving a fancy light bulb.

MarkCC at the Good Math, Bad Math blog goes into a bit more detail:

What makes hydrinos interesting as a piece of crankery is that there's a lot more depth to it than to most crap. Dr. Mills hasn't just handwaved that these hydrino things exist - he's got a very elaborate detailed theory - with a lot of non-trivial math - to back it up. Alas, the math is garbage, but it's garbage-ness isn't obvious. To see the problems, we'll need to get deeper into math than we usually do.

Randell Mill's idea operates on a claim that a Hydrino exists, where the electron is in a lower ground state than the ground state. That's not related to Cold Fusion.

No Hydrino has ever been observed by anyone else. He's never shown it to anyone else. He's claimed that he's done it and written research papers on it but nobody's ever seen it. If he could show a new lower energy state of hydrogen to somebody, he might win the Nobel prize and he'd certainly be the talk of the town. His fundraising would be thousands of times easier and he'd be instantly recognized if he showed it to some credible scientists. It's worth asking why he won't do that.

The ground state of an electron is the lowest state it can be in. A state lower than the ground state, if it was possible, would likely have been observed by somebody else by now. The odds are extremely high that what Randell Mills proposes is impossible because despite more studies of hydrogen's quantum state than I can count, the hydrino lower than ground state has never been observed.

I think, some of the links above explain it better. But that's my explanation.

Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.

  • 2
    Having links to sources in your answers is good but just in case the link gets lost could you write the key points from those claims in your answer? – Lio Elbammalf Apr 28 '17 at 11:39
  • 2
    @Sklivvz It was still better before you "fixed" it. – userLTK Apr 28 '17 at 12:28
  • 3
    @Sklivvz - The edited portion has nothing to do with the meta links. The excised passage was not mocking or attacking anyone, merely stating skepticism at "too good to be true" claims, and the greater amount of work that goes into examining them than what is required to make such a claim. A more restrained moderator's hand might be in order. – PoloHoleSet Apr 28 '17 at 14:05
  • 2
    Note: I edited this again, before seeing @PoloHoleSet's comment. I felt Sklivvz had not gone far enough to remove personal speculation. I also expanded the links that were there, revealing most of them were unreferenced opinions of Internet randoms. – Oddthinking Apr 28 '17 at 14:07
  • 3
    It's worth noting that the existence of a hydrino wouldn't be sufficient; it'd also have to be stable, or else the hydrogen'd just hop back up to its ground state, consuming the released energy in the process. – Nat Apr 28 '17 at 18:25

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .