The Misleading Brilliant Light Power Wikipedia Page

Correcting Wikipedia's Misinformation

For an introduction to Brilliant Light Power’s enormous scientific and technological breakthrough based on a new state of hydrogen, please refer to this overview article. It will provide the reader with necessary context for this article.

The Wikipedia Problem

Media bias in general, and that of Wikipedia in particular, is a major contributing factor to Brilliant Light Power’s (BLP) difficulty promoting widespread awareness of the Hydrino hypothesis and the associated experimental evidence. 

This is extremely problematic, as BLP’s Hydrino-based technology is poised to radically increase global prosperity, but widespread skepticism about it has been a persistent headwind for the company’s vitally important efforts.

Many people, upon hearing about a topic with which they are unfamiliar, turn to Wikipedia for information.  Unfortunately, the BLP Wikipedia page has severe defects and is wildly misleading. 

The page editors will not permit the addition of factual entries regarding theory and experiment that bolster the case for Brilliant Light Power’s claims around the Hydrino. Don’t take our word for it: try to edit the page with some of the facts below. Any changes will very quickly be edited out, and the original text restored.  The net effect is that Wikipedia’s readers cannot learn anything about the theory underlying the Hydrino hypothesis or about the vast trove of peer-reviewed experimental evidence which supports the hypothesis.  The simplest explanation for this policy is that the page editors quite deliberately promote misinformation on the topic.

Refuting Wikipedia

What follows is a point-by-point refutation of the negative information contained on the page.  Facts that should be added to an unbiased and complete presentation are also discussed.  Screenshots of each paragraph contained on the Wikipedia page as of August 2023 are used as the basis for our commentary.  It is recommended that readers unfamiliar with the basics of Hydrino science first read our BLP overview piece, which covers the basics of Hydrino science and BLP’s Hydrino-based technology and why it is so important, and discusses some of the experimental evidence for Hydrino in layperson-digestible fashion.

The initial paragraph sets the tone for the rest of the piece by leading with an outright falsehood.  The phrase “The claims lack corroborating scientific evidence…” is complete and utter nonsense.  Dr. Mills has provided the scientific community and the world at large with a massive volume of empirical evidence, much of which is in peer-reviewed journals. 

A full list of Dr. Mills’ journal publications and other works can be found here.  Dr. Mills has utilized nearly two dozen different analytical techniques in his many peer-reviewed papers, all of which fail to disprove the Hydrino hypothesis and instead strongly support his claims of the existence and characteristics of Hydrino states of hydrogen.  As we’ll see below, there have been truly independent replications of some of his experimental work.

Dr. Mills’ magnum opus, The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics (GUTCP), contains very specific theoretical predictions about the nature of Hydrino and the conditions required for their formation.  His vast body of experimental work shows that those theoretical predictions are borne out experimentally. 

While is true that Hydrino states of hydrogen are incompatible with key equations of standard quantum mechanics (SQM), the dominant paradigm of atomic scale physics, Dr. Mills does not claim that they are compatible.  He quite explicitly rejects SQM as a deeply flawed theory, far inferior to his own GUTCP, which relies solely on the classical physical laws that are operative at the scale of our everyday lives to accurately describe all atomic scale phenomena.  This is in contrast to SQM, which posits that classical physical laws do not apply at the scale of the atom.

Dr. Mills’ excellent paper “Maxwell’s Equations and QED: Which is Fact and Which is Fiction” provides an overview of the flaws that Dr. Mills contends are inherent in SQM.¹

The usual defense of those arguing against alternatives to SQM such as Dr. Mills’ GUTCP is that SQM is “proven;” hence, any alternative model is irredeemably flawed.  We see hints of this argument in the above excerpt.  However, this position is unscientific. 

Theories may be proven in mathematics simply by demonstrating they are consistent with a man-made set of rules.  In contrast, no scientific model is ever “proven” as nature makes the rules and mankind is forced to make educated guesses about them. 

Given this situation, the best scientific test of a theory is to find it inconsistent with observation.  In other words, the proper focus of the scientific method is on experiments designed to disprove a model.  As discussed below, the many critiques of the Hydrino hypothesis have failed to show a single example of experimental results inconsistent with it. 

Dr. Mills has published a wide range of experimental work that would be more than capable of disproving the Hydrino hypothesis.  However, all these experiments fail to disprove the Hydrino hypothesis and are consistent with theoretical predictions. 

