Well now, it seems that with the openness of the experimentation, building, fabricating, and functional videos that the “it doesn’t work” folks have become “it only works because of” folks.
The better we get this working, and the more verified data there is, the more people keep coming up with reasons they think we get propulsion. Primarily this presumptive opinion input has revolved around friction. The common theory is that “contact” with virtually anything is the friction causing propulsion. I cannot say that anything is impossible, but short of tossing this thing out into space it will be nearly impossible to “disprove” that theory! Here is my position on this… “Who freaking cares?!?!?!” It just works, so let us expand on this and put it to use for the betterment of EVERYONE!
I get it that the super smart technical theorists believe that anything that isn’t incredibly complex simply cannot work. Sorry people, but that is just another false theory which has been mistaken as fact.
Mine is NOT the only system that works, mine is not the only tech that needs to be openly replicated. If the replications are done with an expectation of failure, it will most likely fail. If they are done with an open & optimistic attitude with an expectation of recording valuable data, extraordinary things are possible!
I have recently published the video on YouTube and BitChute of the first round of Dual-Wheeled testing with fully independent asynchronous control of each wheel (CW & CCW rotating). More testing videos will be published, and a comprehensive report will be published when these tests are complete. That video is visible below.
I have been actively experimenting and building “stuff” for many years. Some of this “stuff” was really never meant to see the light of day or at least never to be “reviewed” by “academia”, it was done for the sheer joy of creating something new and unique. Now that one of these creations has progressed to the point where it becomes something profoundly useful, academia is pushing back harder than ever… Even with a functional prototype right in front of them, the PhD scientists are quick to expound their firm belief stating loudly “that’s not possible” and accusing anyone involved in any way of being a “charlatan”, a “fake”, or a “scammer”.
Just like the idea of “perpetual motion” or “zero-point energy”, “inertial propulsion” is seen as a direct threat to everything they have been taught and what they have been taught to stand for. Anyone even open to the idea is immediately labeled as a “fraud” and is no longer welcome anywhere near the circles of the “scientifically advanced” or “real” scientists (as they consider themselves).
It has even been publicly stated that “there is no longer a place for the ‘garage inventor’ because there is nothing more they can contribute to science”… HOGWASH! Science has become a cult of “elitists” who are so self-absorbed that all others are too far beneath them to be of any value as human beings…
I have (unfortunately) come into direct contact with these “elitist PhD’s” and have simply learned make peace with this bullshit. Now as people around me are starting to experience the ostracism there seem to be a couple of choices presented. One choice is to “roll over” and “take it up the a$$” by simply shutting up and going away. Another is to “avoid contact” with the elitists and quietly keep working. The third is to “stand and fight” against the system and the elitists running it.
No matter your personal decision, my advice (for what its worth) is to “stay true to what you believe in” BUT always “pick your fights wisely”! That is it… You may choose to avoid conflict and stay “safe”, but if you do choose to “stand-up” to the elite authority, do so wisely and do not expect to unilaterally “win”! Accept the small victories with graciousness, and consider the failures as “learning experiences” the same way we do in the lab or the shop!
Sorry to get so serious… Now I need to get back to work, and do what I do best building stuff… Thanks for reading this!
–The PIE 4.8 is ready to test with two counter rotating wheels. The two wheels are fully independent with their own identical speed controllers and motors. They are fastened together on a 2X4 frame, and initial testing will be on wheels followed by on-road testing. The photo has the assembly sitting on a work cart. That cart is not stable enough to run the PIE on, but it is enough to load/unload it from its transportation, and carry it between test stands.
The PIE 4.8 CCW wheel is pretty well set. I have attempted to get some force tests done with a force meter, the output readings were very unstable at best. I was however able to get some slightly better readings with an accelerometer.
The photos are screenshots from an accelerometer app on an android phone. The waveform or trace is below the “0” when pulling forward. It is obvious that there is a more stable pull during each pulse forward, and disorganized spikes in the reversion direction. Keep in mind that it will show a small reverse pull between forward pulses just because the chassis slows slightly between propulsive pulses.
On Saturday 5/1/2021 I had the honor of being asked (at the very last minute) to speak about the PIE systems on the APEC conference Zoom meeting. My part was near the end but just before open discussion at 4:51:28 and even though I did not have anything prepared it was still a lot of fun. APEC is Advanced Propulsion Engineering Conference and it is hosted by Tim Ventura of American Antigravity (https://www.americanantigravity.com). The full video of that conference is here:
During the conference we talked about the PIE systems, discussed theory, and talked about the near-future testing. We also discussed a phenomena that has been showing up in PIE experiments since the first on-road tests of the PIE 1.0. The phenomenon is that of increasing thrust when the entire unit is in motion. The faster the test vehicle moved the more forward thrust was experienced with each pulse. This has also been experienced and proven in the lab, so it has moved from a possibility into a fully testable repeating phenomenon. For lack of any better analogous terminology I started calling this the “Inertial Doppler Effect”. As a friend and colleague was maintaining that he thought the PIEs are still some form of “stick-slip” drive which depend on friction to operate (fully disproven in the lab) and it occurred to me that maybe he is wrong and right at the same time.
