PIETECH – Grassroots Mechanic Movement

Successful Road Test

A few weeks ago (June 16, 2024), the PIE 6.0 was mounted in the test vehicle. A protective & sound deadening box made from steel tubing, plywood and several thick rubber mud flaps was built to cover it. Due to personal time constraints, it wasn’t run & tested until nearly 3 weeks later…

July 6, 2024: The PIE 6.0 has successfully completed its maiden voyage! The PIE design is solid so there are really no surprises there. This test was mostly about the Quantified Backlash Drive.

The PIE 6 is really two single-disc PIEs stacked on top of each other in a single framework. The two PIEs are timed 90 degrees apart to smooth the thrust pulses. Previously, this has proven problematic as the pulsing of one disc (or wheel) would detract from the pulse of the other disc when timed this way. The problem seemed to be that the rotational speed of one was directly affecting the rotational speed of the other. Also, the forward pulse of either disc was theorized to be affecting the building of energy in the other disc.

Two different design changes were proposed to test the validity of those 2 theories. The theory concerning rotational speeds seemed more realistic as rotational velocity manipulation is important to the efficacy of the design.

The Quantified Backlash Drive coupler (QBD coupler) allows the 2 PIEs to work somewhat independently, while keeping the initial 90 degree timing within an acceptable tolerance. This whole effort is only to smooth the pulsations of thrust without reducing the thrust of each rotating assembly.

Proper testing of thrust on the test vehicle will now be conducted to satisfy the scientific requirements to validate the design. Even without proper thrust validation the QBD coupler’s success is allowing the PIE design to be enhanced for maximum power. Perhaps a pair of 30 inch rotating assemblies with 15 pound masses! Maybe not exactly, but you get the picture.

This is now making me wonder how many “failed” designs might have been successful if they had used multiple independent rotating assemblies tied together with something similar to the Quantified Backlash Drive… It should be making us all start seriously thinking about it!

Preparing for Road Tests

The PIE 6.0 is ready to install for road testing. We are currently prepping the vehicle by building a multi-purpose hood for it to protect it from the weather, reduce noise, and contain it for safety purposes.

Although the relays and their wiring are still visible, the rest of the wiring has been greatly neatened and properly secured. A heavy duty 4-wire connector is being used to connect the engine to its control system & power source.

An easily removable galvanized steel angle is installed near the rear of the truck bed where the PIE 6.0 will “pull” the vehicle forward in the test sequences instead of “pushing” as we have done in previous tests.

Once the PIE is installed, a simple remote activation switch will run to the console by the driver’s seat. Road test updates will follow along with videos and photos.

Updated Website & Upcoming PIE 5.0

11/9/2022

It has been a long summer of trying to balance my time in my workshop/lab and my career as a Parts Associate, now promoted to Supervisor. Sometimes I think that I must be doing a good job, but there are some difficult days when I think that I am the supervisor because nobody else wants the headaches…

Trammel Update: The Trammel Engine has been rebuilt over and over and now 99% of the internal motion is now working as expected. There are internal components I call con-rods (connecting rods) which only pull and never push, then there are push-rods which can only push and cannot pull. The con-rods are now of a very strong design and their length is adjustable. We had multiple con-rod failures until this design was implemented.

The problem appears to be with the push rods. It was originally thought that their purpose was more of “timing” between the lower halves of the motor, so they would only need to basically “take up slack” with a spring load. This now appears to be incorrect. It seems that they must actually provide a “hard stop” which only pushes but cannot pull. Springs will still be used, but more as an ant- rattling device (I think).

The constant trial runs and failures precipitating rebuilds and repairs have really taken their toll on me mentally… I need a freakin’ win for crying out loud! So I am now (on an opposite workbench) building a PIE 5.0! It is a culmination of PIE and Trammel knowledge gained over the last 3 years and preliminary tests are incredibly promising.

It is still an ugly “Frankenstein” of a machine, but I will post pictures as it becomes something to look at! The good news is that even though it is still in the earliest stage of development it is already making pounds of thrust (too bad NASA)! With one wheel! With one weight!

