Hoax Museum Archives
Hoax Museum Hall of Fame
|
Blacklight Power and Hydrinos
Status: Most likely a free energy scam
An article in the Guardian about Dr. Randall Mills, founder of Blacklight Power, has been generating a lot of debate in the blogosphere. For instance, there's discussion of the article over on Slashdot, and a link to it also got posted in the hoax forum. I wanted to add a few comments here because, although many people might be hearing about Mills for the first time (thanks to the Guardian article), the guy has actually been lurking around since the early 1990s, claiming to have discovered a limitless source of cheap energy. (I recognized Mills because he's discussed in Robert Park's book Voodoo Science, published in 2000.)Mills's theories originally developed out of his interest in cold fusion, though he insists he's not proposing a rejiggered form of cold fusion. Instead, what Mills claims to have discovered is a way to get a hydrogen atom to move to an energy level below the ground state. The ground state is the lowest energy level a hydrogen atom can sink to (according to modern physics). But Mills is saying it can sink even lower (i.e. the electron can move even closer to the proton). When a hydrogen atom sinks to this sub-ground level, it supposedly emits an enormous amount of energy and transforms into what Mills calls a "hydrino". If Mills is right, pretty much all of modern physics is wrong. Which is why Mills probably isn't right.
Of course, Mills could be a genius whose theories are going to completely revolutionize modern science (and modern industry). That's what his supporters claim. But that's what the supporters of ALL free-energy schemers claim. The fact is that for almost fifteen years Mills has been promising that practical applications of his hydrino technology are just around the corner. But nothing ever materializes. And meanwhile he keeps luring in new investors with his wild promises of limitless energy. So it seems to me that Mills and his hydrinos match the familiar free-energy pattern of big promises, but no results.
Listed in chronological order. Newest comments at the end.
Page 1 of 2 pages 1 2 >
http://www.frozenreality.co.uk/comic/bunny/index.php?id=423
Hee...
I have to agree, it does sound very free-energy hoaxish. I'm pretty certain a lot of the math works out to 'because I think it would be a nice idea'..
Posted by Robin Bobcat in Californian Wierdo on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 10:14 PM
Hee...
I have to agree, it does sound very free-energy hoaxish. I'm pretty certain a lot of the math works out to 'because I think it would be a nice idea'..
After reading the extensive article by Erik Baard, and verifying the identities of those quoted...I can't help but think that Mills is onto something. Frankly, I really hope he is as this would be a quantum shift, sorry the pun, in not only thought but in the way we live our lives. Just from the energy aspect, wouldn't it be nice to not have to use oil to power your car and in the process pollute the air? I would love to be able to see all the stars at night again...an experience only allowed by being high in the mountains today...
Posted by Techie on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 11:07 AM
Uh, Techie, you can't see the stars at night because of city lights or natural clouds, not pollution.
Posted by Joe on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 01:50 PM
Well, without further evidence or a series of experiments trying to produce the same results its hard to know if its just hot air. It would be nice if it was true, but I doubt it. It wouldnt be the first false claim in the history of science.
Posted by Lore on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 12:09 AM
Joe,
I live in an area where I can see a good bit of stars on a clear night. I am far enough away from the closest major city that the ambient glow is minimized. Recent winds cleared out the low lying muck one day and it was clear enough to see a fully populated sky. It was really quite amazing and beautiful.
Posted by Techie on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 07:16 AM
I live in an area where I can see a good bit of stars on a clear night. I am far enough away from the closest major city that the ambient glow is minimized. Recent winds cleared out the low lying muck one day and it was clear enough to see a fully populated sky. It was really quite amazing and beautiful.
Sorry for the followup post, but I wanted to add that it wasn't that long ago (50 to 100 years) that we could see the stars from our streetcorners. Ambient light is only a small factor in the overall problems with seeing the sky. There are times, in large metropolitan areas such as LA (first hand experience), that you can't even see the closest planets due to the muck in the air. Since I moved to another state, I find myself asking the following question much less:
"Just why is it that I have to breath in this disgusting brown muck every day????"
