🎙️ I’ve always believed there had to be a better way to move an object from point A to point B. There just had to be. So, I spent two decades looking at hidden momentum. You do think you’ve discovered a propulsion mechanism that could get us interstellar travel.
🎙️ I take those lifters and I put them in a plastic box and put on a scale. You turn it on, the thing lifts up, and the weight just flatlines. It does not move at all. Still about 200 micronewtons of force still inside. How many variations of this experiment do you think you’ve tried? We are close to 2,000.
🎙️ 2,000 instances of the experiment or 2,000
🎙️ 2,000 variations. Holy
🎙️ articles. Each one is tested multiple times. If you were to apply that to like a satellite in space in a zero-gravity environment, it would accelerate. With the power off. Can’t explain that to the scientific community. I just can’t. The idea that you could just charge it up and leave it there and it gets thrust like it hurts my brain to even imagine how is that possible.
🎙️ These are very weird things. It’s like you create this thrust mode that just keeps going.
🎙️ think I’m bending space-time. Maybe I am. For over a century, humanity’s journey to the stars has been held hostage by a simple, unyielding truth. Newton’s third law. For every action, there’s an equal and opposite reaction. It’s the law that powers every rocket, every satellite, every probe we’ve ever launched. And it’s also the law that keeps us trapped here on Earth. In order to get to the closest habitable planet in our very own Milky Way galaxy, a place called Proxima Centauri b, it would take you 50 to 80,000 years in a chemical combustion rocket. You would die before even getting 1% of the way there. And if you somehow figured out a way to live for thousands of years, by the time you came back to Earth after a trip like that, it would be totally unrecognizable. You’d be playing out the ending of the Planet of the Apes.
🎙️ You maniacs! To go anywhere in space, you have to carry fuel, massive amounts of it. Over 90% of any rocket’s mass at launch is just propellant, pure fuel, burned and ejected out of the back to push the remaining 10% forward. Launching a rocket to get a satellite into space is like flying a fully loaded 747 to deliver a suitcase. One of the challenges we have to solve is orbital refueling, where we dock on orbit and transfer propellant. The modern king of rocketry and Mr. Occupy Mars himself, Elon Musk, has publicly stated that Newton’s laws are the end-all, be-all for space travel. For some reason, he’s quite adamant about that. Uh there’s no way around Newton’s third law, really. You you basically have to expel mass. The original godfather of American rocketry, Jack Parsons, believed this as well. In 1936, he and some colleagues at Caltech began launching the first rocket tests in western Pasadena. But what most people don’t know is that a decade before Jack Parsons, in the 1920s, there was someone else at Caltech with some very different ideas for deep space travel. Townsend Brown
🎙️ Townsend Brown
🎙️ Townsend Brown
🎙️ Townsend Brown
🎙️ There’s a guy named Townsend Brown. Okay, okay, Townsend Brown. Brown had stumbled onto something that mainstream science still refuses to acknowledge. A possible break in Newton’s laws, a new force, or perhaps a way to manipulate gravity itself with electromagnetism. Unifying these two fundamental forces has been the holy grail of physics for the last century, what Einstein died searching for. Townsend Brown that when you apply a high voltage to certain asymmetric capacitors, they produce thrust. No fuel, no exhaust, no propellant, just electricity converted directly into motion. A new model for space propulsion that could eliminate crude chemical combustion forever. Brown called his anti-gravity work electrogravitics. Meanwhile, physics textbooks called it impossible. And because of that, he was dismissed, ridiculed, and eventually erased from the official story of physics. But if you dig a bit deeper and read his incredible biography by Paul Schatzkin, you start to piece together a very different picture. One in which Townsend Brown isn’t easily dismissed as an amateur quack. In fact, his work was witnessed by the highest levels of government and military. Now we’re getting to some interesting territory. People like notorious Air Force Chief of Staff Curtis LeMay, who courted Brown constantly. People like Edward Teller, the father of the hydrogen bomb. Bill Lear, the founder of the first private jet. And Agnew Bonson, founder of the Institute of Field Physics at North Carolina. A Lieutenant Colonel from Wright Airfield who went on to become a general named Victor Bertrandias, witnessed Brown’s gravitator experiments in Los Angeles in 1952. He was quoted as saying, “Believe it or not, I think I just saw a flying saucer, and it frightened me.” And if that’s not all, we have audio of a deathbed confession from French aerospace executive Jacques Corillion, who witnessed Brown’s successful experiments in a vacuum chamber in 1956 in Paris, explicitly stating he witnessed a positive result. Showed a positive positive result. This is to go along with an 120-page report around that specific experiment that’s widely available online today. Nonetheless, stigma, tech protection, and scientific suppression are all very real. Brown’s work is still likely classified by the Navy to this day. Over the last 70 years, Brown’s experiments never went away. They just went underground. They’ve been replicated all over the world in places as far as Japan, but usually by persistent hobbyist teams or aerospace engineers stringing some funds together and operating out of pure passion. But in deep black American aerospace, I believe Brown’s work still exists in the form of whispers and vital subcompartments where it gets explored further. Okay, so that’s the backdrop. Newton has us stuck on Earth, industry titans like Elon can’t be bothered to explore new propulsion modalities, and Townsend Brown is a total ghost relegated to quacky UFO circles. That is until today. Inside a quiet lab in Florida, NASA’s lead electrostatic scientist, a man named Dr. Charles Bueller, has been running the same gravity-altering tests as Thomas Townsend Brown. When we see about 0.1 g, that corresponds to about 1 mN of thrust. Only this time with modern instruments, more rigorous controls, and decades of electrostatics expertise from his work at Kennedy Space Center behind him. And what he’s measuring is thrust, real, repeatable, directional thrust. No combustion, no reaction mass, the future of space travel. We say we have an energy crisis. Oh my god, the energy crisis. Well, it’s could be considered an energy crisis, but it’s really a force crisis. It’s a transportation crisis. How do you get an object from here to here. At his company, Exodus Propulsion Technologies, Bueller isn’t just replicating Townsend Brown’s work. He’s validating it, scaling it, showing literal weight loss on scales due to upward thrust. Again, Bueller is not some mid-level guy at NASA. He’s the lead electrostatic scientist in the entire agency.
