PIETECH Page 9 – PIE 4.5 With New Dead Blow Type Weight

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).

PIE 4.5 with Dead Blow
Dead Blow Weight Installed On PIE 4.5

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.

Guide Fastened to Dead Blow Weight

These improvements are now bringing the PIE version up to “PIE 4.6”.

PIE 4.6 – Dead Blow Weight and Guide

Check out the videos on YouTube and BitChute & thanks for watching!





Well now, after being reasonably ignored for quite some time now, apparently the PIETECH BUILDER’S MANUAL seems to have caught some unwanted attention. Out of sheer convenience, I decided to use the eBay platform as a service for interested people to purchase the manual. After being listed for just two weeks, the listing has suddenly “disappeared” completely from eBay and erased from their archives. After speaking with a genuine human being at eBay they now claim that I must have never had such a listing as they show NO ACTIVITY on my seller account over the last 90 days. Since at the time of this writing, it was listed on eBay 15 days ago and I still have the link to the now non-existent listing saved, both on the PIETECH web page and other media as well, I am very certain that it wasn’t a dream.

This, of course, happened on the same day that YouTube issued another crack-down on anyone speaking about corruption within the US election, immediately removing entire channels for simply voicing an opinion. These are online corporate strong-arm tactics at their worst and simply underline the need for private web sites to voice those opinions and highlight relevant facts.

Maybe we need to start an old fashioned “web ring” as a “No Censorship Zone”.

I have experienced this type of censorship before, but I really was hoping that we as a people had gotten past this covert draconianism (echoes of the “cold war”) but apparently not.

I suppose that I should actually take this as a form of encouragement. After all, if there was “nothing to it” nobody would take the time to censor it and if I weren’t on the right track it would not be perceived as a threat within some corporate-type organization.

I will make a new listing for a place to purchase the manual and I will keep publishing the ongoing work with “reactionless propulsion” as public as possible, after all there is at least some “safety in numbers”.

I will also begin the creation of a private online store so that the likes of eBay and Amazon will have no control over what is listed, said, printed or sold. Maybe I will host my own videos as well… We shall see…

Thanks for letting me rant! Good day.

Comments about Comments, and Thank You

I have received a number of comments on YouTube, Bit Chute and by other means regarding the inefficiency of this design, and how other designs are soooo much more efficient and can produce these vast amounts of thrust, how this will never work and I am wasting my time chasing this dream.

I have been pointed towards many fine inventor’s works and have had private message conversations with some about some of these.

Here is the deal:

1- I am going to pursue this to some sort of conclusion, it will either be successful or not. 

2- There are those who want this stopped.

3- There are others who think there is a better way but have not built a prototype.

4- There are those who don’t give a crap but like to make fun of other’s efforts.

5- There is always “self doubt” when trudging through the swamp of the unknown.

6- Do not try to force your opinions on me and I will not try to force mine on you.

6- Tell me it can’t be done and watch me go, but do not get in the way.

I was going to post specifics of this here, but I will not. I respect everyone’s opinions even though I may not agree with them.

Please be respectful and comment any ideas you have, they will be respected in like manner.

One last thought today, “Thank You For Your Interest So Far… More To Come Soon!!!”

New Announcements, Global Collaboration, and “PIETECH Electric Propulsion”:



Announcing “PIETECH Electric Propulsion”:

It has been a couple of weeks since my last post, but I do not want anyone to think I am not actively pursuing this quest for universal electric propulsion. The Grassroots Mechanic Movement continues the “Open Source” mission to see this technology advance and freely share information. The Grassroots Mechanic Movement is also in a well controlled growth period which will be branching out creating a somewhat separate entity which will be the “industrial development” branch known as “PIETECH Electric Propulsion” which still needs a logo.

Everything here on The Grassroots Mechanic Movement blog remains free and Open Source always, but PIETECH Electric Propulsion is going to allow the PIE technology to expand into the industrial mainstream as this still-infant technology grows and matures.

Current Work:

Currently I am continuing the R&D work necessary to advance the technology of the PIEs 1 & 2, and I am working towards a higher-speed PIE system that should be capable of continuous run speeds of 800 to 2000 RPMs.