Posted by Techie on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 07:21 AM
"Just why is it that I have to breath in this disgusting brown muck every day????"
Uh, Joe, light pollution is more of a factor when there's smog in the air. Speaking from experience of living in Long Beach CA for 20 years. After Santa Ana winds (which blow off all the smog in the LA basin and give us rare blue sky days) you can see a sky full of stars, in spite of all the light pollution. Light pollution is still a factor, but it's made much worse when it has smog and airborne particulate matter to reflect off of. On smoggy nights, the sky in southern CA appears yellowish because of reflected light from ground sources.
Posted by JoeSixpack on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 08:08 AM
Stars:
who cares
I thought this was about
if Mill's was a hoax or not
Posted by jim in az. on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 08:45 AM
who cares
I thought this was about
if Mill's was a hoax or not
The only replication I have yet come across is this one
http://earthtech.org/experiments/blp/HiFi/Run5/Run5.html
and it isn't conclusive, yet I have read elsewere that there has been successful replications of his experiment, so...
I'm still searching
Posted by gumball in France on Wed Dec 28, 2005 at 06:27 PM
http://earthtech.org/experiments/blp/HiFi/Run5/Run5.html
and it isn't conclusive, yet I have read elsewere that there has been successful replications of his experiment, so...
I'm still searching
another way of thinking..
I think mills did see something.. and may have jumped the gun.. the man has spent too many years in school to throw it away and be marked as a scammer..
he's gotten the investor's money and has not ran away yet..
of course eventually, he will have to show something that works.. and works continually..
i am betting that he believes in what he is saying..
of course we could find out.. by asking the janitor of the lab..
if the employees go to the lab each day and play poker.. then most likely a scam..
Posted by Carl Pinkston on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 04:57 PM
I think mills did see something.. and may have jumped the gun.. the man has spent too many years in school to throw it away and be marked as a scammer..
he's gotten the investor's money and has not ran away yet..
of course eventually, he will have to show something that works.. and works continually..
i am betting that he believes in what he is saying..
of course we could find out.. by asking the janitor of the lab..
if the employees go to the lab each day and play poker.. then most likely a scam..
Schooling? The blacklightpower website claims Mr. Mills has a bachelors degree from Franklin and Marshall college ( there is such a school) and medical training at Harvard. Nothing in there about physics. You should as little trust a Physics PhD to give you an appendectomy as you should trust a medical doctor to chat about hardcore physics.
Physics as a field is filled with geniuses. Don't see a shred of evidence that Mr. Mills "could be a genius", either, and worthy of hanging with this crowd.
The argument that he must be "on to something", in defiance of 100 years of rigorous physics, because of his "schooling", is nonsense.
Posted by Sven in Europe on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 07:16 AM
Physics as a field is filled with geniuses. Don't see a shred of evidence that Mr. Mills "could be a genius", either, and worthy of hanging with this crowd.
The argument that he must be "on to something", in defiance of 100 years of rigorous physics, because of his "schooling", is nonsense.
We could all fart at the same time and light up the world!
Posted by Jim Gargano in Illinois on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 03:00 PM
About once in every ten years some sort of "free" energy source turns up, usually involving water.
I was once visiting DoE's headquarters in Washington when one of these amazing developments occurred and the associated stock was rising rapidly on the American Stock Exchange. The telephones were ringing of the hook as investors wanted to know from their tax-paid energy scientists whether it could be true. The DoE adopted an official policy, physics, chemistry etc. notwithstanding, of "no comment" lest they be sued (one assumes!).
That particular event soon collapsed - those knowing enough to short these stocks, at the appropriate time, will make money as did those who shorted palladium at the height of the "cold-fusion" mania.
