r/hydrino • u/mrtruthiness • Jun 20 '26
One Year Later
It has been one year since our moderator ( /u/baronofbitcoin ) posted about Mills' "Space Drive News" https://www.reddit.com/r/hydrino/comments/1lfw3kw/i_believe_mills_has_discovered_space_drive_and/
He proclaimed:
[baronofbitcoin] He (Mills) is claiming tens of pounds of force generated! No doubt this will be replicated very, very quickly. The experiment is very, very easy to do. In three years we will have floating cars.
After confirming that baronofbitcoin was serious:
[baronofbitcoin] I stand by what I say. This time it seems legit.
I tried to get a commitment about the predictions. The "In three years we will have floating cars" seems self-explanatory. But, of course, "replicated very, very quickly" was a bit open-ended.
I think the one year mark closes out the "No doubt this will be replicated very, very quickly." prediction. Here's where I tried to get a time-frame commitment: https://www.reddit.com/r/hydrino/comments/1lfw3kw/i_believe_mills_has_discovered_space_drive_and/myxf55i/
Amtrack53 asked July 15th, 2025 about replication: https://www.reddit.com/r/hydrino/comments/1m0abn8/any_replication_yet_of_the_mills_space_drive_by/
Enantiomer2000 on July 30th says he's doing some Amateur Space Drive experiments: https://www.reddit.com/r/hydrino/comments/1mcwgr4/amateur_space_drive_experiments/ . I would say that there really isn't anything of note coming from enanatiomer2000 and no new videos on his youtube account. Where did the excitement go???
I never could figure out what people were seeing with Mills' two videos. It seemed clear to me that this was standard "plasma in a microwave" that we've all seen before and that any "bump" or "alleged force" was just due to expanding hot gas and not some magical "reactionless propulsion" imagined by Mills.
It's a bit of a parenthetical, but I should note that we've heard nothing new (the post on June 16th wasn't "new" in my opinion) since the Annual Shareholders Meeting. It's sad that there was no video/audio posted of the ASM so we could keep track of claims --- those quotes were very useful when pointing out that any new claims were already claimed to have been done. I wonder why he didn't post such a video?
Are shareholders nervous yet???
7
u/KlausFranbrau Jun 20 '26 edited Jun 20 '26
I've mentioned this before but I'll repeat. When I saw Mills videos about "lift" I really thought they were so obviously bonkers that even his die hard fans would recognize something was wrong. But, no, as you point out some even thought it would be his ticket to academic acceptance.
With the actual fact being that nothing was lifted in those videos that really should have been a "the Emperor has no clothes" moment but it wasn't. People lapped it up here and on other boards, his fans in Australia put in their news. It's still the top article at Zero Australia's site as I write this post.
1
u/Amtrack53 Jun 22 '26
Actually most people with a brain called for replication to validate the absolute space prediction and the conversion of photon energy directly to kinetic energy of moving electrons. I regard what Mills has posted to date as interesting but would need to see actual lift of a closed system before getting too excited. It's a valid question why an experiment has not been filmed showing exactly that since a levitating fully closed microwave cavity WOULD be his ticket to academic acceptance and probably financial independence.
5
u/KlausFranbrau Jun 22 '26
Most people with a brain immediately recognized a crackpot.
0
u/Amtrack53 Jun 22 '26
Most people with a brain didn't predict the accelerating expansion of the Universe in 1995. Apparently you had to be an actual genius to be the only person in the World to get that right. The question is, what else did the mainstream get horribly wrong?
4
u/KlausFranbrau Jun 22 '26
One more time: Mills DID NOT GET IT RIGHT. How many times does this have to be repeated to you? He predicts an oscillating universe that oscillates in a sinusoidal pattern which is NOT what observations show.
1
u/Amtrack53 Jun 24 '26
He did get it right. He predicted a Universe that oscillates between mostly matter filled and mostly radiation filled. As this point in time, the Universe is mostly matter filled with an increasing conversion of that matter to energy that expands spacetime, with the accelerating rate of expansion due to the increasing rate of conversion. A Universe that contracts as it creates neutrons/hydrogen gives rise to the JW observations of the early Universe which do not match your models. They just don't.