I am also collaborating with other researchers around the world who are working toward a similar goal of cheap, clean, electric propulsion for vehicles of different types. This dynamic research is advancing well and will be announced when those independent researchers choose to allow the release of information (their work, their choice).

I am currently working on an instruction manual for those wanting to build a PIE 1.0 and/or 2.0. This will include specs, dimensions, building techniques, photos, reference materials, and hopefully links to videos. Although this tech is open source, I do believe that there are those who are very serious about building and would benefit from detailed instructions. Any proceeds from manual sales will directly help finance PIETECH research. I am hoping to have this material available by the end of 2020.


Let’s review where we stand in the “public” development of this technology. I say “public” because it has come to light that these types of tech have been used in satellites since sometime in the early 1960s, but it was just recently declassified… Maybe because of Space-X?

1- We have proven the theories of inertial propulsion are viable, as have others such as Steve Hampton and Mike Gamble neither of whom have I had any contact with at this time.

2- We have also proven the PIE design to be inexpensively reproducible.

3- We have obtained measurable results when used as an electric hybrid power source in a motor vehicle.

4- We have proven that there is no need for a counter-rotating assembly in the low-speed PIE drives.

5- We have proven that rotational speed and timing have a dramatic effect on the amount of thrust (maybe more important than the amount of weight?).

6- We have seen, measured, and proven the effects of both “time” and “timing” within the operation of the PIE. Time somewhat analogous with RPMs and timing is a given physical position within a time frame.

Current Developmental Position:

Now that we have “done it” by proving the concept beyond any doubt. It is time to design a way to put it to use. This means designing a smaller yet more powerful system that delivers clean, stable, and (hopefully) quiet thrust for common use in vehicles.

It has been publicly stated by experts (and I quote one of them) that this type of technology “…will never blast us into space…”, but the same PhD who publicly stated that would not acknowledge the potential usefulness as an electric drive for terrestrial vehicles (wheeled or otherwise). But the advances made in my lab (and others), working on a shoestring budget, and in less than a years’ time, seem to indicate the possible fallacy of that statement.

I BELIEVE that if we work together and collaborate as a community of people, each with his or her own individual skill sets, we can achieve great things!

Some will be mathematicians, while others have great mechanical prowess, and yet others may simply enjoy working on individual components of a larger system. PhD’s and dropouts, mechanics and accountants, pilots and hermits, all working together in harmony toward a greater goal. Impossible? Maybe. Worth trying? Definitely!

When I can foresee components from different systems being used in an assembly together, I feel that I am looking at the future for PIETECH, Dean Drives, Cooke Drives, Gyro Build and others!

Coming Next: The High Speed PIETECH system and Continuing PIE 2.0 Testing…

Volume 2, Page 14, Re-Phasing the PIE 2.0 and Ground-Test #2 – SUCCESS!!!:

Re-phasing for Performance

Since the PIE 2.0 did not perform as well as expected on the “self-propulsion” portion of testing, it was removed from the pallet for rework on the work bench. The phasing of the upper and lower wheels is the primary area to be reworked as the possible answer to its poor performance.

The PIE 2.0 was not built for easy phase adjustments, so the rework included the removal of all planet gears and axles. The rework is a re-phase of the wheels from a 90-degree offset to a 0-degree offset.

It would be much better to change the phase offset in smaller increments (say 10, 20 or even 40) but since this is the way already built into the design, this is how it is being done.

Fast Forward a Couple of Days Later and “Ground Test #2”…

That has done it! The re-phasing has made significant improvements in the quest for “self-propulsion”! It will now work its way across the garage floor under its own power with nothing driving the wheels!

The upper planet gears and the lower ones now share the same axles, and the wheeled trolley has been made robust with a tubular steel frame and metal bearings as wheels.


I am posting 4 self-propulsion videos to YouTube and BitChute to get maximum viewer coverage and get the information out to everyone.

