I think recognize this name . Welcome Siebert @mw-siebert-2121, if my memory is correct you prototyped some builds of Tesla’s purported “flying stove”back in the day ( could be mistaking you for someone else lol). Either way so happy to have you here in our community! Moreover, if you're the fellow I'm thinking of, thank you for your past contributions to this area of research. 🙇‍♂️ Nam qui curat

Hey Bryan, so I got a chance to look at the patent. From what I read on their site, there's no way I would've imagined that this was the type of design approach they've taken. They made it sound like they were trying to make an obscure electrical thrusting device. How they were able to justify procuring funding for this kind of device when so many have been shut down mystifies me completely. How they were granted a patent without being attacked by folks who are so swift to call these things perpetual motion devices is also intriguing to me. I have many more questions. Additional commentary: You are right to say it isn't electrical--it is not any sort of electrical device at all. In fact, if I've understood the patent correctly, this is indeed a geunine inertial propulsion system belonging to Category 3. (It has nothing to do with "radiation pressure" or electromagnetic force such as the Lorentz and on). Henry Bull was indeed the first to pioneer these systems, and they can work extremely well. By "work extremely well" know that I make that statement with respect to my *rigorous standards* (passing both the strong verison of the pendulum test, and the untethered hover).. Genergo's design is identical to my electromagnetic design in my techincal report if you take a read. I will also look at the maths, but the principle does check out. As i've said before Category 3 systems are extremely scandalous. But fully functional operating systems do exist...elsewhere. Their statement on thrust being generated "...by directly converting electrical energy into thrust through controlled electromagnetic impulses.." is precise in terms of the process, but its not a purely electromagnetic impulse. If anything its EM mechanical, and not in the sense that electricity is a reason the system is operational at all. For clarity I must stress the following: this constitutes as a type of Mach effect device because it can generate thrust at all. This "thrust" is not really the result of neutralizing and cancelling forces. For category 3 systems "thrust" comes about through motion-energy transfers as a very particular process. They are less about discrete mass parts and how they are manuvered, and more about how they "processed" in a system. My upcoming paper touches on some of these things. I will include this paper within the citations because it relatively recent and adds a bit of credence. thanks for this find.

The formula used, to describe the range of frequencies they are fine tuning to adjust the system is pretty broad. They don't specify which range they find to be the most preferable either: (a) because they have no idea, or (b)that they want to be able to say the device is typified as covering all these ranges lol. To be specific, I'm speaking of their Omega frequency function which has a value A, between N1 and 5, times the function who takes in the range of natural numbers from N1 and 100. There is more math on the piecewise functions later, but what they have laid out in the patent is the math they are using to calculates the oscillation frequencies for this device. Fascinating.( Again i'm just quickly glancing through the patent doc, I'll prolly take a more serious read in a future). Additional side note: you cannot patent anything which is a natural fact of nature/mathematics. I'm guessing their justification for providing the math regarding the frequency of these is system is probably a descriptor for a characteristic device. One record concerning my initial evaluations of their proposed device: in my opinion their particular design approach is far from groundbreaking in terms of the operation+thrust produced. It would pass a weak version of the pendulum test, which is fairly inconclusive by my standards. Several things can pass the weak version.

Heya folks, Normally I`d be a bit more detailed in my response to posts like these, but I haven't had alot of time at my disposal recently this month. I will be upfront: the pendulum test ( as laid out on page 6/10 here:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20070004897/downloads/20070004897.pdf) is a perfectly valid test. As always, I'd be extremely careful to dismiss the pendulum test, especially *if its carried out correctly* (many many times it isn't. And when it isn't it is often carried out in a manner not unlike that found on page 7/11; similar to "particular bobbing" configurations ). Moreover we should be extremely careful to just write it off, otherwise we are no different from the scientist who happily write off anything that claims to generate mechanical thrust. Understand I do not make these statements lightly, or out of ignorance rooted in "belief". Yes, most certainly, the pendulum isn't the "gold standard" for all truth concerning mechanical thrust, *however* it is an extremely effective and accurate way to determine if true thrust is present. As I've said before, I'm still skeptical of the validity of devices like those from Steven Hampton, even though it marginally passes a "weaker" version pendulum test. Alternatively, if the pendulum test is really so faulty, the most obvious way to side step it is just have system which demonstrates an untethered levitation/hover. Personally, I actually prefer this approach as it is the the easiest, but in today's world footage can always be "doctored" with AI. This is why a pendulum test is important, because at the very least you can chart data in a meaningful way that everyone can reproduce. NASA's 2006 technical report is a very good document. "Foul play" or "disinformation" does exist in spaces/niche subjects like this, but I am personally of the belief that this document is not one which does any of that. I will be putting out an updated technical report which is to aid on matters related to to this, among many other things.