Sorry I don’t have pics yet of the PIE 5.0…

Our web site (http://stclairtech.tech) is revamped and rebuilt with new fresh graphics and a much nicer interface which is easy to navigate. I also have a page showing some pictures of UAPs (UFOs) over the St. Lawrence River on the US & Canadian border. The pics show black, odd-shaped objects in the air which might be explained away as birds or insects, but they are 100% real photos of objects which only show up on the digital camera! These are completely invisible to the naked eye! See these photos here: http://stclairtech.tech/UAPs/

Thanks for reading and following along… Talk to you again soon!

The Origins of the Trammel Engine and Recent Activity Update:

4/17/2022

Happy Easter!

Although work has slowed a bit progress continues, and here is a synopsis of recent activity:

1- The Trammel engine got a new (more powerful) motor with speed controller.

2- Trammel displayed thrust only during acceleration with new motor.

2- LOLA or Linear Oscillation Linear Thrust experiments began.

3- Linear component analysis showed it is useless without proper energy storage and release.

4- LOLA v.1 is a linear drive experiment where dual linear components rotate parallel with the axle.

5- LOLA v.2 is a linear drive experiment where a single linear component oscillates which also builds and releases energy by building spring tension and releasing it as the mechanism rotates “over center”.

6- Both LOLA experiments allowed some better understanding of the movement of energy between the mechanism and “etheric inertia” which creates propulsion.

7- The term “etheric inertia” was coined by me. It is the inertia which is not part of the machinery itself, but instead is the inertia which is manipulated and is observed as the movement of the drive and is usually expressed with terminology such as “inertial thrust”. Where thrust would be the verb and/or adverb, “etheric inertia” or EI would be the noun and/or pronoun defining the “environmental force” not just the action of that environmental force.

Note: Inertial Doppler was also coined by me as the observable increase in thrust which happens as the vehicle using the inertial thrust engines move faster, mimicking a type of Doppler effect.

8- During recent APEC conferences which included presentations by Ross Small, myself, and others, it has been mentioned that the RBI machine of Ross’ an my PIE X/Trammel Engine are derived from the work of Mike Marsden who was the inventor of the Mac-Quan. Mr. Marsden dropped out of sight before the unveiling of his second-generation Mac-Quan which was set to occur at the annual Wright brother’s celebration in Kitty Hawk, NC around 2011 or 2012. The Mac-Quan has long been the “gold standard” that all inertial propulsion developers have hoped to duplicate. Mr. Marsden was rumored to have passed away, but I believe he has retired and is now living in relative seclusion somewhere in North America, no longer having anything to do with the technology. The reason(s) is/are up for speculation as he never actually said why he closed up all of his businesses in Texas and dropped out of sight. Even his old web site (www.earthport1.net) is missing from resources such as the Wayback Machine.

I have been fortunate enough to have made the acquaintance of some people who knew Mike Marsden firsthand. Although he did not “give away” the full secret of the internal mechanisms, he did guide these people toward the correct answers. Their information and engineering skills combined with my mechanical background and “get it done” work ethic has produced the PIE X or Trammel Engine as I like to call it.

I have agreed to not divulge the inner workings publicly in return for the engineering data. Hopefully in time the design will be perfected and surpassed at which point it will be part of textbooks around the world.

If anyone here has ever been in contact with Mike Marsden, knows anyone who has been in contact with him, or knows anything about this technology, I would love to hear from you. I will gladly keep any information anonymous and secure and not share anything without your express approval. Email me at stclairtech@stclairtech.tech.

Notation:

Testing rotation speed with a sensor and lab scope setup is now showing that the assembly built to eliminate backfire is keeping the internal speed change reaction times to be too slow to provide proper output thrust. Internal components will now be modified, probably using a pair of timing chains instead of cam-like lever assemblies.

Personal note: I truly long for the day where this is fully functional, and we can have open discussions regarding the design and inner workings of the Trammel Engine. Maybe I should be creating a Power Point presentation as I go…

PIE X Being Built Now

I am still around! I am still building! I am not going anywhere!

