# Is it time to revisit BLP? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 17, 2014, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-to-revisit-blp/679021 "2014-01-17T01:18:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![markie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@markie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/markie)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2014, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-to-revisit-blp/679021/21 "2014-01-22T18:55:52Z")
> [@Carl\_Pham](#): > > It’s not impossible in the sense that it violates mechanical principles and laws. But if almost all hydrogen atoms were _not_ in their ground state, which is what BLP claims, and which is required for their energy from nothing schemes, that would be a staggering violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That is not completely impossible – respectable physicists discuss the possibility that the universe is currently stuck in a false vacuum and there exists a barrier between where we are and the true vacuum (and God help us, incidentally, if we do fall into the true vacuum). > > But you need _some_ very, very good reason – some massive mechanical barrier – that prevents things from reaching their ground states. In this case, they provide no such barrier. Indeed, their schemes for cheap energy _require_ that it be quite easy to provoke hydrogen into its (hitherto unknown) ground state. (I mean, if they said it required colliding three black holes into each other at a precise angle, at 98% of the speed of light, you could actually maybe sort of believe it’s the kind of process that _hasn’t_ naturally occured very much, and that’s why the ground state hasn’t generally been reached. But then they’d need a lot more than $75 million in development costs.) > > OK, now we’re getting ridiculous: there is a ground state of hydrogen which has never before been found, because from the birth of the universe until now, no process or event – not star formation, fusion, novae, supernovae, neutron star formation, planetary formation, irradiation by everything from radio to gamma rays, \*nothing \* has been able to push almost all H atoms now on the Earth into their true ground states _but_ mirabile dictu it turns out some relatively trivial and commonplace electrochemistry _can_. Uh…sure. > [snip] > It’s the same way with BLP. The existence of a lower ground state for hydrogen which has not been reached in 14 billion years of natural events – but which a few schmoes with an electrochemical cell can easily reach – requires ridiculous assumptions about an incredibly unlikely chain of coincidences through the history of the universe to date. First time at this site. I’ve loosely followed Blacklight Power’s progress over the last 15 years or so. Randall Mills may be (more or less) mistaken in his theory, but he’s covered enough bases to keep intelligent people interested. To correct some misconceptions: Mills teaches that most of the hydrogen in the universe _is_ below the (commonly accepted) ground state. He says this special hydrogen, called hydrino, dominates the universe and is what we call dark matter. Ground state, to me, is best regarded as the lowest energy state of an atom that is achieved spontaneously under normal conditions. Mills says there are up to 137 energy states below the ground state of atomic hydrogen. These states are not spontaneously achieved but require special conditions to cause the electron to drop to a lower energy level. In Mill’s estimation nature has provided these conditions (although not optimally) which is why most of the hydrogen of the universe is in the alleged hydrino state. ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2014, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-to-revisit-blp/679021/22 "2014-01-23T00:38:04Z")
And what evidence does he offer to support these many ground-breaking assertions? You’d think with all these discoveries under his belt, he could use the awards from his many Nobel Prizes to fund his project. ---
**Author:** ![markie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@markie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/markie)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2014, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-to-revisit-blp/679021/23 "2014-01-23T05:03:56Z")
> [@Smeghead](#): > > And what evidence does he offer to support these many ground-breaking assertions? You’d think with all these discoveries under his belt, he could use the awards from his many Nobel Prizes to fund his project. Mills has offered lots of evidence: anomalous heat generated, supposed hydrino-formation spectral signatures observed in the lab and in outer space, supposed hydrino crystalline compounds, spectral line broadening, and perhaps some other things I have forgotten. As I said, he has covered a lot of bases. Some of these findings have been published in journals, some of which (I’m pretty sure) are peer reviewed. Not that peer review guarantees junk free science, but it helps. Mill’s equations (found in his very large treatise on classical physics) apparently correctly calculate ionization energies for relatively light atoms, and does much better at this than quantum theory. So the conundrum is: There are reasons to believe Mills’ claims, and reasons to dismiss them. For instance, I believe that the strangeness of the quantum world is pretty much established, but Mills stubbornly insists on classical explanations instead. Personally I think Mills is wrong in this regard. For instance I recall not being satisfied at all with this explanation for the results of the double slit experiment. That however doesn’t rule out the possibility that he might be relatively correct in other aspects of his physics. It will be interesting to see what transpires in the demonstration in about a week’s time. But from what I have observed thus far over the years, there has been far too much hyperbole coming from Blacklight Power. Because of this I’m not optimistic that the demonstration will be convincing enough to persuade those on the fence, let alone those on the other side. ---
**Author:** ![j\_sum1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8baadc/32.png) [@j\_sum1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j_sum1)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2014, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-to-revisit-blp/679021/24 "2014-01-23T05:13:42Z")
Well markie, you are a lot more optimistic on this matter than I am. It’s not that I know a lot about this particular organisation or its claims. It’s just the combination of a) A hitherto unknown ground state of hydrogen that no one else has ever heard of b) an energy density orders of magnitude higher than nuclear processes I have to cry “hokum”. ---
