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.
***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.
12/23/20 PIETECH Page 11, PIE 4.6
Eccentric Drive Gearing
I was going to be putting my effort into duplicating the dead blow weight so that I can test the first wheel with 2 weights, and I can build a second wheel to go with the first one. However, when I was doing the propulsion testing with the single wheel, I noticed that as by battery started running down propulsion was diminishing. This was found to be a “slow-down” of the motor during the critical “power-stroke” (those who have read my manual know what that means) causing propulsion loss. To compensate, I manually turned the knob on the speed controller during slow speed operation. Naturally, I did not meet the correct RPM every time, but I noticed that if I overshot the running RPM at exactly the right moment, the PIE 4.6 would lurch forward much stronger.
A friend of mine, who also has been working on his own inertial propulsion drive (YouTube Channel) and I were discussing this. It has been found that changing the time base in mid or quarter turns of the main wheel could enhance the propulsion effect dramatically.
My choices for this concept are to
either electrically change the RPMs back and forth or use eccentric gearing to
smoothly transition the RPMs thus changing the time base. In the end I may try them
both or perhaps someone could find a better method.
For now, I have started this experiment with the eccentric gear setup. Eccentric gears are essentially a pair (or more) of identical gears or sprockets, with their axle’s not on center in the exact same amount. Since each will “wobble” exactly the same amount, they can be meshed together. When one it rotated at a steady RPM by an outside source (electric motor, etc.) the other one accelerates through half of its rotation and decelerates through the other half.
So, for my experiment I have 2
identical sprockets, each mounted on-center and each on a bearing. Then there
are two more identical sprockets fastened parallel with the first ones, each
mounted exactly the same amount off-center. The two off-center (or eccentric)
sprockets are timed and connected together with roller chain.
Sprocket set 1 is driven by the electric motor. Sprocket set 2 is connected to the PIE 4.6 wheel. As the motor turns at a steady RPM, the PIE 4.6 is accelerating and decelerating constantly. This is timed to start the acceleration approximately halfway through the portion of the cycle when the weight is in contact with the center (inner stop) axle. Timing here is very important and even a few teeth off on the sprocket to wheel timing makes a huge difference. In fact, it has been observed that with the timing off too much, the unit would oscillate forward AND back with significant force.
I know that this design will not be well suited to having multiple weights on the wheel, but I do have a goal in mind that I am not ready to introduce just yet. If this idea works out, it would be capable of enhancing the operation of any of the PIE versions.
The downside is; if I only have 1
weight per wheel the RPM is limited due to transverse (sideways) forces
threatening to tear it apart.
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!
Hi everyone and welcome to my blog’s new home. I hope that this venue will be of at least the same quality as before, and I really hope that the text is a bit easier to read!
I posted a video on YouTube & BitChute of the PIE 4.5 with 3 gears, 2 gears and just one planet gear on it. There is a bit of controversy as to which is better and what configuration should be considered for the PIE 4.5 to continue. Watch the video and you can plainly see the lack of propulsion with better balance (3 planet gears), and much better propulsion with a fully unbalanced wheel (1 planet gear). Of course, getting rid of the jerking nature of the drive is a primary goal along with stronger propulsive force.
I have gone back and reviewed my recorded data, and videos, going all the way back to the very first truly functioning drive still being referred to as a Thornson Drive even though the stop modifications were already being changed and modified to the design finally used in the PIE system. The wheels (4 of them) all had a single planet gear, they were all running more or less in-sync, and it just plain worked. I am going to put the 3 videos I have of this original unit together into one video and post in soon.
Keeping this in mind, and knowing that I really can get a MUCH stronger forward pulse without increasing the back pulse, the goal remains to pulse smoothly (an oxymoron). For this plan to work, I need 2 or more complete PIE units that produce fairly equal amounts of force and that can run in-sync (with a calculated offset) without actually being physically mounted to the same frame.
Stay tuned to this blog and my video channels as I think some exciting things should be happening soon!