SDC Control – Grassroots Mechanic Movement

Definitions and Abbreviations

As PIE 6.0 road testing winds down (more on than soon), and we are planning for the next phase, I noticed an issue while speaking to a trusted associate. I would say PIE and he would ask if that’s the aluminum one, or I’d say Trammel engine and he would think I am speaking of the PIE 6.0 that we have been testing. I thought to myself that there must have been a similar confusion in pre-war Germany at the young Volkswagen company. As they basically had 2 models, with a small number of options, people would confuse the “Beetle” with the “Bus” (Americanized names) so they simply labeled the Beetle as a “Type-1” and the then unnamed little van as a “Type-2”. If it worked to help reduce confusion at VW, it should also be able to help here at Stclairtech R&D!

For the sake of simplicity:

PIE – If it is a planetary gear design with a stationary sun gear the PIE may easily be referred to as a Stclairtech Type-1, which can be shortened to ST-1 in documentation.
Trammel – If it uses rotating discs with an X cut into the middle of it, the Trammel engine can easily be referred to as a Stclairtech Type-2, which will be shortened to ST-2 in documentation.

We will also be creating simplified identifier logos for the Stclairtech Type-1 & Type-2 (ST-1 & ST-2) soon. Until then: Stclairtech Type-1 (ST-1) is a PIE. Stclairtech Type-2 (ST-2) is a Trammel.

To anyone confused by the terminology issues, I understand the confusion and I want to keep it as simple as possible. The old axiom identified as KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) still stands in our workshops, although we do tend to reverse the simple and stupid for a clarified statement making it Keep It Stupidly Simple. In that spirit, here is a short glossary of words, terms, and abbreviations referring to specific components of the thrust-generating devices we are developing here at Stclairtech R&D.

Abbreviations unique to our mechanical closed-loop propulsion system(s):

PIE = Pulsed Inertial Engine
ST-1 = Type-1 = Stclairtech Type-1 = PIE
ST-2 = Type-2 = Stclairtech Type-2 ST-2 = Trammel engine
SDC = Speed Differential Control
QBD = Quantified Backlash Drive
QBC = Quantified Backlash Coupler
AMP = Active Mass Point
FP = Force Point
CLIP = Closed Loop Inertial Propulsion

Definitions & terminology unique to our mechanical closed-loop propulsion system(s):

Closed Loop Inertial Propulsion = Propulsion produced without propellant.
Pulsed Inertial Engine = Type-1 Closed Loop Thrust Producing Engine.
Trammel engine = Type-2 Closed Loop Thrust Producing Engine.
Mass = Any mass or weight, generally referring to a mass used to produce work.
Active Mass = Mass that isn’t “fixed” in place and used to produce work.
Active Mass Point = The point where an AMP applies force to do work.
Force Point = The point where force is transmitted to the assembly.
Speed Differential Control = Device used to change rotational speeds dynamically.
Quantified Backlash Device (Drive or Coupler) = Coupling device with a specific calculated (quantified) amount of backlash, connected between rotating assemblies.
Thornson Drive (EZKL) = A type-1 device which paved the way for modern Pulsed Inertial Engine technology.
Reversion = The act of an object reversing its direction of movement or thrust.
Wheel or Disc = The base rotating assembly currently being used to rotate the masses.

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!

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 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 4.7 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

PIE 4.7 Project Continues!

It has been a while since my last update. I guess I kind of went down a bit of a rabbit hole looking for answers to the reversion issues that virtually all inertial drives have. The answers I found are useful, and everything learned has value!

My search took me through the world of compound levers, offset drives and finally to the Tolchin/Shipov drive. The T/S drive taught me the most as it uses some of the same principals necessary in virtually ALL inertial drives, which is adding the 4^th “D” (Dimension) to a gyroscopic arrangement.

4D Gyroscopes: Everyone (basically) learned about 3D in grade school. Height, depth and width or in machine shop geometric algebra, X, Y and Z axis or dimensions. The 4^th D is T, or time. Time in a spinning gyroscope is measured in RPM, or revolutions per minute. Adding the 4^th “dimension” to a gyro is done by rapidly and purposefully changing the RPM faster AND slower, generally within a single revolution.

If you were to view a conventional toy-type gyroscope, you will notice a frame surrounding the flywheel and a smooth-rimmed flywheel in the center. Now, use a marker (pencil or crayon is fine) and put one dot on the rim of the flywheel. That is now our reference point. Place the gyroscope so you can see the entire rim of the frame and the rim of the flywheel. Place a mark on the frame at the top and the bottom as you are viewing it (right and left work too) and then using your finger turn the flywheel rapidly from one mark to the next, then slowly from that mark back to the beginning. That is the 4^th D!!!

Imagine spinning the flywheel at 1000 RPM but installing a mechanism that will slow it to 800 RPM for one-half of each revolution, returning it to its original velocity for the other half, and you have a 4D gyroscope!

Now replace the dot on the flywheel with a small weight, and spin it fast then slow then fast then slow with every revolution one-half of it is moving fast and one-half moving slower. It might not be exactly what you desire, but there WILL be inertial propulsion derived from that device!

It is not about shuttling weights around; it is all about changing the “time base” by rapidly changing speeds during EVERY revolution! Shuttling weights can be part of that and quite often they are, unfortunately many people believe that the weight shuttling causes propulsion, when in fact it is only a component of the gyroscope that can be time-manipulated into performing propulsive work. This can be accomplished mechanically or electrically, and although those two systems may appear fundamentally different, they are like the difference between a diesel and a gas engine, they may be “fed” fuel differently and the ignition of that fuel is done differently they are still a piston & crankshaft engine (there are also rotary and turbine but I’m not going there right now).

So, keeping in mind that there are different ways of accomplishing the same basic task, I am back to the PIE 4.7 with a renewed outlook and it is definitely time to “Git ‘Er Done”!

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.