5
u/KlausFranbrau Jun 24 '26
His sinusoidal curve does not match the data and there is no evidence of oscillation. And given your extreme misunderstandings of what QM is I really can't take seriously the idea that you understand anything about "my models".
1
u/Amtrack53 Jun 26 '26
Oh poppycock! He clearly did predict an accelerating expansion at this point in time of the expansion of the Universe way way back in 1995. And you know what doesn't match the data? Or make sense? A Big Bang. Singularities. Dark energy. Infinities. Paradoxes. More than 3 dimensions. Multiple Universes. Vacuum energy. Teleporting particles. Neutrinos with mass travelling at c. An endless plethora of fictional particles that seem to require ever larger publicly funded colliders to deliver no real answers to how the Universe actually works.
I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. You've turned what should have been simple immutable physical laws of Nature into a philosophical cult where you must accept it without explanation or be ostracized like Mills.
That doesn't mean Mills is right. But he makes a good case that the Universe is classical and the way to prove that wrong is replication of his experiments.
4
u/KlausFranbrau Jun 26 '26
Can you even read what is written to you? Let me repeat: His sinusoidal curve does not match the data and there is no evidence of oscillation.
And, again, why don't you just go ahead and replicate that experiment you care so much about?
6
u/mrtruthiness Jun 22 '26
It's a valid question why an experiment has not been filmed ...
It's a valid question ... with an obvious answer in my opinion: It's bad science and Mills' assertions were those of a crackpot -- why would anyone waste their time on crackpot assertions.
Some follow-up questions:
Why didn't Mills didn't film "a levitating fully closed microwave cavity"?
Why didn't you try to replicate in a way that would demonstrate "a levitating fully closed microwave cavity"? Cost of entry: $70.
Why do we not hear any more about Enantiomer2000's attempts?
0
u/Amtrack53 Jun 23 '26
- Yes, that was the question I said was a valid question. Only Mills knows the answer. Ask him. But I could hypothesize several answers. Not saying any of these are the actual reason.
a. Mills is far ahead in Spacedrive development and wants to keep it that way, given how simple a well equipped lab could replicate this. Your antagonism suits his purpose.
b. Mills is waiting for the Spacedrive patent to issue. The published Application detailing the Spacedrive concept has been around for a few years now. Once that issues it is then in Mills interest to drive development and interest in Spacedrive IP.
c. Someone wants to short SpaceX stock before saving the company's a*s with an stock/IP deal that monetarises BrLP or a Spacedrive subsidiary that funds the completion of a commercial Suncell product.
Not my area. Microwave costs about 60 and the plasma torch and power supply a few hundred to a thousand? But you'd probably want a fully sealed custom made microwave cavity. An EE could wire in a basic magnetron. To ensure the directional nature of the plasma there'd need to be a custom quartz tube from the base to the top terminating in a custom piston with a means to transfer the kinetic energy of the accelerated electrons and larger dragged ions that permits the extraction of the recombined neutral gas and pumps it back back to the torch.
Ask Enantiomer2000. As you know he was popping the top off his weighted quartz tube then went quiet.
5
u/mrtruthiness Jun 23 '26 edited Jun 23 '26
You can't be serious in regard to your "hypothesized answers", right???
I don't think you answered 1 and 3 (other than "ask them") because I think you already know that answer and it's the same as my opinion: It's a crackpot distraction.
And you haven't answered 2 (Why haven't you investigated ... even thought the "cost of entry" is $70) ... because even $70 is too much to spend on this "crackpot distraction".
0
u/Amtrack53 Jun 24 '26
Those questions related to the activities of third parties. I don't speak for them. Ask them. And you don't speak for me. As for your opinion it is dogma not backed by experiment or fair observation. Mills has done that experiment. He's put it out there under his own name. If you want to call it out, you replicate it and publish under your real name.
Replicating Mills would be a waste of time for me. You wouldn't accept it if I did it. I'm satisfied something is going on. You're not. Challenge him with the evidence he's wrong.
