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.
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!!!
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.