It has been quite a while since my last posting and my last video. I have been hard at work on the PIE X design. I am still not at liberty to detail its design except to say it is based on a series of rotating discs which use specialized components under tension and using a “Mass Displacement” system should create efficient linear thrust. It is still being called a PIE because it does have a pulsed propulsion component, but these pulses “should” happen 4 times per revolution and run at 1000 RPMs or more so the pulsing should be MUCH smoother than that of the previous PIEs.

Although this is not my original design, and it has been done before, there are no working devices known to exist and its duplication attempts have all been in vain… Until now. Well, soon anyway! The main unit is framed up and the rotating discs do rotate very well. The specialized internals are partially complete, and testing has had some very positive results thus far!

Without giving details regarding the origin of this base design, the person who originated it stated that they ‘…will not give away all my secrets…” and emphatically stated that others will have to “…figure it out for themselves…” and so we are figuring it out now.

It is unfortunate that the original designer was (and still is) compelled to distance themselves from this technology!

What I can say about the PIE X is that it is using 3 rotating “wheels” which are referred to as “discs” or “plates” and has at least 10 times more parts as the PIE 4.x series has in it, not including nuts and bolts holding the framework together. I can also say that I have built it with absolutely no regard for overall weight. Most of the unit is built with heavy steel components rather than lighter weight aluminum and/or hollow parts. Overall weight has become too much to easily move around as it is well over 130 lbs. and still does not have an electric motor installed. I am hoping that with all the excess mass it has enough thrust to easily demonstrate linear thrust.

Right now I am turning it with a hand crank, and because of a problem with what I refer to as a “backfire” I will not be installing a motor until later. The backfire is 100% mechanical (no actual fire) and refers to a point internally where stresses are suddenly released in the wrong direction and a backward movement happens (inside). This could have catastrophic effects, so the issue needs resolution before a motor can be used!

I did post a rather ambiguous video online with the internal pieces covered (for now)…

First Public Look at the PIE X

PIE 4.8 Re-Phased and then Switching to Co-Rotating Design Testing (2 Updates)

On 7/31/2021 the counter rotating PIE 4.8 was re-phased to have the planet gears synchronized (self-propulsion mode) but then one plant gear was removed from each wheel so that forward pulses will alternate from on side to the other. The non-functioning weights were fastened to the planet gear mounting holes to help balance the wheels a bit.

Results were very similar to having all the planet gears and weights in place and operational with road testing showing a 4% to 6% reduction of engine load at the standard speed of 55 MPH with little to no headwind.

I believe this poor performance may be due to the counter-rotating wheels. Previous testing has shown better thrust using co-rotational wheels (rotating in the same direction). It has been suggested that counter rotation might be needed for stability, especially in either an air or space (aerospace) vehicle, but co-rotation should be very possible with proper management using either air foils or gyroscopes. Co-rotation should still be quite manageable a with minimum amount of manipulation.

8/10/2021 Update

I have now rerouted the chain on the PIE 4.8 so now the Left and Right wheels both turn clockwise, and I have modified the ramp on one of the RH wheel’s weights for the direction change and timed the wheels for self-propulsion (synchronized). With just one weight on the right wheel and two weights on the left wheel I now see that it is a definite improvement over the counter rotating wheel setup!

The first noticeable difference between counter rotating and co-rotating is when counter rotating in this same configuration of 2 weights on left and one on the right the propulsion pulse was strong when a single weight pulsed and weak when two weights synchronously pulsed. With co-rotating wheels the propulsion pulse is strong when a single weight pulsed and doubles in strength when two weights pulse synchronously. In simple terms, the unit is stronger when co-rotational!

I need to put trolley wheels under it again to test properly on the bench, but the unit seems strong and is pulling itself (sliding forward) across the bench when running even without fine tuning the gear timing. Next, I will adjust the gear timing and modify the other weight for clockwise rotation so that I can complete this round of testing.