The Wikipedia entry correctly states that Dr. Mills has claimed to be close to delivering a commercial Hydrino-based product several times in the past.  However, overly optimistic assessments of commercialization timelines in no way detract from Dr. Mills’ claims regarding the existence of Hydrino states of hydrogen. 

The history of innovation is largely one of iterative trial and error engineering improvements slowly but surely taking products from idea to crude proof of principle to polished final product, often over the course of many years.  A quote from Thomas Edison underscores this fact:

"I speak without exaggeration when I say that I have constructed three thousand different theories in connection with the electric light, each one of them reasonable and apparently to be true.  Yet only in two cases did my experiments prove the truth of my theory.  My chief difficulty, as perhaps you know, was in constructing the carbon filament, the incandescence of which is the source of the light.  Every quarter of the globe was ransacked by my agents, and all sorts of the queerest materials were used, until finally the shred of bamboo now utilized was settled upon.  Even now, Mr. Edison continued, I am still at work nearly every day on the lamp, and quite lately I have devised a method of supplying sufficient current to fifteen lamps with one horsepower.  Formerly ten lamps per horsepower was the extreme limit."

We don’t lambaste Edison for his many failed attempts at commercializing the light bulb and nor should we lambaste Dr. Mills for his past failures to commercialize a Hydrino-based power device.  These criticisms are akin to attacking a runner of a marathon of indeterminate length for running a long time; that may be true, but the marathoner is much closer to the finish line than when he started.

Furthermore, a close examination of the history of Dr. Mills’ efforts in this regard shows tremendous engineering ingenuity and clear progression of key metrics by which power generation devices are assessed, such as power density, which has increased by many orders of magnitude over his 3 decades of work. 

As we’ll see below, the referenced analyses mentioned in this paragraph are all fatally flawed, as they do not attempt to experimentally disprove the existence of Hydrino states, but instead attempt to show why such states are incompatible with the currently dominant paradigm of SQM. 

As stated above, Dr. Mills makes no claims that Hydrino states of hydrogen are compatible with SQM.  It is also notable that the small handful of published critiques of Hydrino states are lauded, while the many studies with careful, peer-reviewed experimental work showing clear agreement of the predictions of Hydrino theory are ignored.

The last sentence of the paragraph contains several examples of the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.  This is a dangerous game, given the history of scientific revolutions:

• 1543 AD: Copernicus’ heliocentric theory is met with mixed reviews: “Many experts don’t believe Copernicus’ claim that the earth revolves around the sun.  Ptolemaic epicycles model the motions of the heavens with startling accuracy.”

• 1895 AD:  Lord Kelvin, one of the most respected scientists of his time, confidently proclaims: “I can state flatly that heavier than air flying machines are impossible.”  The Wright Brothers begged to differ. 

• 1915 AD: Alfred Wegener proposes his theory of continental displacement.  The whole of the geology field condemns him in the strongest possible terms.  He was accused of “Germanic pseudo-science”.  His lack of formal credentials led a critic to say that it was “wrong for a stranger to the facts he handles to generalize from them.”  Despite being correct, it took an astounding 35 years for Wegener’s theory to be widely accepted by geologists. 

• 1932 AD: Albert Einstein pronounces: “There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable.  It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.”  13 short years later, the first nuclear bomb was detonated.

These are far from the only examples of scientific breakthroughs facing ridicule.  Here is an elegant visualization of some of the many scientists whose ideas were initially rejected, only to later be acknowledged as correct.

Part of the beauty of the scientific method, properly understood and implemented, is that it provides a systematic methodology for ensuring that incorrect beliefs of purported experts in a particular field don’t remain permanently entrenched.  However, for the scientific method to work its magic, it is incumbent upon the scientific community to engage with compelling novel experimental results, regardless of their implications for the dominant scientific paradigm.  This, rather than pronouncements by perceived authorities, is how science progresses. 

As such, it is long past time for the scientific community to simply replicate Dr. Mills’ experimental results rather than continue to object on theoretical grounds.

