PIE Inertial Drive – Page 2 – Grassroots Mechanic Movement

Trammel Testing, APEC, PIE Mini

It has been MONTHS since I updated here… A lot has happened in my life and in the shop! For those interested, I have switched gears in my professional life. Since the change is quite dramatic, I have been under some stress “getting in the groove”, but it is a needed change and I’m getting it all figured out.

The PIE X aka Trammel Engine is coming along. Inside it (still not ready to reveal too many details) are some components which were made too weak, but they have been rebuilt and replaced with much more robust pieces! I have experienced some intermittent thrust and have kept moving forward with this as much as possible. I also recently received a much-improved motor and speed controller which is now installed.

A Look at the New Motor

First Run Test

It has become quite evident that as I contact potential business partners and investors, I need a small and lightweight demonstration model which can be taken along to those meetings. With that in mind, I introduce the “PIE Mini”. The PIE Mini is a nearly complete, single weight, working, demo model which is really small and light with plastic gears and a hollow tube instead of a large “wheel”. It’s power source is a super cheap cordless screwdriver from Harbor Freight. Although it is intended to be a portable demonstration device.

I believe it will also be a design which could become the first model of a sellable working model for science minded people everywhere to experiment with.

There are a couple of videos of the PIE Mini on BitChute .

First Test on Wheels

I have also now run a live demo of the Mini at the APEC conference on Feb. 27, 2022. During this presentation I showed that the unit actually needs mass to operate and that is really it’s only environmental prerequisite. I should be posting that presentation on my BitChute and YouTube channels very soon. Until then, here is a link to it on the American Antigravity YouTube channel.

Part 1

Part 2

I want to thank Ross Small for joining the video conference with a presentation of his own. He is building a “linear thrust” machine in the hopes that it will be a helpful learning aid for everyone to better understand the mechanism of inertial propulsion. Some of those very principals are integral to the Trammel Engine, and have also got me thinking about other, future, design builds.

Ross Small’s Presentation Part 1

Ross Small’s Presentation Part 2

PIE X Gets a New Name – “The Trammel Engine”

November was a very busy month for Stclairtech R&D, and for the PIE X project!

So much has been accomplished with the PIE X project it is mind boggling!!! The “backfire” issue has been resolved and there have been some very successful tests completed running with the electric motor.

Some of the highlights are:

The “backfire” problem is now well controlled with a minor design workaround. Future builds will take these backfire control requirements into account so that “workarounds” will be unnecessary.

The PIE X has earned itself a name of its own and is now known as the “Trammel Engine”. It is a name which is both literal and figurative. Literal because it has internals which resemble the operation of an ellipsograph, or “Trammel of Archimedes”, and is a figurative tongue-in-cheek reference to the same machine’s moniker of being a “do-nothing machine” since its purpose seemed nonsensical for the most part.

The Trammel Engine (T-Engine or TE for short) is now running well enough to perform some rudimentary testing which has demonstrated true linear thrust. It has been measured thrusting upward with a weight scale with an averaged thrust of .7 lbs. and peaks ten-times that amount running at input speeds of no more than 350 RPM.

Unlike the earlier PIE systems based on Thornson technology the T-Engine does not seem to have a low-speed limitation, and it is creating more thrust as RPMs increase.

A few shareable facts (so far):

1- The TE has externally driven mechanical components which are driven via the electric motor(s) and cause overall rotation along with internal rotating components.

2- There are 3 major rotating component assemblies consisting of metal parts using ball-bearings for friction reduction.

3- Some of the pieces of the internal assemblies can be labeled with names resembling those of internal combustion engines. Pistons, connecting rods, camshaft-like parts, and flywheels are just some of those named components.

Overly simplistically stated, it uses something very similar in function to a lever pulling a load which is allowed to move past apex and “snap over center”. This over center, snapping, rotating assembly is moving masses, accelerating, decelerating, and recovering them 4 times per disc rotation.

The internal timing of these components, and the use of a “camshaft-like” sub-assembly is of utmost importance to eliminating the backfire issue!

There are several videos available on YouTube and BitChute, the latest of them (at this writing) is a 2-part set called “Trammel Engine Works Part 1” and “…Part 2”. Part one shows the test rig, and part two shows a “successful” test which ended abruptly when the fuse blew. It turned out that the fuse blew because one of the “connecting rods” broke. Here are those videos below.

Part 1

Part 2

The broken and damaged parts are now being replaced and repaired, there will be more tests to come very soon! And hopefully more can be revealed soon…

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.

July Update: PIE 4.8, APEC Conference Presentation, Coming Soon – “PIE X” –

July Update:

I just realized that I have not updated this blog in a month, things have been pretty busy around here at Stclairtech R&D.

The PIE 4.8 is fully assembled and functional, I have put on an inertial propulsion presentation for the APEC conference, I have had to move part of our R&D lab to a new location, and actual construction of the PIE X is underway.

PIE 4.8 Testing:

The PIE 4.8 is running through a full gamut of tests where many things are being learned. It is also passing every test so far with very few technical problems.

It is installed in a road vehicle at this time. Below is a quick video getting ready to drive.

I have had smooth enough gearing that there has been no issue holding timing adjustments.

The counter rotating wheels has proven quite successful.