Posted by anonymous on Thu Dec 11, 2008 at 02:31 PM
I was once visiting DoE's headquarters in Washington when one of these amazing developments occurred and the associated stock was rising rapidly on the American Stock Exchange. The telephones were ringing of the hook as investors wanted to know from their tax-paid energy scientists whether it could be true. The DoE adopted an official policy, physics, chemistry etc. notwithstanding, of "no comment" lest they be sued (one assumes!).
That particular event soon collapsed - those knowing enough to short these stocks, at the appropriate time, will make money as did those who shorted palladium at the height of the "cold-fusion" mania.
What about the fact that a utility company in New Mexico just purchased a license to use the technology. Are the people at Estacado energy that stupid, or are they in on the scam with Mills? Someone needs to clue them in.
Here is the article header....
Cranbury, NJ (December 11, 2008)—BlackLight Power (BLP) Inc. today announced its first commercial license agreement with Estacado Energy Services, Inc. in New Mexico, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Roosevelt County Electric Cooperative, (Estacado).
Does anyone know anything about this utility?
Posted by john in sarsota on Sun Dec 14, 2008 at 08:21 PM
Here is the article header....
Cranbury, NJ (December 11, 2008)—BlackLight Power (BLP) Inc. today announced its first commercial license agreement with Estacado Energy Services, Inc. in New Mexico, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Roosevelt County Electric Cooperative, (Estacado).
Does anyone know anything about this utility?
Yes, utility compamy, Enron is utility and energy company, so what? maybe they are or want to be party the scam, Nasdaq chairman can use pyramids scam, why a none-heard ut company (maybe they already controlled by their 40 mil shares),
Who has solved Tesla's myth? Remember he also accumulate millions and Jsp wanted buy for billion at that time.
I just don't believe people are still this innocent and that's why every a while we can see Enron, Madoff get their billions, Blsck light only got 40 mil? not enough. From 1990? Seem not easy for him, way to go!
Posted by Johnson on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 12:53 AM
Who has solved Tesla's myth? Remember he also accumulate millions and Jsp wanted buy for billion at that time.
I just don't believe people are still this innocent and that's why every a while we can see Enron, Madoff get their billions, Blsck light only got 40 mil? not enough. From 1990? Seem not easy for him, way to go!
Feinmann, when he commented on `polywater` said, "if it can exist, it would already be present in nature" (or words to that effect). So where are the hydrinos?
Posted by anonymous on Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 09:05 PM
The experiments have been extensively replicated, see http://www.blacklightpower.com. This has absolutely nothing to do with cold fusion, it involves reducing the orbit of the electron around hydrogen, thus causing a pulse of UV light, which can be readily converted to electricity. The physics is beyond most scientist's ability to comprehend.
Posted by B Wise in Ann Arbor Michigan on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 06:48 PM
20 years and $60M dollars and there is only a _single_ corroboration of the BLP claims coming from a suspect and biased source. Even the craziest ideas usually have more than one academic supporter somewhere in the world. Claiming that "The physics is beyond most scientist's ability to comprehend" makes BLP sound like a mystical pseudo-science. In 20 years, BLP should have been able to commercialize their "invention" or at least show reproducible results that aren't dependent on their proprietary equipment.
Posted by anonymous in california on Thu May 07, 2009 at 10:31 PM
Many of the comments and questions above are clarified or answered by detailed investigation of the Blacklight website and/or reading the physics book by Mr. Mills that is available free online at his site. For example, anonymous asks "Where are the neutrinos"? Mills argues, and mathmatically calculates, that the expected quantity of neutrinos in each galaxy corresponds exactly with observed but otherwise unexplained "dark matter". Others ask about why the New Mexico utility company is trying the process. I suggest this relates to the physics professor at the University of New Mexico who serves as a consultant to Blacklight and also as a consultant to power companies (probably mostly to power companies in New Mexico). Estacado appears to be a newly formed subsidiary of the parent utility. Whether they are informed or not remains to be seen. I do not claim to know if the process will work, but I have taken time to educate myself on the theory and the support for and against it. The professor at Rowan University appears convinced something is happening that he cannot explain. After some internet searches for "Blacklight Scam" I found a number of other researchers who have partially replicated the results, including one writer who formerly worked for the DOE where he felt he should at least test the theory to disprove it rather than rejecting it outright. He said his DOE group found unexplained high energy production but was told by their boss to stop the tests because they would be laughed at and could lose their jobs.