This paragraph is largely accurate.  The only quibble here is that neither known chemistry nor known physics provide an a priori justification based on physical laws as to why the “shrinkage” of hydrogen atoms isn’t possible.  It is true that SQM claims that -13.6 eV is the “ground state” of atomic hydrogen.  However, Dr. Mills contends that SQM proponents are not able to demonstrate why that is the lowest possible stable energy level.  In a 2005 paper he writes that:

“…the standard theoretical explanation for the stability [of the hydrogen atom] from Feynman is based on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP).  Upon further scrutiny, Feynman’s argument is found to be internally inconsistent and fatally flawed, and brings to light the many inconsistencies and shortcomings of QM and the instrinsic HUP that have not been resolved from the days of their inception.  Unfortunately, these issues are largely ignored by the physics community.”²

This paragraph needs updating.  As of August 2023, BLP has raised approximately $140 million from a wide array of investors.  Those skeptical of BLP’s claims may ponder why so many presumably savvy investors have continued to hand over their hard-earned capital for 30 years to a company with such a controversial reputation in the scientific community. 

This paragraph is accurate, although far from a full list of company investors. 

These two paragraphs are accurate.  However, Dr. Mills has since moved away from the electrochemical cells that he was attempting to commercialize in 2008, as that technology ran into corrosion issues.  A key breakthrough for the company came in 2013, when Dr. Mills realized that by running high current through the Hydrino reaction medium, he could radically increase the rate of Hydrino formation and thus dramatically increase the power density of the reaction.  The new SunCell technology relies on this crucial insight and is far superior in every respect to the electrochemical cells.

This paragraph is factually accurate but greatly lacking in scope.  Dr. Mills has produced many papers, linked above, a large fraction of which have been published in peer-reviewed journals.  The lack of engagement by the scientific community is scientific malpractice, given the importance of Dr. Mills’ findings and the ease with which many of his experiments can be replicated. 

While it is true there have been very few attempts at replication of these papers, there has been engagement of various types from third parties.  Here are links and discussion of some of those third-party papers and reports:

Thermacore Report

Here is a 1994 report done by Thermacore, who collaborated with Dr. Mills on testing an electrolytic nickel/potassium carbonate cell.  The whole report is worth a read, but the conclusion pulls no punches:

“Excess heat energy was measured at an average level of 24.3 watts ± 6.4 watts.  Our confidence to report excess heat comes as a result of repeated testing and reevaluation of the test procedures and that the shrunken hydrogen molecule has been identified by an independent university.”

The report goes on to state that Dr. A. Miller of Lehigh University found Hydrino absorbed on the surface of the nickel cathode that had a peak at 55 eV, which is the theoretically predicted binding energy of the Hydrino (1/2) state.  The (1/2) refers to a Hydrino state with an atomic radius ½ that of ordinary ground state hydrogen, and binding energy is a measure of how much energy it takes to liberate an electron from an atom.

It should be noted that the modest excess heat found in the Thermacore experiment reflects the early stage of development of Hydrino technology; the experiment was performed only a few years after Dr. Mills formulated the Hydrino hypothesis.  Dr. Mills has advanced the technology very considerably in the interim, and the excess heat achievable from Hydrino formation is now much larger, as we’ll see below.

Conrads Paper

Here is a link to a 2003 paper titled “Emission In The Deep Vacuum Ultraviolet From A Plasma Formed By Incandescently Heating Hydrogen Gas With Trace Amounts Of Potassium Carbonate”.  The lead author is Professor Hans Conrads, former director of the Institute for Low Temperature Plasma Physics.  He was one of the world’s foremost plasma experts.  The analytical work was done in Conrads’ lab.

The experiment involves cells designed to initiate a low voltage hydrogen plasma by incandescently heating hydrogen gas in the presence K₂CO₃.  Potassium is predicted to catalyze the Hydrino (1/2) state.  A plasma was formed that was dependent on the presence of K₂CO_3, despite input power much lower than that required to form a plasma.  Control experiments with Na₂CO₃, which is not predicted to support Hydrino formation, did not form a plasma.  The paper concludes:

“The emission from a plasma was observed at low temperatures (e.g. ≈103 K) from atomic hydrogen and potassium.  The release of energy from hydrogen was evidenced by the hydrogen Lyman and Balmer emission which identified the presence of a hydrogen plasma.  The persistence of emission following the removal of all of the power to the cell indicates that unknown chemical power source is present. The implication is that a new plasma and light source for the vacuum ultraviolet has been discovered.”³

Phillips Paper

Here is a link to a paper titled “Evidence Of Catalytic Production Of Hot Atomic Hydrogen In Rf Generated Hydrogen/Helium Plasmas” by J. Phillips, and C. Chen done at the University of New Mexico.

