I just added strips of 10mil Ultra High Molecular Density polyethylene tape to the ramps and to the masses themselves. I posted a quick cell phone video and a few pics in the Workshop classroom. https://www.skool.com/inertial-propulsion-workshop-9027/classroom/60879916?md=8dcf4ec5a6744b368203b4ad458bf95d

Has anyone here built any Searl devices or derivatives of John Searl's work? I ran across The Morningstar Energy Box 5+ years ago and just ran across some saved info about it in my archives. It was a Searl-like device and would generate "weight reduction" according to the builders. I put a copy of the report in The Vault and found the APEC presentation done. The Report: https://u.pcloud.link/publink/show?code=XZWsi65Z6y3iJ1Ccd1SldMhIOzz6Kf9FeSPy The video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1yBQWHZSUM I would be interested to know if anyone has had any success (or failure) replicating these types of devices.

Thank you for inviting me. Thank you in advance.

This is the latest paper by Steve Hampton. Steve has been working on inertial propulsion for quite some time now.

We all want to understand the mechanisms that are in play in a system. But if a Workshop project is showing results, as soon as we as experimenters report any results the common response always used to be something like “wow, that’s great, how does it do that?”. Recently the response has been “why do you thing it works”. A major component of science is supposed to be “observation”. Why do I think it works, because I can see it, touch it, feel it, duplicate it, and test it. When did that become not good enough to move forward? So I had a bit of a “brain dump” that I wanted to share with all of you… The video is me brain dumping, and the transcript is here too… Hi everyone. So it seems like people are really getting hung up on the whys, when honestly, what does it matter why? If a device is making something move, and that movement is strong enough to make a difference, it's not just an artifact, it's actually a thrust. No, I'm definitely not saying that everything being reported as creating inertial propulsion is the real deal. There are definitely some that are simply being measured incorrectly, and maybe even some that aren't quite as honest as they should be. The problem is, they're not all being measured incorrectly, but the critics of this technology say that they are, or that they're being faked. Here's part of the problem. A rocket engine, or a jet engine, lying on a workbench gets fired up, and it will immediately take off to the side, wherever it's pointed. An inertial propulsion thrust device might not. Many times, it requires a certain amount of mass attached to it, sort of to act like a buffer, or like a stabilizer. That doesn't mean that it's doing some oddball trick. It simply means that alone, it might not do the job we want it to. I can tell you firsthand that engines for large machinery can sometimes be removed from that large machinery, and still be made to run unrestrained, and separate from any chassis. The problem is, that if it's uncontrolled, and it's torqued in any way, such as opening the throttle, and bringing the RPMs up quickly it will generally flip over and damage itself. It requires a chassis with mass to control it. In fact, many common everyday devices that only run because of their support systems, or add-on components.