**Author:** ![markie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@markie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/markie)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2014, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-to-revisit-blp/679021/25 "2014-01-23T14:10:28Z")
> [@j\_sum1](#): > > Well markie, you are a lot more optimistic on this matter than I am. > > It’s not that I know a lot about this particular organisation or its claims. It’s just the combination of > a) A hitherto unknown ground state of hydrogen that no one else has ever heard of > b) an energy density orders of magnitude higher than nuclear processes > I have to cry “hokum”. Understandable. To clarify, the claimed energy of the hydrino transition is intermediate between chemical and nuclear. But taken together as an industrial process the claimed energy density for hydrino is said to be higher than nuclear. This is because the nuclear reaction rate is made to be low, otherwise it would not be controllable. In other words, the hydrino process is controllable at high energy densities while the nuclear process is not. But listen to me, talking about hydrinos as if they even exist! Reality check: the alleged hydrino, essentially like a very, very large neutron, has not been discovered before now, while both the neutron and even the elusive neutrino have been known for over 60 years? Very hard to swallow. I sympathize with doubters. I do however believe that _something_ is going on with hydrogen and the larger cold fusion scene. How much Mill’s interpretation is in line with what is actually occurring remains to be seen. I’m not holding my breath. Well, maybe a little… ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2014, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-to-revisit-blp/679021/26 "2014-01-23T14:34:35Z")
Haven’t heard much about this since the '68 Olympics. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2014, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-to-revisit-blp/679021/27 "2014-01-23T16:14:28Z")
Oh, certainly _something_ is going on with this. But all evidence is that that _something_ is a small group of people out to make an easy buck off of the gullible. ---
**Author:** ![markie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@markie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/markie)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2014, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-to-revisit-blp/679021/28 "2014-01-23T20:08:34Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Oh, certainly _something_ is going on with this. But all evidence is that that _something_ is a small group of people out to make an easy buck off of the gullible. Easy to say. I have encountered no evidence - except for Randal Mill’s demonstrable hyperbole on what and when he can deliver - that there is anything unethical going on. Look at the board of directors, managers, chemists and engineers. Are you prepared, with your ‘evidence’, to say to them in person that they are essentially a bunch of crooks? Consider that making such glib accusations could it be considered unethical behaviour! If the Blacklight enterprise ends up as being a dead end, what I would conclude is this: otherwise competent people were sucked into, as an author of Steve Jobs bibliography would put it, a ‘reality distortion field’. Steve Job’s intelligence, intensity, vision, drive, single mindedness, etc, made the unbelievable or impossible seem within reach to those around him. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2014, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-to-revisit-blp/679021/29 "2014-01-23T20:29:07Z")
> [@markie](#): > > Are you prepared, with your ‘evidence’, to say to them in person that they are essentially a bunch of crooks? Yes, along the lines of [Steorn](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steorn). > [@markie](#): > > If the Blacklight enterprise ends up as being a dead end, what I would conclude is this: otherwise competent people were sucked into, as an author of Steve Jobs bibliography would put it, a ‘reality distortion field’. No. Again, see [Steorn](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steorn). Money corrupts. ETA: Actually, that’s not entirely fair. I suppose some of them may be earnest fools. There are a fair number of fools in the world with money, management positions, or fancy degrees. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2014, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-to-revisit-blp/679021/30 "2014-01-23T20:50:41Z")
And if, for some reason, there is actually posters out there who think this isn’t a hoax, the [wiki article](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlackLight_Power) lists several analyses from the technical press to academics to patent offices that all more or less refute the idea there’s anything to the company. It’s a standard profile of a hoax company, spread out over a decade. ---
**Author:** ![purplehorseshoe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/purplehorseshoe/32/2996_2.png) [@purplehorseshoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/purplehorseshoe)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2014, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-to-revisit-blp/679021/31 "2014-01-23T21:56:40Z")
> [@Carl\_Pham](#): > > … it’s as if someone came up to you and said I have this fantastic scheme for making ridiculous amounts of money! You know how real estate in downtown Manhattan goes for fantastic sums of money? If we get 2 or 3 acres of virgin land right on 5th Avenue, and sell it – wow! will we be rich! > > Er…you point out…but where would we get such land? It’s all owned already, of course. At this your friend smiles broadly. Nonsense! That’s where the real cleverness comes in. See, I have found that in fact there are 22 acres right in Manhattan that the Indians never sold to the white men, so they’ve been totally undeveloped since the early 1600s. All we need to do is give these guys I know, descendants of the original inhabitants, some beads and shells and stuff – and bob’s your uncle! What do you say? You in? > > You’d be rightly skeptical, of course, that there existed unclaimed virgin land in Manhattan. It’s not that it’s impossible, literally, it’s just requires ridiculous assumptions about an extraordinarily unlikely chain of coincidences through the last 300 years of history. It’s the same way with BLP. The existence of a lower ground state for hydrogen which has not been reached in 14 billion years of natural events – but which a few schmoes with an electrochemical cell can easily reach – requires ridiculous assumptions about an incredibly unlikely chain of coincidences through the history of the universe to date. This is a fantastic analogy - thanks for spelling it out so succinctly. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-to-revisit-blp/679021.md?page=1)