It shows evidence for Hydrino formation in radiofrequency plasmas.⁴  As with the Conrads paper, controls were performed.  Hydrino formation was only evidence in H₂/He plasmas.  No such evidence existed in H₂/Xe plasmas.  These results are predicted by Hydrino theory and contrary to other models that seek to explain the anomalous heat production found in certain plasmas like those found in this paper.  The paper concludes that the results are in accordance with the predictions of Dr. Mills.

Hagen Paper

Here is a link to a very important new paper titled “Electron paramagnetic resonance proof for the existence of molecular Hydrino”.  The paper’s lead author is Professor Wilfred Hagen, a world-class expert in the use of electron paramagnetic resonance (“EPR”) spectroscopy to identify compounds that are EPR active.  The paper involves EPR spectroscopy analysis of a gallium oxyhydroxide compound that is complexed with molecular Hydrino (GaOOH:H₂(1/4)).  The compound is generated by operating a SunCell prototype which relies on molten gallium as electrodes.  The gallium is then dissolved in potassium hydroxide.  The compound is a crystalline form of GaOOH with molecular Hydrino caged inside the “wall” of its crystalline lattice.  This compound can now be produced on demand by Dr. Mills, who has dubbed it “Hydrino in a bottle”.  Brilliant Light Power has indicated they will provide samples on demand to qualified labs for testing.

While it is true that Hagen did collaborate with Dr. Mills on this paper, all EPR analytical work was done at Professor Hagen’s lab at TU Delft.  As with the Thermacore paper, this paper does not mince words with its conclusion:

“In summary, the present study provides compelling EPR spectroscopic and gas chromatographic evidence for the existence of molecular Hydrino, and, by inference, for the reality of atomic Hydrino, and it provides plausibility of the electron model in GUTCP. In more general terms our results are a significant test against falsification of GUTCP. In view of the possible far-reaching implications of this conclusion for the theory of quantum mechanics, for hydrogen-related chemistry, for astrophysics of dark matter, and for energy transduction and production technology, it is also offered as an urgent invitation to academia at large to repeat and extend the described experiments in lieu of refutation on quantum mechanical theoretical grounds.”⁵

Given the controversial nature of the topic of Hydrino, we leave it to the reader to decide if one of the world’s foremost experts in EPR spectroscopy would write those three sentences if he wasn’t pretty darn certain of his findings.  We also encourage anyone with access to EPR equipment to reach out to Dr. Mills for a sample of Hydrino compound analyzed in this paper and attempt to replicate Hagen’s findings. 

Nansteel Report

Here is a link to a report completed by Dr. Mark Nansteel, a third-party consultant that has done work on behalf of BLP.  He is an expert in thermal modeling.  The report measures the power balance (output power relative to input power) of a prototype SunCell.  The report finds a SunCell power gain of 3.62 or greater, with net power generated by the Hydrino reaction of 169 kW.  Note that the absolute level of power output is far higher than the experimental apparatus from the 1994 Thermacore report, reflecting the dramatic advances made by Dr. Mills over the intervening years.

Tse Report

Here is a report completed by Dr. Stephen Tse, a professor of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering at Rutgers.   As with the report from Dr. Nansteel, this report measures the power balance of a prototype SunCell.  The report finds a maximum power gain of 4.74 with net power of up to 341 kW. 

Skeptics are encouraged to reach out to Hagen, Nansteel, and Tse, all of whom have publicly available contact information, to discuss their findings.

This paragraph is accurate but misleading.  Not surprisingly, the article makes no mention of the positive findings of the report, linked here, which concludes:

“The recent spectroscopic studies have revealed some surprising results, which suggest that a highly energetic low pressure mixed gas hydrogen propulsion system could be realized. Based on the quantitative results of the plasma experiments and the qualitative results obtained to date on the BLPT and BLMPT test firings, the team believes that Phase II funding is justified to continue this work.”⁶

Unfortunately, for inexplicable reasons Marchese’s request for Phase II funding was not granted.

Anderson is seen here carrying on the long tradition of distinguished scientists providing sweeping pronouncements on topics with which they are unfamiliar.  Arthur C. Clarke has some words of advice on the wisdom of proffering such opinions:

“When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is probably wrong.”