This is my current understanding of this phenomenon. I know that my “loose definition” of Doppler is not 100% correct when comparing a mechanical system to an EM wave form. This is a copy and paste of my reply to the idea of the PIE being a stick-slip drive:
My analogy of inertial Doppler is a “still forming” theorem, bit it currently a spacial/mass/inertial interaction which is proving itself in reality. Here are some cold, hard, facts… Doppler effect exists because the “center of mass” of the energy wave is moving and the energy is emanating from that “center of mass” making the wave have more “force” in the forward moving direction (Overly Simplified). Sooooo… The PIE (or I venture to say “any”) inertial drive will exhibit the Doppler effect, and if that is so (it is IMO) then all inertial drives ABSOLUTELY MUST have more mass in the overall structure than the masses being displaced (moved, oscillated, etc. also) in order to have directed thrust (linear motion). If the mass of the structure were less there would only be massive vibration (oscillation) – example: if a 2 moving mass (weights) structure weighed 5kg and the masses weighed 2.5kg each there would be a net linear propulsion of little more than zero even if the propulsive force was 2X higher than reversion force, but if the structure weighed 10kg there would be more mass “in motion” than there is “reverting”… So, ideally the mass of the structure should be 1 to 2X of the reversion force!
If I didn’t ramble too incoherently, and you are following my train of thought above, this means that ANY inertial drive which succumbs to this theory is a “stick-slip” drive but it is the inertia of the structure’s mass that it’s “sticking” to (pushing against). It also explains the Doppler effect because if it is “pushing” against inertia itself, that inertia is stronger as the structure moves!
I may have sprained a brain cell or two trying to put this theorem into words!!!
The PIE counterclockwise wheel (CCW) is nearly finished and will be tested very soon. I made a significant change to the “outer stop” which works so well to warrant changing up the model number to PIE 4.8 and I am installing them on all of the planet gears for the PIE 4.8.
I have also improved the mounting (resembling a halo) for the swinging weight. This improvement also allows for the addition of strengthener braces if it is found to be necessary.
The new stops allow for actual adjustment of the stops. This will allow me to make small changes to stop position and find out if there is a particular “sweet spot” for the outer stop.
The CCW wheel is constructed to run on its own with its own separate motor and speed controller (as seen above). This is necessary to run the full gamut of necessary tests regarding phasing and RPMs. Once these tests are complete there will be better data regarding proper synchronization and whether the two opposing wheels should even be synched at all.
I have posted several videos on my YouTube and BitChute channels showing the building of the CCW and the new PIE 4.8 stops. Here (below) is the new PIE 4.8 CCW running its bench test with the SDC installed.
Here (below) is the first bench test run of the CCW before the SDC was installed.
Here (below) is the PIE 4.8 CCW set on some pipe rollers just to check for backward force (reversion) vs. forward force (thrust).
It has been a while since my last update. I guess I kind of went down a bit of a rabbit hole looking for answers to the reversion issues that virtually all inertial drives have. The answers I found are useful, and everything learned has value!
My search took me through the world of compound levers, offset drives and finally to the Tolchin/Shipov drive. The T/S drive taught me the most as it uses some of the same principals necessary in virtually ALL inertial drives, which is adding the 4th “D” (Dimension) to a gyroscopic arrangement.
4D Gyroscopes: Everyone (basically) learned about 3D in grade school. Height, depth and width or in machine shop geometric algebra, X, Y and Z axis or dimensions. The 4th D is T, or time. Time in a spinning gyroscope is measured in RPM, or revolutions per minute. Adding the 4th “dimension” to a gyro is done by rapidly and purposefully changing the RPM faster AND slower, generally within a single revolution.
If you were to view a conventional toy-type gyroscope, you will notice a frame surrounding the flywheel and a smooth-rimmed flywheel in the center. Now, use a marker (pencil or crayon is fine) and put one dot on the rim of the flywheel. That is now our reference point. Place the gyroscope so you can see the entire rim of the frame and the rim of the flywheel. Place a mark on the frame at the top and the bottom as you are viewing it (right and left work too) and then using your finger turn the flywheel rapidly from one mark to the next, then slowly from that mark back to the beginning. That is the 4th D!!!
Imagine spinning the flywheel at 1000 RPM but installing a mechanism that will slow it to 800 RPM for one-half of each revolution, returning it to its original velocity for the other half, and you have a 4D gyroscope!