On balance I remain skeptical but hopeful. There is enough meat on this bone to keep me interested, but enough questions, like some above, that I can not swallow the Kool Aid just yet. I want to see a continuously operating reactor producing energy as predicted by Mr. Mills before I would invest cold cash. But unlike other extreme skeptics, I will continue to invest time following the company and I will not be overly surprised if the claims are true. Even if it is unconventional, there is a lot of science behind the theories. For example, in 1994 Mr. Mills predicted, based upon his unconventional theory, that the expansion of the universe should be acelerating, not slowing as all other physics predicted. As everyone knows, the Hubble spacecraft confirmed his theory and threw the rest of the physics community into a tizzy trying to explain the unexpected (to them) results. They explain it with dark matter and dark energy without an explanation for what said matter and energy are. Mr. Mills predicted the result and said the dark matter/energy is simply his lower energy state of hydrogen, the hydrino he calls it.
That example along with others are why I am not totally skeptical his energy process is all bunk. I think and hope we will have conclusive answers within the next few years.
Posted by Richard in Dallas on Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 08:38 AM
On balance I remain skeptical but hopeful. There is enough meat on this bone to keep me interested, but enough questions, like some above, that I can not swallow the Kool Aid just yet. I want to see a continuously operating reactor producing energy as predicted by Mr. Mills before I would invest cold cash. But unlike other extreme skeptics, I will continue to invest time following the company and I will not be overly surprised if the claims are true. Even if it is unconventional, there is a lot of science behind the theories. For example, in 1994 Mr. Mills predicted, based upon his unconventional theory, that the expansion of the universe should be acelerating, not slowing as all other physics predicted. As everyone knows, the Hubble spacecraft confirmed his theory and threw the rest of the physics community into a tizzy trying to explain the unexpected (to them) results. They explain it with dark matter and dark energy without an explanation for what said matter and energy are. Mr. Mills predicted the result and said the dark matter/energy is simply his lower energy state of hydrogen, the hydrino he calls it.
That example along with others are why I am not totally skeptical his energy process is all bunk. I think and hope we will have conclusive answers within the next few years.
If scientists spent one tenth the amount of time actually investigating Mills claims that they do in summarily dismissing and ridiculing him, we'd probably actually have a nice little wiki entry pointing to ACTUAL research, which either proves or disproves his theory.
It really shouldn't be that difficult to verify some basic compounds or materials that have different properties because the Hydrogen (Hydrinos) is at a lower energy state. Independent verification of energy output based on the stated theory also shouldn't be that difficult. Step 1- Build an experiment around his theory that would confirm or disprove it. Step 2- Perform said experiment. Step 3- Publish results.
That's the difference between ACTUAL SCIENCE and silly talking heads supporting the established line. In Galileo's day it was the church who persecuted visionaries, today it's established scientists who are too lazy to do some simple testing before shooting their mouth off.
"HIS experiment doesn't agree with MY worldview, and I'm the expert, so he MUST be wrong." Gimme a break.
Posted by peter on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 05:23 AM
It really shouldn't be that difficult to verify some basic compounds or materials that have different properties because the Hydrogen (Hydrinos) is at a lower energy state. Independent verification of energy output based on the stated theory also shouldn't be that difficult. Step 1- Build an experiment around his theory that would confirm or disprove it. Step 2- Perform said experiment. Step 3- Publish results.
That's the difference between ACTUAL SCIENCE and silly talking heads supporting the established line. In Galileo's day it was the church who persecuted visionaries, today it's established scientists who are too lazy to do some simple testing before shooting their mouth off.
"HIS experiment doesn't agree with MY worldview, and I'm the expert, so he MUST be wrong." Gimme a break.
Page 1 of 2 pages 1 2 >