Neither Anderson nor Chu have attempted replication of Dr. Mills’ experimental work, nor attempted to provide a refutation of the Hydrino hypothesis on theoretical grounds.  This is not altogether surprising, as acknowledging the merits of Mills’ Hydrino hypothesis would cast doubt on the framework on which Chu and Anderson built their careers and reputations.  As Upton Sinclair trenchantly observed,

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

Science does not proceed based on the opinions of perceived authority figures.  Science proceeds, among other ways, by community replication of novel experimental findings.

The mention of the withdrawn patent again betrays an effort to paint a biased picture.  The patent in question was withdrawn under unusual circumstances, as detailed in chapter 9 of Brett Holverstott’s excellent book on Dr. Mills’ work, Randell Mills and the Search for Hydrino Energy.⁷ 

Setting aside the referenced patent, the casual reader of the biased Wikipedia page is not made aware of the many patents granted throughout the world since 2000.  The company’s patent strategy has been overseen by one of the top patent lawyers in the nation, Scott Doyle.  Dr. Mills’ exceptional patent writing ability combined with Scott Doyle’s expert guidance has borne tremendous fruit, with extremely comprehensive patent coverage granted and pending in most major energy markets. 

Why does the Wikipedia page not make mention of the extensive global patent portfolio, despite its existence being purely objective fact?  Below is a table from a recent BLP business presentation showing the extensive set of granted and pending patent applications:

An unbiased Wikipedia article which touches on the patent issue would permit mention of these many patents after discussing the early patent difficulties faced by BLP.  Unfortunately, this Wikipedia entry is anything but unbiased.  

This is largely factually accurate, although again characteristically biased.  It is true that Robert Park greatly interfered with BLP’s efforts to get the patent referenced above granted.  Esther Kepplinger is a lawyer, so it seems likely that Robert Park had influence on her quoted concern.  The claim that the patent involved cold fusion and perpetual motion is blatantly false and betrays a lack of even basic familiarity with the patent claims.  Nowhere in the patent in question does Dr. Mills claim that fusion of any sort is occurring.  Furthermore, Hydrino-based power sources are not perpetual motion devices.  Dr. Mills took great pains in the patent to explain at length that the source of the energy release was from the electrons of hydrogen atoms transitioning to a lower energy state.  There is nothing mystical about this explanation: all exothermic chemical reactions ultimately derive their power output from the release of potential energy of electrons. 

This is largely accurate, other than the fact that Hydrino theory and the broader GUTCP not only don’t violate the laws of physics but are instead wholly reliant on classical physical laws, the same laws operative at the scale of our everyday lives.  It is important to note that the physicists in question were not objecting to BLP’s claims based on evidence from their own attempted experimental replications of Dr. Mills many peer-reviewed publications. 

Empirical results trump theoretical objections in science, and Dr. Mills has provided extensive experimental evidence that Hydrino exists and has properties precisely predicted by his GUTCP. 

This is all true, but not mentioned are the unusual circumstances around the case.  Brett Holverstott goes into detail on the case in his book.⁸

Robert Park has certainly been a particularly vocal critic of the BLP, this much is true.  In keeping with the rest of the Wikipedia entry, this anecdote is framed in a misleading way.  Tom Stolper’s outstanding book on Dr. Mills and his work, America’s Newton, has the full story of Aaron Barth’s critique:

“Barth wrote a five-page critique of Mills’ third book that focused on alleged mathematical failures and was a good summary of the standard view of the book.  Barth couldn’t deal with Mills’ experimental results, because they exploded the myth of Schrodinger-based QM, so, following other critics, he just ignored them, giving the excuse that they were separate from Mills’ theory. 

In the e-mail debate, Barth also accused Mills of inappropriate citation, a charge that Park mentioned in his online column.  Mills has a photographic memory (one of his friends from college recalled that not only could Mills recite a book once he had read it, he “could tell you what stain was on what page”), and it got him in trouble here.  In the January 2000 print edition of his book, which was almost 800 pages long, Mills reeled off several pages from a standard text on general relativity, by Robert Wald of the University of Chicago, and interspersed his own comments on how to improve the derivation.  Mills cited Wald, but Mills didn’t demarcate Wald’s material clearly from his own comments, as Mills did with other quoted material elsewhere in his book.  Not clearly demarcating his critique of general relativity as presented by Wald was a mistake on Mills’ part, which he corrected, but which his enemies continued to take advantage of anyway.”⁹

With the context of the Barth critique provided by Stolper, we see yet again how the Wikipedia article seems deliberately designed to mislead. 