Now replace the dot on the flywheel with a small weight, and spin it fast then slow then fast then slow with every revolution one-half of it is moving fast and one-half moving slower. It might not be exactly what you desire, but there WILL be inertial propulsion derived from that device!
It is not about shuttling weights around; it is all about changing the “time base” by rapidly changing speeds during EVERY revolution! Shuttling weights can be part of that and quite often they are, unfortunately many people believe that the weight shuttling causes propulsion, when in fact it is only a component of the gyroscope that can be time-manipulated into performing propulsive work. This can be accomplished mechanically or electrically, and although those two systems may appear fundamentally different, they are like the difference between a diesel and a gas engine, they may be “fed” fuel differently and the ignition of that fuel is done differently they are still a piston & crankshaft engine (there are also rotary and turbine but I’m not going there right now).
So, keeping in mind that there are different ways of accomplishing the same basic task, I am back to the PIE 4.7 with a renewed outlook and it is definitely time to “Git ‘Er Done”!
***Note #1: This post was created before P.15 so the testing spoken of has been completed already. Read PIETECH P.15 for explanation.***
As I approach and prepare for the next set of propulsion tests for the PIE 4.7, want to note the most recent successful design changes made which do increase power output in the early bench tests performed so far. It should be noted that none of these changes require any input power increases.
***Note #2: I also have had another idea, one that seems so preposterous that I am consulting with a few trusted individuals before revealing it.***
The first three of these four are self-explanatory but we shall touch on them very quickly.
It is a definite power output increaser to:
1… hold the weight in center longer (via guides).
2… to be able to adjust speeds on the fly (via speed controller and SDC gain control).
3… use dead blow weights (stronger & longer pulses without increasing input energy).
4… use the SDC (counters loading slow-down and increases pulse strength).
Number 4, the SDC (Speed Differential Control) is a real game-changer, so that is where the focus needs to be for now. Some of the important details & technical notations regarding this are as follows:
1st: The output goes down dramatically if speed is reduced during the “power stroke”. This was discovered when the original belt would slip at times. It stood to reason that if speed decrease was detrimental, an increase could be very beneficial. Mechanical experimentation was performed very successfully by my friend and colleague Tokio using offset (eccentric) gear drives. When he added them to a PIE design (PIE 3.* series) great power was generated, and many components were destroyed by internal forces. Electrically changing speeds is quick and efficient!
2nd: Higher speeds are known to increase power output, but reducing the weight in order to achieve the high speeds was counterproductive. The SDC can momentarily increase the speed higher than necessary to maintain base RPM, simulating a higher speed without adding damaging high loads to the mechanism or increasing input power.
3rd: Adding speed only when required adds to the outward swinging motion of the weight and reducing that speed “could” increase the impact on the outer stop to increase power.
4th: This may me a stretch of my imagination… I believe that the combination of the guide and SDC acts upon the PIE similar to the “Inner Planet Trap” did in the Roy Thornson design. I have to think that instead of speeding up the RPM at the correct moment, Roy was “slowing down” the RPM at the beginning of the power stroke and allowing the RPM to rise in mid-power stroke.
5th: Keeping the electric motor speed low is important as it reduces the overall inertial flywheel effect, allowing faster RPM changes to the PIE’s main wheel (flexplate/flywheel).
Something that can be kept in mind for future experiments would be the utilization of a CNC (think Arduino, maybe) controlled stepper motor and servo system, perhaps with hall effect sensors for feedback, which would virtually eliminate all of the guides, micro switches, gears, and chains. Even the main wheel could just be a straight arm attached to a stepper motor.
Those innovations (if ever used at all) are definitely a long way off in the future, and for now we need to learn to walk before we can learn to run.
The last round of single-wheel PIE 4.7 testing is done and the video has been posted. I videoed the testing in multiple “takes” due to time constraints. There are more videos that “could” have been taken, but I chose to forgo the videoing of tests with little or no result differences (I get too long-winded as it is).
There have been some video comments stating in various ways that because it is not a fully successful propulsion engine, that the project should be scrapped, and I should re-focus my energy into more conventional technologies… Everyone is entitled to their opinions. I suppose I could easily get indignant and respond with an expression reflecting that inflamed “knee jerk” emotional response, but there is no point. If watchers do not like what they see, there are plenty of other things to watch so apparently there was enough interest to post a public comment.
I created a post a few days ago, but I have not posted it, primarily because of what is some passive-aggressive contact from a handful of people. I have decided not to let this discourage the public furthering of the PIE project and that post is included in its entirety and without editing after this one, posted as its own post as was originally intended.
Note: I am, from now on, choosing to link and embed videos from BitChute (and maybe others too) rather than YouTube. With the censorship being displayed at YouTube, how long will it be before my videos are labeled as something needing censorship too?