Regarding subject of re-phasing:

There is a chain sprocket on both wheels and that could be used to drive each wheel independently. A drive chain to each wheel, and the chain can be switched tooth by tooth or the drive sprocket(s) can be made adjustable. A split jackshaft with an adjustment mechanism could be utilized to perform phase adjustments “on the fly” without shutting the PIE down.

More to come soon…

Vol 2, Page 13, Ground Testing


Post vehicle, wheeled, ground-testing.

After a short pause caused by things in life that have required my undivided attention, I’m back & ready to get busy.

 So, the on-road testing would be considered a success, and the “hybrid-assist” effect is undeniable. The “failures” encountered within that round of testing were due to the prototype building methods and materials. It is hard to justify the cost in time and materials for a more durable build when it is being taken apart and changed multiple times.

Total cost of materials for a single planet gear, without the weight, is around $8 US. The cost of a machined, straight toothed, drilled hole center, spur gear of the same size is around $200 to $300 US. In that light, the component failures are an acceptable offset to the cost differential. Now we move forward with further testing of the PIE 2.0 while still getting ready to build a next version.


One thing I have purposely not mentioned are the efforts being put forth by other people around the world to either replicate a PIE 1.0 or 2.0, or to incorporate their own designs into a build of their own. Because of those awesome individuals helping to further this research (thank you again for the help) my next version may be a 4.0 or higher.


Now I will cover the post-road-testing phase of PIE 2.0 testing. 

Nothing was changed with the setup in any way between removing it from the truck and installing a set of hardware store straight caster wheels on it. The wheels were attached to 2 pieces of lumber (2X4s) and the lumber was attached to the bottom of the pallet with wood screws. Testing was done on a level concrete garage floor surface, and pieces of sheet steel were laid down under the wheels to allow them to roll as easily as possible.



Results were not as good as I had anticipated. Forward thrust was definitely present. When it was running, I could easily push it forward with one finger, but it would not move forward on its own.

 This distressed me greatly, since there is an undeniable and measurable thrust present when used for “Hybrid-Propulsion”. I have pondered this in great detail, and I have several thoughts as to the reason.


1. The wheels roll too hard, and they are also flexing. This combination makes pulsed propulsion nearly impossible.

2. The drill motor is dying. It has worn to the point of reduced torque which means that there is an unwanted & uncontrolled speed variation. Every inertial propulsion design I have ever experimented with has been rendered inoperable at some point in testing because of this phenomenon.

3. Comparing the PIE 1.0 & 2.0 I believe there may be the same issue spoken about with other builder/experimenters regarding timing changes needed to allow a “hybrid-assist” device to be fully “self-propelled”. Since both PIEs work as a hybrid-assist, but the PIE 1.0 also demonstrates self-propulsion I believe this is a solid theory.


In order to prove this theory of the two different “modes” to myself, I started removing weights one at a time from the PIE 2.0 and observed the operational differences. There were some interesting things to be observed, and a lot of very loud noises being made. When I got down to one weight it began to self-propel. It does try to propel itself with 2 weights set 90 degrees from each other, but there is no denying the self-propulsion with only one weight.  I truly believe that this may be, in part, the answer.


My next moves are as follows:

1. Re-phase the upper & lower wheels to bring the weights into sync between the top & bottom.

2. Replace the ailing power source to stabilize the RPMs (as these devices get more powerful a flywheel may become necessary to stabilize it).

3. Get a better set of wheels before the next test!


I will post the results as I go along.

Vol 2, Page 12, Successful Testing and Prototype Component Failures

PIE 2.0 All Pretty — Before Being Worked Hard, Out in the Real World 

I find that it has been tough to get busy and simply do what needs to be done lately. The PIE 2.0 has had to take a “back seat” to far more important family business, but I finally did get some time to finish up some “real world” testing at a reasonable speed of 55 MPH (88 KPH). It is not an easy thing to find a “flat” stretch of highway in the Northeastern United States (about 350 miles inland), so I have made do with a straight stretch with only some small rolling hills and with an estimated elevation rise from start to finish of approximately 15-20 feet (not verified with altimeter).