Note how much of the Wikipedia article relies on the mere opinion of Robert Park. As discussed above, there have been multiple independent experiments whose results are consistent with the Hydrino hypothesis.

Furthermore, it is not true that BLP has a patent problem.  They have extensive global patent coverage on all key aspects of their technology, as we saw above.

Yet again we have Robert Park’s opinion being used to lead readers of the entry to an erroneous conclusion.  Park supplies no experimental evidence that supports his conclusion that the science is “just wrong”.  In anti-scientific fashion, he simply asserts it. 

As Lord Kelvin demonstrated, one must be very careful about pronouncing the impossibility of scientific claims.  None of the quoted scientists have engaged with Dr. Mills’ empirical evidence for Hydrino nor attempted to disprove the Hydrino hypothesis through their own experimentation.  Only rigorous experiment can disprove a scientific claim, but that takes effort.  Far easier to instead make ad hominem attacks on Dr. Mills and his investors. 

However, some of Dr. Mills’ experiments are not difficult to replicate.  No scientist would deny that a new state of hydrogen would be an astoundingly important finding.  If experiments demonstrating evidence of this new state are inexpensive and easy to perform, why not simply run the experiments instead of running one’s mouth?

As mentioned above, it is true that Dr. Mills has not yet delivered a working product.  However, he has advanced Hydrino technology tremendously over the years, increasing the power density of the Hydrino reaction by many orders of magnitude. 

Furthermore, he does appear to be close to a commercially viable SunCell.  This business presentation posted on the BLP website details the current stage of development of the SunCell.  They have also posted many impressive videos of prototype SunCells on the company’s YouTube page. 

It is true that a handful of articles attempting to refute the Hydrino hypothesis have been published.  However, they all have serious flaws that doom them to irrelevance. 

Rathke’s 2005 paper is comically shoddy work.  Rathke makes an embarrassing sign error on one term of equation 9 of his paper that renders his analysis fatally defective and betrays total lack of familiarity with Dr. Mills’ work.¹⁰

Dr. Mills provided an extensive rebuttal to Rathke’s paper but received no further engagement.¹¹

Rathke’s objection regarding n<1 states not being square integrable signals his confusion regarding of Dr. Mills’ model of the electron, which is not a probability density function as with SQM.  His critique is analogous to a Ptolemaic astronomer complaining that Copernicus’ model of the solar system isn’t consistent with Ptolemaic theory (“our epicycle math no longer works if the planets orbit the sun!”), in that he betrays an apparent complete lack of understanding of the core assertions of Dr. Mills’ theory and how dramatically it differs from SQM. 

Phelps’ critique of J. Phillips “Water bath calorimetric study of excess heat generation in resonant transfer plasmas” paper also misses the mark. One crucial failure of the criticism is the lack of any evidence contrary to the predictions of GUTCP.  Dismissing evidence consistent with a scientific model does not invalidate it.  The only method to invalidate a model is to produce evidence contrary to the model, and that was not done by Phelps.  Phillips thoroughly responded to the criticisms of Phelps in his response and demonstrated them to be hollow.¹²

Furthermore, even if they were not hollow, a serious scientist with a modicum of curiosity would, rather than raising concerns via a journal comment paper, strive to settle perceived issues experimentally, doubly so because the type of experiment used in the paper in question is straightforward and inexpensive to perform, and triply so because of the monumental importance of the existence of Hydrino states of hydrogen.

As with Phillips’ demolition of Phelps’ misguided critiques, Dr. Mills published an excellent paper in 2010 that thoroughly rebuts the paper by Šišović et al referenced in the Wikipedia entry.¹³  The interested reader is encouraged to review both papers for full understanding as to why Dr. Mills’ 2010 paper dispatches Šišović’s Collision Model (“CM”). 

The papers can be a bit hard to follow for laypeople, so we’ll summarize the findings briefly.  The Mills and Šišović experiments deal with plasmas generated by various types of plasma cells containing hydrogen and various other gases. 

There are a variety of ways to generate plasmas in test cells.  The experiments referenced in the Šišović paper relied on glow discharge cells, in which an electric current is used to generate the desired plasma state.¹⁴

The Doppler broadening referred to in the Wikipedia entry and the papers in question is a phenomenon that occurs when excited state hydrogen atoms, which release photons of specific wavelengths as their electron returns to a lower energy state, are moving at substantial velocity relative to the observer.  This causes the hydrogen atom photon emission lines to be broadened relative to the emission that would occur in stationary excited state hydrogen atoms. 

