Inertial Drive – Page 2 – Grassroots Mechanic Movement

PIE 4.8 Nearly Ready for Road Testing:

Over the last few weeks, a lot of progress has been made!

The PIE 4.8 CW & CCW halves have been assembled and tested.

Testing has been done with both running on separate motors at both similar and different speeds, with the conclusion that the halves need to be synchronized to be effective.

A test cart has been constructed with smooth runners to see if the PIE and its wheels were pushing against the wheels’ friction in any way which would indicate a stick-slip drive. Results show that the PIE 4.8 would cleanly self-propel off of the cart under it (which moves as easily as the PIE) without either pushing the cart back or pulling it along. There are those who say that “it proves nothing”, to which I say “OK… I really don’t care! I am not trying to “prove” it works”.

I have a video of that test here:

A new frame has now been constructed for the dual PIE 4.8 and the assembly is almost ready for full-on road testing.

A chain drive was devised to rotate the wheels in opposite directions from a single motor, and the SDC only needs to be connected to one wheel for operation. The frame is pretty heavy being made from 2” X 2” X 3/16” steel angle, but it should not “flex” at all during operation!

Here is a video of the PIE 4.8 being tested on its new frame:

I have also been asked to do a presentation for the APEC conference. I am putting a Power Point (PP) presentation together at this time which I will narrate live rather than pre-recording. There will be graphics (some of which were supplied by Mr. Tokio Muramatsu) and a short “timeline” video… What else is yet to be determined.

More to come as soon as possible!

PIE 4.8 Testing- and -Doubters, Debunkers, and Haters:

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.

PIE 4.8 Nearing Test Mode, Science Elitists and Bucking the System, The Dark Side of Science?

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.

PIE 4.8 – The APEC 5/1/2021 Conference and the “Inertial Doppler Effect”

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!!!

Till next time….

Tolchin/Shipov Drives May Compliment PIE System

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.

Tolchin Drive

Shipov Drive

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.

Current T/S Type Drive Experiment

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.

Changes Brought About Via Single Wheel Testing PIETECH P.16

***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:

1^st: 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!

2^nd: 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.

3^rd: 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.

4^th: 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.

5^th: 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.

PIE 4.7, Testing & Neg. Comments, PIETECH P.15

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?

PIE 4.7 Single Wheel With Multiple Configurations

PIE 4.7 – Now with Two Weights and Actuators, PIETECH P. 15

A second weight has now been put together for the PIE 4.7. It is .02kg heavier than the first weight, but that can be corrected (if necessary) by drilling shallow holes in the weight until corrected. The weight of each is 2kg +/-.

Two SDC actuators are installed. They are each 8 inches long and are attached to the main wheel’s outer ring gear with ¼” beam clamps from the local hardware store.

Additionally, the SDC potentiometer “pot” is installed next to the main speed control pot on the motor speed controller, a mini toggle switch was added to turn on or off the SDC function, and finally a main-power toggle switch was added between the battery and speed controller.

Bench testing is showing a most definite power output increase across the board when the SDC is on compared to tests without it. It seems that because of the improvements made, the PIE 4.7 (with its one wheel and two weights) is comparable to the PIE 2.1 which is twice its size. Proper testing will be done in the next week or so, then we will know for sure.

Fastened to the Bench & Back to Simple Chain Drive

A video is posted to both the YouTube and BitChute channels giving a quick tour of the PIE 4.7 and then a demo with it firmly attached to the bench.

Disassembled/Reassembled PIE 4.7 – Dual Actuator First Bench Test

Revisiting and Updating the PIE 2.0 into a PIE 2.1, PIETECH P. 14

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.

New Dead Blow Weight In Process – Empty Cavity To Be Partially Filled With Steel Shot

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.

PIETECH Page 12, Happy New Year (Thank God 2020 is Over, Let’s Move Forward!!!)

As 2020 comes to a close, I look forward to what 2021 will bring. “Normal” life was suspended, the MSM news cannot seem to find anything to report that doesn’t have a carefully scripted narrative, alternative news sources have come under fire from big tech and the MSM, but those of us quietly building, designing and experimenting found the slow-down to be a productive time.

It has been a strange year but there has been a great deal of progress by “amateur” researchers and experimenters, so I thought it only right to recap some of the more important inertial & gyroscopic propulsion findings of 2020.

From esteemed engineering professionals to a host of virtually unknown tinkerers (me) and from all parts of the world, approaches to building a fully functional inertial drive system are quite varied but the experiments publicly presented have erased all doubt that this is a valid (although infant) technology which will soon be a budding mainstream industry.

Early in 2020, the early evidence presented and posted on video platforms such as YouTube and BitChute was still drawing a LOT of negative attention from some “learned” “experts” who unequivocally argued that all working units are fakes designed to defraud the unlearned public. Most of these demonstrations were genuine, and many of the online attackers were nothing more than “trolls” attempting to keep honest people from discovering anything meaningful. I am not going to speak for the many brilliant people who have designs of their own, I will only mention the work I have done over the last 12+ months.

In 2019, I had finally built a proof of principal gyroscopic design of my own design when I happened upon the work of Roy Thornson. I saw his design as a highly workable and developable device that should be replicated and improved. So I shelved (but kept intact) my initial work and switched to the Thornson design. I downloaded everything I could find, bought every available technical reference, and eventually even contacted someone who knew Roy personally. Within a month or two, I had a Thornson based replica that could self-propel across a workbench and I was “hooked”.

I decided that because I had built a working model that could easily “go missing”, the safest way to keep both it and me safe was to make every step public, free, and open source. So all the building steps were posted to a blog (this blog) and the machinery itself video recorded and publicly released. I hope that my work can help someone else with their journey.

The things I learned and overcame regarding inertial propulsion are all posted publicly, but here is a recap (I’m sure there are things I missed):

How to make steel spur gears, cheap enough to be disposable.

How to attach automotive flexplates to bearings for the main wheels.

How to make different types of swinging weights.

How important the inner stop is, it does not work without it!

How to make the outer stop a part of the planet gear.

How a slipping belt can cause it to stop thrusting (chains are better).

How different configurations of gears affect performance.

How different timing affects performance and is different for hybrid use.

How a dead blow weight design enhances performance.

How performance is affected by counter rotating wheels.

How to effectively use as a hybrid “helper” drive.

How to make better steel gears.

How to select the correct drive motor.

How to write a manual.

How to build a website.

How to ignore (and delete) negative comments.

How important it is to have friends who understand inertial propulsion (thanks Tokio).

How an eccentric gear design can enhance performance.

How important it is to listen to and commune with my God.

I also learned a whole lot about what does NOT work!!!

There are probably more items to add… Read the blog & watch the videos for details including some failed tests, early tests, designs that work, and designs that don’t.

I already have 2 design changes in mind for the first part of 2021, it should be exciting! I hope others get busy building too! I also hope everyone stays safe. Happy New Year!