Because the PIE 2.0 was shelved without any disassembly and was kept in-tact from its last tests and demos, I decided it would be interesting to install the 24-volt electric motor and speed controller on it. It was really great to see the PIE 2.0 spring to life with a renewed vigor thanks to the powerful motor. But this was not the reason for upgrading the version number…
Since the motor and speed controller was working so well (on 12v) it seemed natural to add the speed differential control (SDC) to it as well. I started with one actuator, so the PIE would get a speed boost for one half of the rotation which uses two weight pulses per revolution. This would tell me immediately several things. It would indicate if the SDC would be effective on another PIE (repeatability test) and if it would still work with an opposing weight approaching and entering the “neutral/reset” position.
Both results were 100% conclusive that the result was a definite increase in power output!
Next was to add a second actuator so the boost would be working with each half of the rotation. A second actuator of identical length (8 inches long) was installed 180 degrees away from the first actuator. Power output seemed very high but because I don’t have a force meter, I simply was not certain. The simple answer was to add a toggle switch in line with the SDC circuit to simply turn the SDC on or off while running the PIE.
Results of the dual actuator test was amazing! The base speed could be run from 0 to over 100 RPMs, and the action was the same as it was when running on the drill motor. At different speeds ranging from approximately 30 to 100 RPMs, the differential circuit was activated and deactivated at many different base speeds with very powerful results. Judging only by the amount the PIE was moving the bench I would estimate an approximate 50-75% power increase with the SDC active! THIS is the reason I am calling for the version increase from 2.0 to 2.1 on the older PIE.
As a side-note, the PIE 2.1 runs “smoother” with the SDC, and will probably last longer too!
It is now time to “ramp up” the experimental PIE 4.7 with a second weight, and maybe increasing the mass of the weight(s) to around 2kg. In order to do this mass increase, each weight will be using slightly more than 16 linear inches of 3/8”X2” steel along with the BBs, bushing, bolts and weight mounted guide.
As the PIE becomes more “refined”, the total monetary cost of each build increases along with the increase in output power, but when overall quality increases the cost will invariably increase as well.
Videos of the PIE 2.0 changing into a version 2.1 are available on my YouTube channel now, and will also be on BitChute very soon.
I had intended to wait and do the
first true propulsion test on the 4.6 on a proper set of bearings or wheels,
but I found myself with a few minutes of free time so I went into my lab area
to think about “next moves” & decided that I simply wanted to see it move
on its own.
So, it was nothing fancy and the battery was not “riding” along with it. No numerical data was recorded either. I simply placed two short (about 12”) lengths of ½” (12mm) conduit under the PIE 4.6 which would allow it to move freely forward and backward.
The RPMs were slowly brought up from
zero and as soon as the weight started to swing properly the PIE 4.6 moved
forward only, and with a great deal of authority. I was VERY pleased, and I was
truly amazed at the lack of backward movement which I am attributing to the
dead blow design. I will be posting a video very soon (might be posted by the
time this is being read) so please check my YouTube & BitChute channels. https://www.youtube.com/user/stclairtechrd and https://www.bitchute.com/channel/miGkQfBM24NZ/
I will be making a couple more of these
amazing Dead Blow Weights with its attached Guide (DB-G) as soon as possible so
that I can see if the 4.6 will still move properly with multiple planet gears
using the DB-G. From there, multiple wheels would be on the agenda along with
experimentation much like those performed with the 1.0 and 2.0 such as synchronous
rotation vs. counter-synchronous rotation etcetera.
It has been mentioned that the slow
progress and multiple videos posted with little success tend to be frustrating.
This is the methodology employed by the scientific community and by
professional Model Makers worldwide. Even
though I know what I want to build, taking these slow and methodical steps
allow me to eliminate component designs with inferior performance and focus on
those designs with more promise. The more successful designs, to which I am
adding the PIE 4.6, are the fruit of this painfully slow methodology. Regardless
of anyone else’s personal beliefs (all are welcome to their own beliefs) I also
acknowledge a divine inspiration fueling my own personal path of growth in this
The latest test of the PIE 4.5 is using a 1 kg dead blow type weight. The weight is a steel box with steel shot (BB’s) inside it. It appears to have a lot of promise, as there is virtually no “bounce” when the weight hits the inner stop, and it seems to be dampened where it would contact the outer stop if it had one (has not been installed).
There is a video of this first testing on YouTube and BitChute. The problem however remained that the centrifugal force and impact force did not push in the same direction, which was the reason for Thornson’s “Inner Planet Trap” which would hold the weight and release at the correct time.
The answer is to install a “guide” on the end of the weight which would keep the weight near the center axle and correct the problem of thrusting in two different directions. This is proving , so far, to be a much improved design. This can also be seen on YouTube and BitChute.
These improvements are now bringing the PIE version up to “PIE 4.6”.
Check out the videos on YouTube and BitChute & thanks for watching!