@Bryan StClair Hey Bryan, thanks for the comment. Respectfully, this is where you and I will probably disagree. First off: I agree, the pendulum test isn't meant to be standalone test. I believe that any device which passes the "strong version" of the pendulum test, will almost certainly also pass the untethered levitation/hovering "test". The two go hand in hand. Next, though I don't dismiss the possibility of "bias" within the NASA report that "bias" doesn't invalidate any of the proposed scientific approaches laid forth. What I mean to say is the following: I don't have any good reason to believe that the author sat-down with the specific intent of making an nearly impossible experimental setup to foil the plans of all who ever try to create a mechanical propellantless device. On the contrary, the author Marc Millis, has done alot of great work, trying to keep the reasonability of solid state thrust within the realm of possibility according to the audience of modern science. So far as measuring thrust based on power, as I've said many times before, this tells us nothing about the vectorial quality of the device (the direction). I've expounded on this before elsewhere and this may be another point of disagreement, albeit respectfully. (I should also very quickly mention that the pendulum test, when done correctly, omits things like aircushions single rope tethers and on. Those setups fall prey to some the problems that Jerry pointed out earlier). Regarding the italian company I haven't had the time to contact you regarding the post(Genergo I think?), but I did some research on what they are trying to bring to the table. The device is some sort of electrical device, which isn't a classical "inertial thruster" as we generally talk about them here. (I'm careful to call it such just because of the way that I define particular solid state inertial systems). So far as the "thrust" goes, its most likely based on the Lorentz force (well-known "propellantless" electromagnetic effect if you will) if it is claiming to be both "propellantless" and electric, but there was nothing definitive to say for sure

Hey Bryan, thanks for the module! I got around to watching most of the video. Some feedback on the video itself: —Between 9:02-9:13 the video goes black and silent. —The pictures you provide at the beginning are a good tool to help others who aren’t familiar with this subject understand what you are saying. —It was very clear and easy to understand the principles behind the device you presented for those interested in building —having an actually device that others can build will help them understand these things for themselves and explore other avenues On matters related to “thrust” I would defer to the work of Sandy Kidd on this particular demo build (even though the present device is only a single gyro with a rubber band as the “spring”). My criteria for true “thrust” is more rigorous: either it levitates/hovers; passes one of the bench tests laid out by nasa; or demonstrates all of the former in a simulation which accurately captures all of the physics. On the matter of the physics of gyros, especially why the gyroscope “gets lighter” when spun with one hand, I defer to an excellent video by veritasium: https://youtu.be/tLMpdBjA2SU?si=A8zM_CNFfFeZGyqN And here: https://youtu.be/GeyDf4ooPdo?si=bs89FLFIpyfYQSSh Overall I agree with the basic physics justifications outlined in his videos. However my only “gripe” with these videos is that Veritasium completely overlooked Laithwaite’s latter work and discovery on mass transfer (essentially some of the earliest formal articulations on force as a process mass-energy exchange mechanistically) I don’t think there is any necessity to justify its behavior on the basis of a background of space; however, it can be done. My personal takes. Nam qui curat

@Bryan StClair Hey Bryan—thanks as always for sharing your thoughts and for taking the time to engage seriously with this. I really do appreciate the exchange, and I want to offer a few gentle pushbacks in the same spirit. I’ll also be upfront about why I tend to be so firm on these points. I think part of the process here necessarily involves very aggressive sanity checks. People like me—however annoying our insistence may be—aren’t trying to dismiss legitimate work. The goal is to help shape it so that it can withstand scrutiny in any setting. From that perspective, calling every surface-coupled force “thrust” risks muddying the waters rather than strengthening the case. When I speak about thrust, I’m not referring to its magnitude, efficiency, or power requirements. I’m referring to a very specific qualitative property: a force that can be continuously adjusted to overcome gravity in the same general category as rockets, helicopters, or drones. There are many mechanical devices which can generate forces, impulses, or momentary biases. But unless the system satisfies those deeper requirements, the result is no different in principle from paddles slapping water or wheels gripping a surface. Motion may occur relative to something, but it is not the same category of force that sustains hover or enables ascent independent of surface coupling. The hovercraft example highlights this distinction nicely. Its wheels are effectively replaced by a cushion of air created through ground effect. That’s fundamentally different from lift in the sense a helicopter or drone achieves it, where sustained force directly counters gravity without relying on proximity to a surface. So while I do see what you’re getting at with the analogies, I don’t think the forces involved are equivalent to those that sustain hover or enable ascent independent of a supporting surface. Regarding NASA, I want to clarify that I’m referring to a very specific report—one that hasn’t changed in 20 years here: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20070004897/downloads/20070004897.pdf. I think it matters because if something genuinely works, it should be able to clear at least the baseline tests without ambiguity.

@Jerry Volland There were some awfully nasty folks on the gyroscopes.org (some of the posts became quite unsettling). There are also some awfully nasty folks on youtube (where couch trolls roam freely in abundance). You're still here, so that says alot about you. 😂