The higher the velocity, the broader the emission line broadening is.  If some hydrogen atoms are traveling quickly away from the observer, and some quickly towards, the broadening pattern is symmetrical like that seen in the picture below. 

The reader has likely experienced an auditory version of this phenomenon as an emergency vehicle with sirens blaring passes by.  As the emergency vehicle approaches, the pitch of the siren is higher relative to that of the stationary case.  As the emergency vehicle passes by, the pitch decreases.  Here is a good demonstration of the auditory Doppler effect.

It takes energy imparted onto hydrogen ions to cause significant Doppler line broadening.  The higher the energy, the more pronounced the broadening.  That energy must come from somewhere.  The Collision Model of the Šišović paper is entirely reliant on the presence of electric fields generated by glow discharge cell operation as the source of the energy to cause the observed line broadening.  The paper is quite explicit about this:

“…the electric field is essential for the CM to explain basic processes related to excessive Doppler broadening.”¹⁵

Conversely, Dr. Mills’ model, dubbed the resonant energy transfer mechanism (“RTM”) in some of his papers, postulates that the source of the energy causing the observed line broadening is Hydrino formation, meaning that no electrical field is required to cause it.  Instead, his model requires gas mixtures that are predicted to be supportive of Hydrino formation and conditions that permit the formation of atomic hydrogen (which is typically in molecular form).  Atomic hydrogen is required for Hydrino formation to occur. 

Dr. Mills’ 2010 paper relies on experiments with microwave plasma cells, which, crucially, do not have the strong electric fields required by the CM of Šišović.  If the CM is correct, there should be no line broadening observed in such plasma cells.  In other words, an experiment demonstrating line broadening in a microwave plasma would be the best scientific method for disproving the CM.

Unfortunately for CM proponents, the same line broadening observed in glow discharge plasmas (which have strong electric fields), was observed in microwave plasma cells (which don’t have strong electric fields) containing gas mixtures predicted to support Hydrino formation.  In sum, the microwave work disproves the CM, but the results are consistent with the RTM model of Mills.  This is yet another example of the consistent failure of the critics to provide a single shred of evidence which would invalidate Dr. Mills’ Hydrino hypothesis.

The Dombey paper and de Castro paper suffer from the same lack of understanding of Dr. Mills’ theory as Rathke.  Both of their papers attempt to show that Hydrino states are not compatible with SQM.  However, Dr. Mills does not claim that they are.  Indeed, quite the opposite.  Dr. Mills’ theory relies on classical physical laws and deliberately discards what he contends are flawed equations such as the Schrodinger and Klein-Gordon equations that underpin SQM.  His theory is complete revision of the physics of quantum systems. 

The Dombey and de Castro papers amount to math-laden complaints that the square peg of Hydrino theory doesn’t fit into the round hole of SQM.  These papers just as irrelevant as Rathke’s work in that they don’t actually engage with Mills’ theoretical underpinnings of Hydrino science, nor do they address the vast trove of experimental evidence proving the existence of Hydrino states of hydrogen. 

Critics must demonstrate that they understand the basics of the material that they are critiquing.  These critics show that they do not and they can thus justifiably be ignored. 

The paper critiqued by Kunze uses spectrometers to examine novel spectral lines produced by plasmas that are predicted to support Hydrino formation.¹⁶  Professor Kunze failed to perform his homework when composing his critique.  The reader may be noticing a trend in that regard.  Kunze claims that Dr. Mills could not have detected the claimed novel lines below 30 nanometers (nm) because the equipment used in the experiments were not capable of detecting them.

Dr. Mills used several pieces of equipment for the referenced paper critiqued by Kunze, one of which was the McPherson 248/310G grazing incidence spectrometer.¹⁷  The fact sheet provided by the manufacturer of that model clearly states that it can detect light from 1 nm to 300 nm when used with the appropriate gratings.  Here is a direct quote from the manufacturer:

“The high-performance instrument provides excellent performance from 1 nanometer up to 300 nm in the UV.”

Yet again, we see how utterly hollow the critiques of BLP skeptics are.  They apparently can’t be bothered to acquaint themselves with elementary aspects of the subject matter about which they make sweeping pronouncements.

