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.
It has been a while since my last post, or video so here is an update:
The PIE 4.7 second half (CCW wheel) is progressing, although somewhat slower than I would prefer as life’s circumstances have presented certain obstacles to its advancement. The first “dead blow” weight for it is ready to install, and another is in process.
I always said it is not a good idea to have more than one project going at a time, yet that is exactly what I am doing…
After communicating at length with other builders, I have split my time between the PIE 4.7 and a new design, the “PIE X”. It has some radically different internal components and will look a bit different but it is still what I would call a Pulsed Inertial Engine, so right now it is known as the “PIE X”.
This design has originated from other people so I will need their permission to “open source” any of that information! I require their permission to share or publish the information leading up to the PIE X without the consent of those who have been kind enough to share the basic design information with me!
If the PIE X is as feasible as predicted and becomes something worth pursuing more information may be provided (with permission), and if it falls short, I will provide thoughts regarding that failure (still, with permission only).
Note: The PIE X is quite a bit more expensive and much more complex to build and fabricate the components for, so it may not be something the casual hobbyist would feel comfortable with, at least not until there is a working prototype to prove the principals.
Those who know me and those who have followed along with my PIE/PIETECH projects know that I do not randomly spout “theory”. I only present factual information so until I have an experimental prototype, I would not request permission to elaborate any technical information. I only mention the PIE X as an ongoing project because it does slow the PIE 4.7 project and has pushed back the timetable to begin full testing. I am hoping to be performing “on road” testing of the PIE 4.7 by early June which gives me about 8 weeks.
I hope to be posting photos and videos VERY soon, so right now I need to go get busy, I have a PIE 4.7 to finish building and a PIE X to get underway!
I am now actively building more weights and components for the counter rotating wheel assembly. As we have seen before, the PIE design works better with two wheels but this is the first one that has “self-propelled) with just one wheel. I think it will be very interesting to see it work with a second wheel, especially a counter rotating one.
If I do decide that I do not want it to counter rotate, the weights can be modified by just grinding the welds for the ramp brackets that I welded to the side of each one. The pivots are being made to work with the stops in either direction. The other pieces that would need changing are really just the actuators for the switches, so it would not be a super big deal.
It has been a little while since the first half was built, so I did have to go back and look to make sure the new weights match the original ones in both size and weight. Eight 2X2X3/8″ steel squares, two 1-1/2X3X1/16″ rectangles, a block to hold the pivot bushing and the bushing itself. Once the basic box is made, the BB’s are added to complete the weight measurement and make it a dead blow. I thought they were 2 kg each, but I actually had to weigh one to be absolutely certain! Once the BB’s are added, the top is welded on, and it will need a coat of paint.
The wheel is already constructed, as is the sun gear, so some of the most time-consuming work is already done.
I will update the blog here, as it all progresses.
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”!
As the PIE project continues, I am not blind to reality. There are still many shortcomings to be overcome, forces within the PIE assembly which fight themselves and therefore fight against the very purpose of the PIE. “Reversion” is “anti-propulsion” and it is the bane of all inertial propulsion systems, a primary force to be circumvented as it cannot be eliminated. In the quest for circumvention there is a relatively simple sounding answer known as “redirection”. There is a type of device which has purported to have redirected reversion with good efficiency invented by a Russian named Tolchin and redesigned by another named Shipov. Because this Tolchin/Shipov (T/S) design effectively used redirection within a narrow band of geometric proportions, and because the mechanicals of the T/S drive are less complex than that of the PIE, I have allocated a bit of time and resource to verify T/S drive operation. Assuming the device is verified, a small T/S could be used as an anti-reversion device with the PIE and with other strong impulse drives as well.
Tolchin vs. Shipov: The Tolchin drive was originally fully mechanical with a spring motor and mechanical governors and brakes to build forward momentum and then partially nullify reversion. Once Shipov came into the picture the mechanical controls were replaced with electrical controls. I believe either would be effective, but electrical is easier to adjust and modify so that is the route my experimental work is following at this time.
Noteworthy Difference: There is one other noteworthy difference! The Tolchin drive appears to have lacked the precision of the Shipov drive. Watching the videos of the Tolchin vs. the Shipov, Tolchin used one moveable mechanism inside another to lessen the reversion. The inside mechanism moved forward and back “pulling” the main trolly with what appear to be rubber bands. The inner mechanism may also be angled downward slightly to use gravity as an integral part of the cycle. Shipov eliminated these considerations with precise braking control of the rotating assembly.
The Tolchin/Shipov drive cycle explained:
The T/S drive has 2 halves and they are identical mirror images of each other so I will only focus on 1/2 of the drive. I will be using clock positions of the weights for clarity. The rotation in this explanation will be clockwise to follow the numbers and 12 o’clock is straight forward.
1: At 12 the weight is moving at base speed.
2: At 1:30 (60 degrees) the weight is accelerated to approximately 2X to 3X the base speed (power stroke).
3: At 5:30 (30 degrees from center measured at the bottom) the weight returns to base speed.
4: The weight continues at base speed on around to 12 and starts over.
Since the acceleration force is designed to occur within a 90-degree arc (1/4 revolution), the forward thrust needs to be more than the reverse thrust used in returning the weights to the front. This is simple but stopping the acceleration (accelerated speed) at the exact right moment is critical if the T/S drive is to function!
Current: Right now, the gearing is put together and I am currently powering it with an obsolete cordless drill mechanism. Speed control is accomplished with the same controller being used on the PIE 4.7, including the SDC control.
Problem: The problem with my replica is the weight’s return to base speed is not instant, and because the rotation is still moving too fast (and overshoots the desired slow-down position) the centripetal force pulls in the wrong direction. A brake is needed to quickly (instantly if possible) slow the rotation speed back to base speed. I believe this might be accomplished with a “motor brake” working similarly to a modern cordless drill which stops without coasting when the trigger is released. Another thought is that my weights are too heavy for the older model drill motor to effectively decelerate quickly, and they may need to be replaced with lighter weights.
Gyro, Centrifugal, Centripetal? Shipov called this a “4D gyroscope” where the 4th dimension is time (rotation speed), but it could also be called a “centripetal drive” since thrust is derived by accelerating the weights in an arc toward the rear, and then the centripetal energy is absorbed by reducing speed at the moment the direction is perpendicular to desired motion. Since the mirrored half is doing the same thing in the opposite direction, sideways force is cancelled at both the acceleration point and deceleration point.
***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?