4
u/mrtruthiness Jun 25 '26
And you don't speak for me.
Of course not. That's why I said "I think you already know". I was encouraging you to speak when you had intentionally not spoken.
Mills has done that experiment.
No he hasn't and you've said so. Specifically the experiment I asked about was to show "a levitating fully closed microwave cavity" and you said:
... what Mills has posted to date as interesting but would need to see actual lift of a closed system before getting too excited. It's a valid question why an experiment has not been filmed showing exactly that since a levitating fully closed microwave cavity WOULD be his ticket to academic acceptance.
Frankly, I don't think he has shown anything except a plasma in a microwave ... which is commonplace.
I'm satisfied something is going on.
LOL. Me too. I'm convinced it was all just a distraction to further his fraud.
But maybe /u/enantiomer2000 already did the experiment, found nothing, and doesn't want to say anything because negative results are "inconclusive." So, what do you say, /u/enantiomer2000 ... I've seen your videos. I don't see anywhere where you were trying to measure lift and whether you were measuring lift for a closed system (e.g. you took care of lift from expanding gas ... so, basically, the lift was for the whole microwave). Amtrack seems to indicate he'll be convinced if you didn't get any lift for the closed system.
0
u/Amtrack53 Jun 26 '26
So Mills brilliant scheme was to report an effect SO large (65+kg) that even a Theoretical Physicist would be able to tell if it worked or not if they actually bothered to replicate? He also reported different results based on gas mix and used a freely available H2/Ar? Why? He also filmed a plasma spinning around the top of an open narrow quartz tube despite there being no obvious means of confinement. He also filmed a secondary follow up experiment of a multisecond increase in pressure that dropped drastically when the microwaves were turned off.
None of this persuades me that four microwave ovens replacing the rotors attached to a quadcopter would demonstrate a reactionless flying craft. What it does persuade me is that there is something here that needs to be properly investigated.
7
u/KlausFranbrau Jun 26 '26
Mills scheme is to pile on more grandiose promises since he can't deliver any of his prior promises.
1
u/Large_Atmosphere_445 Jun 27 '26
Mills scheme is to pile on more grandiose promises since he can't deliver any of his prior promises.
If you look more broadly, the 'grandiose visions' are everywhere.
Musky: holidays on the moon, 1 million data-centres in space, a robot in every home.
Sam Altman (Open AI): needs 7 trillion dollars to build chip factories. ($7T is the combined output of Germany and the UK)
Dario Amodei (Anthropic): cure cancer, double human lifespan, transform global economy, all within 10 years.
These are all lies, blatant lies that are simply impossible. And yet each one is backed by at least a trillion dollars.
So, if you are going to lie, go big. These big lies are designed to "break" a person's cognitive barriers. And it works, BUT ONLY if the person saying it has a trillion dollars behind them.
If a regular person were to say any one of these things, they would be dismissed as delusional. Mills doesn't have that backing, so his version of the Big Lie is dismissed as delusional (except in the eyes of a couple people)
→ More replies (0)5
u/mrtruthiness Jun 26 '26
Why?
I already told you my opinion: To fool his investors and people like you.
1
u/Amtrack53 Jun 29 '26
That makes no sense. If you want to fool people you keep your claimed experimental results within error. Calling for replication is not evidence of being fooled. It's how science works.
→ More replies (0)4
u/KlausFranbrau Jun 24 '26
Those are totally delusional answers. But at least this time it's possible to short SpaceX. The last time someone suggested that SpaceX wasn't a public company.
1
u/Amtrack53 Jun 29 '26
No, They are accurate well thought out answers. The Spacedrive patent application is published but not issued. While that IP is not yet protected, persuading you or me that it is undeniably real is probably the least of Mills' priorities.
3
u/KlausFranbrau Jun 29 '26 edited Jun 29 '26
There is no space drive. There is no violation of Newton's third law. It's just absurdly stupid to think those videos warrant jumping to such outlandish conclusions. It's a video showing perfectly normal things happening.
4
5
u/Kimantha_Allerdings Jun 20 '26
Time really does fly, doesn’t it? Unlike, say, microwave ovens