As for Kunze’s claim that the enormous spectral widths of the novel lines point to artefacts, he provides no evidence that is the case.  He simply asserts it.  As we’ve already seen, Kunze got a basic fact regarding Dr. Mills’ paper wrong in a way that dooms large swathes of his critique.  Why would anyone place any weight whatsoever on an unsupported assertion by Kunze?

Every physicist in the world, no matter how skeptical of Dr. Mills’ claims, would readily admit that the existence of Hydrino would be a monumentally important finding, albeit one very inconvenient for the current paradigm of atomic scale physics. Given that importance, it is strange that Kunze did not simply attempt to replicate the experiments outlined in Dr. Mills’ paper himself, tweaking the experimental setup as needed to address any concerns raised in his article, such as the possibility of data artifacts.

As we’ve repeatedly stressed, experimental replication is the only way to conclusively settle a point of scientific contention.  The experiments in question are quite straightforward and could be performed easily and inexpensively by any well-equipped lab and Kunze apparently has experience with a relevant analytical technique.  Where is Kunze’s curiosity?  How can science proceed if the scientific community won’t work to replicate important novel findings?

Conclusion

The Brilliant Light Power Wikipedia entry has been demonstrated to be profoundly misleading.  The page editors appear determined to paint a profoundly deceitful picture of the company and Dr. Mills’ work.  We’ve also seen how cited critics repeatedly demonstrate partial or complete lack of understanding of Dr. Mills’ core claims and Hydrino science basics. 

None of this is in keeping with the scientific method.  Science can’t proceed without engagement with novel data.  Those in the scientific community possessing the curiosity that is the hallmark of a good scientist and desiring progress in a field that has been stuck on fundamental questions going on 100 years should stop objecting to Dr. Mills’ work on theoretical grounds and simply replicate one or more of his many experiments.  Those who do so will find that Dr. Mills is entirely correct with respect to his claims around Hydrino. 

1. R.L. Mills, “Maxwell's Equations and QED: Which Is Fact and Which Is Fiction?,” Physics Essays 19(2), 225-262 (2006).

2. R.L. Mills, “The fallacy of Feynman’s and related arguments on the stability of the hydrogen atom according to quantum mechanics,” Annales de la Foundation Louise de Broglie, 30(2), 29-150 (2005).

3. H. Conrads, R. Mills, and T. Wrubel, “Emission in the deep vacuum ultraviolet from a plasma formed by incandescently heating hydrogen gas with trace amounts of potassium carbonate,” Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 12(3), 389–395 (2003).

4. J. Phillips, and C. Chen, “Evidence of catalytic production of hot atomic hydrogen in RF generated hydrogen/helium plasmas,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 33(23), 7185–7196 (2008).

5. W.R. Hagen, and R.L. Mills, “Electron paramagnetic resonance proof for the existence of molecular hydrino,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 47(56), 23751–23761 (2022).

6. A. Marchese, P. Jansson, and J. Schmalzel, The Blacklight Rocket Engine, Rowan University, 2002.

7. B. Holverstott, Randell Mills and the Search for Hydrino Energy, 1st ed. (KRP History, 2016) pp. 169-178.

8. Ibid.

9. T. Stolper, America’s Newton, 1st ed. (Thomas E. Stolper, 2008), p. 274.

10. A. Rathke, “A critical analysis of the hydrino model,” New J. Phys. 7(1), 127 (2005).

11. R.L. Mills, Physical Solutions of the Nature of the Atom, Photon, and Their Interactions to Form Excited and Predicted Hydrino States, 2008 (unpublished).

12. J. Phillips, “Response to ‘Comment on “Water bath calorimetric study of excess heat generation in resonant transfer plasmas” [J. Appl. Phys.96, 3095 (2004)],’” Journal of Applied Physics 98(6), 066109 (2005).

13. R.L. Mills, and K. Akhtar, “Fast H in hydrogen mixed gas microwave plasmas when an atomic hydrogen supporting surface was present,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 35(6), 2546–2555 (2010).

14. N.M. Sisovic, G.Lj. Majstorovic, and N. Konjevic, “Excessive hydrogen and deuterium Balmer lines broadening in a hollow cathode glow discharges,” Eur. Phys. J. D 32(3), 347–354 (2005).

15. Ibid.

16. R. Mills, and P. Ray, “Extreme ultraviolet spectroscopy of helium–hydrogen plasma,” J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 36(13), 1535–1542 (2003).

17. Ibid.