As before, measurements are taken and only considered valid if measured values are repetitively similar.

I was able to bring the PIE 2.0 up to slightly over 120 RPMs and test before it broke this last time and left a weight laying in the truck bed.

So, here is a simplified recap of test results obtained on this test roadway at 55 mph withal accessories off and auto trans in 3 (not OD) to help keep it from shifting during the test:

Running at 90 to 100 RPMs, engine load reduction was 6%.

Running at 105 to 108 RPMs, engine load reduction was 8%.

Running at 120 to 122 RPMs, engine load reduction was 13%.

At 120 to 122 RPMs the “feel” of forward thrust was much smoother although overall vibration was fairly pronounced.

During the final test run two things happened causing testing to end for the day.

First one of the weights found its way off the planet gear and into the bed of the test truck.

Second, the drill motor overheated, slowed and finally stopped until it cooled off. 


Note that the picture on the left shows an added piece of metal welded to the frame to keep the drill bracket from shifting position which was a key problem with the drill’s chuck “slipping” on the shaft.

Results: The PIE 2.0 design is a viable Hybrid design!  It definitely needs a better build (no prototype temporary components), a better motor, and a sound deadening enclosure, but this is a repeatable, working design that can be built on a budget!

Conclusion of This Round of On-Road Testing: I am way past encouraged and I am soooo ready to build the next gen “PieTech” design. There are others also working on their own versions of a PIE so I really do not know what version my next will be, but I know it will be able to run at more than 120 RPMs!!!

The PIE 2.0 is, overall, a resounding success and it will be repaired. I do want to perform some “self-propulsion” demos with it before I consider it finished. I am hoping to video it on wheels and on water. I have had 1 request for a pendulum test, I do not consider it as accurate since it is too easy to skew the outcome by simply moving the center of gravity, so I have not seriously considered it yet.

Vol 2, Page 11 – Getting Back To Work & Another Approach to Planetary Gears -FAILURE UPDATE AT END OF POST-

Next Gen Test Gear
After some unexpected personal business (death in the family) to be attended to, I am excited to pick up where I left off with the PIE 2.0. I had to remove the test rig from the test vehicle in order to transport several loads of “rubbish” from a deceased family member’s apartment to be delivered to either a charity donation center or a dumpster for disposal.
The Pie 2.0 is fastened back into the test vehicle, testing routs are mapped out for highway speed testing, and I am ready to start recording data.
As seen in the photo above, I have also been working on an improved method of obtaining and making planetary gears. The latest idea on this front is an inside-out chain drive/sprocket assembly. I don’t think that it is a long-term production solution, but it seems to present a reasonably inexpensive alternative to making gears from scratch.
The nice people at www.RollerChain4less.com(Nitro Power Products, LLC) have 17-tooth idler sprockets with a 5/8” bore bearing installed  (P/N: 40BB17-5/8) available for $11.98 USD at the time of this writing. They also have 17 tooth plate sprockets with a 5/8” center hole (P/N: 40A17) available for $5.75 USD at this same time.  Feet of #40 roller chain from them (P/N: RC40-1R-10FT) is just $16.37 USD, and they are one of the few companies that offer specialty connector links known as “Attachment Connecting Links” very reasonably (less than $2 each).

So the inside out chain sprocket is basically removing the teeth from a plain sprocket and fastening a chain to it in place of the missing teeth, effectively this creates a “male” and “female” gear set. The chain can have the rollers lay into the remaining recesses of the original tooth pattern and can either be welded in several spots, or connected at the ends with an offset link and fastened to the gear with “attachment” links. I chose to simply weld the chain onto the modified sprocket it for the first prototype gear. I cannot tell you how it is going to work out yet, as most of my shop time is being used  to adjust and collect PIE 2.0 test data.
A quick update, gear failure with pictures:
I attempted to install a pivot for the weight on the idler sprocket. These idler sprockets are hardened. The weld will break off with little effort, and if you do manage to get a hole drilled trough the gear, tightening a 6 mm bolt is enough to crack the gear. The plate sprockets are plain steel and can be drilled and welded, so I guess I will be mounting a bearing on one of them.