If there was lots of extra time to do extensive testing it would be best to build it with 4 wheels, two co-rotating and two countering them to be able to arrange them in different ways to record and study the results. I don’t feel it is necessary at this time as the testing I have done is more than adequate to demonstrate the workability of the PIE system.

I have discussed the origin of the SDC and the subsequent positive effects of its use, and when I was setting up the PIE 4.8 to co-rotate, I could visually see the point of heavier motor load in the PIE’s rotation. So I published a short video of this visually obvious effect demonstrating the position in rotation which needs the RPM boost using the Speed Differential Control (below).

More to come soon!!!

PIE 4.8 Changes to SDC and Issues on Latest Test Drive

It has been a very busy several weeks since I have had opportunity to update this blog. Work and life have been very busy and work on the PIE has been slow.

The re-phased PIE 4.8 has had the first road test completed with no SDC as the SDC micro switch is a continuous source of problems. The lever on the switch tends to break or get bent very easily and the roller wheel also tends to fall off frequently, so it was decided to use a “proximity switch” as a non-contact alternative. The switch chosen is a magnetic switch used for building security systems as a door/window open/close sensor. This is easily activated by mounting magnets instead of mechanical actuators and this works very well.

The PIE 4.8 second test drive was, however, less than outstanding. The re-phased PIE wheels and SDC “should” have yielded much better results than the previously phased tests when it was set up for “self-propulsion”, but the results were very disappointing as the engine load reduction was only in the 4% to 6% range.

I believe it has to do with the counter rotation of the wheels. The “zone of thrust” or “thrust zone” on a single wheel is rather wide as it pulls forward through a good 45 degrees of the rotation, by having the counter rotating wheel, the “thrust zone” is effectively narrowed but instead of “focusing” thrust, it only eliminates part of it.

The next steps to calculate the reason for such failure will be to adjust phasing back to synchronous and increase pulse torque by removing one weight from each wheel. The thrust will alternate between the CW and the CCW wheel, this should demonstrate the theory of the wide thrust angle vs. narrowing the zone.

Phased Back and Switched Down to Two Planet Gears

The non-functioning weight is being used as a balance weight. The planet gear that is not being used is removed and the weight is bolted to the wheel in its place which balances the wheels enough to keep it from tearing itself apart.

One Planet Gear Removed and the Weight Used for Balancing Wheel

If this works out, the plan is to reverse the rotation of one of the wheels and repeating tests with co-rotating wheels to increase thrust without narrowing the “thrust zone”.

Ready For Road Test Set #4

On a side note, I believe the thrust zone will automatically be much more condensed (thus stronger) with a different design. Perhaps the PIE X will accomplish this.

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….

PIE 4.7 is now the PIE 4.8 with Thrust Test Video

The PIE counterclockwise wheel (CCW) is nearly finished and will be tested very soon. I made a significant change to the “outer stop” which works so well to warrant changing up the model number to PIE 4.8 and I am installing them on all of the planet gears for the PIE 4.8.

improved outer stops and “Halo” mounts after painting

Halo mount and improved outer stop as seen during setup

I have also improved the mounting (resembling a halo) for the swinging weight. This improvement also allows for the addition of strengthener braces if it is found to be necessary.

The new stops allow for actual adjustment of the stops. This will allow me to make small changes to stop position and find out if there is a particular “sweet spot” for the outer stop.

Improved outer stop and halo mount working well during SDC setup

The CCW wheel is constructed to run on its own with its own separate motor and speed controller (as seen above). This is necessary to run the full gamut of necessary tests regarding phasing and RPMs. Once these tests are complete there will be better data regarding proper synchronization and whether the two opposing wheels should even be synched at all.

I have posted several videos on my YouTube and BitChute channels showing the building of the CCW and the new PIE 4.8 stops. Here (below) is the new PIE 4.8 CCW running its bench test with the SDC installed.

Here (below) is the first bench test run of the CCW before the SDC was installed.

Here (below) is the PIE 4.8 CCW set on some pipe rollers just to check for backward force (reversion) vs. forward force (thrust).

First Thrust bench Test of PIE 4.8 CCW Assembly