A pendulum type test has been performed successfully. I do not agree that this is truly the “gold standard” that agencies like NASA feel it is since it is easily manipulated. I went to great lengths to ensure accuracy, during which I discovered numerous things which could have skewed the results, reinforcing my belief that a more “foolproof” and “accurate” method needs to be developed. If the PIE did not “pulse” the pendulum test would be much more accurate! A video of the swinging pendulum test is below.

The SDC system works equally as well with 4 actuators allowing the 90-degree offset between wheels which works better as a hybrid design.

Test results will be fully posted here as soon as compiled properly!

APEC Conference:

I narrated a Power Point presentation at the APEC conference on June 26^th 2021 regarding the PIE inertial propulsion system and its development from the beginning. The presentation covered development, successes, failures, and equally importantly that I am not trying to “prove” anything. My videos, this blog, presentations, in-person demonstrations, and all testing data is not an attempt to “prove” anything but is simply to “demonstrate” what has been found. What works and what doesn’t work, what is worth investigating and what to work around. A link to the APEC Website and to a video recording of the presentation is below.

Home

Alternative Propulsion (APEC) website

Conference video from 06/26/2021. My part starts at about 3:46 but all are very well worth watching!

PIE X:

Although I have certain obligations to withhold some detailed information regarding the PIE X, I do want to touch on it briefly.

The geometric working design (like the Thornson design) has been presented to me as 2^nd and 3^rd hand information because the originator is “unavailable” (possibly deceased). There is almost no written information about this design, so much of it is being built from photos taken decades ago and drawings, diagrams, and notes from people who have held this information “in trust” for all these years.

A few details that I can share at this time, the PIE X plans will:

Be a chain driven, electric PIE.

Use 3 “wheels” which for this design will be known as “discs”.

Be able to be mounted in virtually any orientation.

Run at a slightly higher RPM.

Have less obvious “pulsing”.

Be built very heavy (sturdy), with experimental use in mind.

Not use (probably) an SDC control circuit.

Will have more moving parts than the earlier PIEs.

Is much more expensive to construct.

At this writing, the 3 discs are machined, welded, matched, and ready for paint and the framework is partially built and is ready for more components to be assembled. Most of the components have been procured but many of them require customization and there is still much to do!

I wish I could say more and share the PIE X build as openly as the previous builds, but it will be exciting to see if it works as we (my collaboration team and I) believe it will, the unit will be unveiled publicly for demonstrations!!

Until then, stay tuned for more info as it is able to be released!

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

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 11, PIE 4.6 Eccentric Drive Gearing

12/23/20 PIETECH Page 11, PIE 4.6 Eccentric Drive Gearing

I was going to be putting my effort into duplicating the dead blow weight so that I can test the first wheel with 2 weights, and I can build a second wheel to go with the first one. However, when I was doing the propulsion testing with the single wheel, I noticed that as by battery started running down propulsion was diminishing. This was found to be a “slow-down” of the motor during the critical “power-stroke” (those who have read my manual know what that means) causing propulsion loss. To compensate, I manually turned the knob on the speed controller during slow speed operation. Naturally, I did not meet the correct RPM every time, but I noticed that if I overshot the running RPM at exactly the right moment, the PIE 4.6 would lurch forward much stronger.

A friend of mine, who also has been working on his own inertial propulsion drive (YouTube Channel) and I were discussing this. It has been found that changing the time base in mid or quarter turns of the main wheel could enhance the propulsion effect dramatically.

My choices for this concept are to either electrically change the RPMs back and forth or use eccentric gearing to smoothly transition the RPMs thus changing the time base. In the end I may try them both or perhaps someone could find a better method.

For now, I have started this experiment with the eccentric gear setup. Eccentric gears are essentially a pair (or more) of identical gears or sprockets, with their axle’s not on center in the exact same amount. Since each will “wobble” exactly the same amount, they can be meshed together. When one it rotated at a steady RPM by an outside source (electric motor, etc.) the other one accelerates through half of its rotation and decelerates through the other half.

So, for my experiment I have 2 identical sprockets, each mounted on-center and each on a bearing. Then there are two more identical sprockets fastened parallel with the first ones, each mounted exactly the same amount off-center. The two off-center (or eccentric) sprockets are timed and connected together with roller chain.

Sprocket set 1 is driven by the electric motor. Sprocket set 2 is connected to the PIE 4.6 wheel. As the motor turns at a steady RPM, the PIE 4.6 is accelerating and decelerating constantly. This is timed to start the acceleration approximately halfway through the portion of the cycle when the weight is in contact with the center (inner stop) axle. Timing here is very important and even a few teeth off on the sprocket to wheel timing makes a huge difference. In fact, it has been observed that with the timing off too much, the unit would oscillate forward AND back with significant force.

*Eccentric Drive Ready For Testing* *(Timing Was Not Correct In Picture)*

*Eccentric Drive Testing* (Yellow Marks are for Timing Reference)

I know that this design will not be well suited to having multiple weights on the wheel, but I do have a goal in mind that I am not ready to introduce just yet. If this idea works out, it would be capable of enhancing the operation of any of the PIE versions.

Demo of Eccentric Gears Driving the PIE 4.6

The downside is; if I only have 1 weight per wheel the RPM is limited due to transverse (sideways) forces threatening to tear it apart.