Welds Popped Off

Welds Still Have Sprocket Metal On Them

Ground Flat and Drilled – Cracked When Tightening Bolt

Ground Flat and Drilled – Cracked When Tightening Bolt

Vol 2, Page 10, Preliminary Test Results

The PIE 2.0 is running much better now, and although it was not without frustration, I was finally able to make some test runs.

I did have to make some repairs to the lower sun gear and I also corrected the crooked outer stop. One of the teeth on the lower sun gear broke off and when that happened the lower wheel started “jumping timing” like crazy.

When the failure(s) happened, the timing got pushed to the 11 o’clock position and that is a bit too “retarded” or “late”, the planetary alignment position (I like that terminology) should be a bit earlier at about 10 o’clock. This late timing is very evident in the PIE’s upper framework, when running at just over 100 RPMs the upper frame deflects to the right which tells me I am losing forward propulsion power.

I am fortunate enough to be able to see the upper part of the pie in my rear view mirror while driving so I was able to visually see that the timing was off.

I took a short video of the sideways movement to demonstrate this to anyone building a PIE, I will show it here but I probably won’t post it on YouTube or Bitchute since it falls under the heading of a builder’s note but here it is.

During testing, I did not have the tools with me to adjust the timing (won’t make that mistake again – I hope) so the results listed below were obtained with incorrect timing.


To eliminate variations in atmospheric and fuel conditions, all comparative tests are run consecutively. 

Test Track: 1.2 miles with a 20-mph speed limit (during business hours) around a nearly abandoned shopping mall with 2 stop signs.

The Scanner used to collect the data is a Matco Determinator, which is the Matco branded OTC Pegisys scan tool system, and the test vehicle is a 2005 Chevrolet Colorado Z85 crew cab pick up truck with a 3.5 liter engine and automatic transmission.

Multiple passes were made both with and without assistance while monitoring vehicle speed and engine load on graphing scales with a running average counter. There were some anomalous results obtained that showed both better and worse results, so they were “thrown out” and only the repeatable results were used to obtain that which is shown below.

Average speed measurement during all test runs was maintained at 17 to 18 mph.

Engine load average without PIE assist. – 40%

Engine load average with PIE assist. – 36%

Total gain with PIE 2.0 was a 4% reduction in engine load. This “should” improve with the timing correction; results will be posted here and on MeWe.

Vol 2, Page 9, Testing the PIE 2.0, and My Patience

Well it works, but as with any new design there are issues. I have put around 19 miles on it and it really does seem to work well, when it will keep running.

First and foremost is the locking up problem. The little springs did a reasonably good job of stopping the lockup on start-up, unless I started it at a bit of a higher speed. High speed start-up would overpower the springs and locking was still an issue. Then came the locking problem while driving. Every time I might hit a bump, or tap the brakes, it would lock up. So, I took the weights off, cut the metal tab off for the outer stops, and welded stops onto the planet gears. One corner of each weight then had to be trimmed so it would not hit the new stops and viola, no more locking. I did get one of the stops a bit crooked, but I will fix that next week.

Second was the drill motor kept cutting out. Apparently, there is a bad spot in the variable speed trigger, and (of course) I found it. With the new stops came a bit of a smoother run at higher speeds, so I upped the speed and the motor no longer stopped randomly… Until the fuse blew… Replaced fuse with circuit breaker and then the chuck loosened up on the chain drive shaft…

The PIE did lock up one more time, because of the crooked outer stop (that I WILL be fixing next week) the weight hit it hard enough to slip past it and lock on the back side. Reset and speed reduced slightly it seems to have worked fine on the last trip around the block, although there is a definite speed to power correlation. More speed=more power!

Once testing on this model is complete, a high-speed unit is definitely on the drawing board!

 I do have to wonder why… Why it is that when testing on public streets and roads it seems that every bad driver within miles is attracted to the test vehicle?!?!? Getting tailgated, cut-off, swerved at, nearly t-boned, and behind extremely slow drivers happens every time. I sure am glad it’s Friday!!!