🎙️ And you’re also, I believe, about to be the president of the Electrostatics Society, too.
🎙️ That’s correct. And he’s contributed two fundamental principles to the field of electrostatics that are now widely accepted. The question is no longer whether the Biefeld-Brown effect is real or not. The question is, where could this lead humanity? How can we scale this up? And what is the theoretical physics behind it? On this last question, Charles goes deeper on this show than he has in any other interview on his own quantum electrodynamics-based theory around how this force works. And I brought in my friend, a brilliant MIT-trained physicist named David Chester, to help stress test and sharpen Bueller’s theory. What happens when propulsion no longer requires fuel? When the tyranny of rocket equations finally breaks? Without further ado, please welcome this week’s amazing American Alchemist, NASA and Exodus Propulsion’s very own, Dr. Charles Bueller. Ignition sequence start. How is this possible? Nothing too unusual about that. The existence can no longer be denied. Before we continue, I want to take a second to thank one of my favorite products in the world, Ketone IQ, for sponsoring today’s episode. Ketone IQ is one of the very few things I use that gives me clean sustainable energy without the crash. It’s just this little shot and I take a drink and I feel like I’m on fire. No ups, no downs, no nervous system weirdness, just clean clear mental energy. The reason it works is pretty simple. It gives your brains ketones, which are almost by definition it’s most efficient fuel source. Instead of pushing your system, it actually feeds it. In fact, your body endogenously produces ketones. So when you drink this, it supports deep focus, long conversations, and sustained mental performance. It was originally developed through a multi-million dollar military program designed for high-stress environments where cognitive performance really matters. And today it’s used by founders, researchers, podcasters like myself, and people who need their mind to work when it counts. I always take a sip of one of these things before long podcasts. This product is also really personal for me because I’ve known the founders, Jeff and Michael, for over a decade. These guys are awesome and for as long as I’ve known them, they’ve tried every supplement, biohack, and nootropic under the sun. So it was a pretty good signal to me that they decided to start a company around ketones. I use KetoneIQ regularly. It’s like a mental cheat code and it’s genuinely one of the cleanest energy sources I’ve ever found. So before we get back into the episode, please visit ketone.com/alchemy for 30% off your subscription order. Plus receive a free gift with your second shipment. Again, that’s ketone.com/alchemy for 30% off your order. Or you can find KetoneIQ at Target stores nationwide and get your first shot free. Seriously, this stuff works. Thanks so much to KetoneIQ for sponsoring today’s episode. Everyone talks about the Bermuda Triangle, but no one warns you about its colder, weirder cousin. In the heart of Alaska lies the Alaska Triangle where planes disappear, hikers vanish, and the only thing that shows up reliably is my wild Alaskan Company Seafood Box. I’m being serious here, guys. I definitely don’t trust flying over portals, but I do trust this fish. Most seafood, I can’t even look at it without wondering if it was farmed in a glowing vat near a nuclear power plant. But this fish, 100% wild-caught, flash frozen off the boat, delivered straight to my door like it teleported through one of Eric Davis’s wormholes, and it still tastes better than just about anything your cousin microwaves. No antibiotics, no additives, no fish farm sludge, just real fish. Coho salmon, Pacific halibut, and my favorite, the sockeye salmon. Not all fish are the same. Get seafood you can trust. Go to wildalaskan.com/jesse for 35 off your first order. Thank you so much to Wild Alaskan Company for sponsoring this episode. I’m here with Charles Bueller, who uh this is a holy grail interview for me. I’m like a kid on Christmas. Because um it’s been like the search for Bueller uh ever since uh you know we connected a couple years ago cuz I made this Townsend Brown documentary. And as you know, and my audience knows, I’m obsessed with this mid-century and inventor Thomas Townsend Brown. I think he found a real force that lies outside of either the four fundamental forces, might have merged gravity and electromagnetism. I don’t quite know. But something that transcends kind of our chemical combustion modalities that will take us interstellar. And as soon as I came out with that, a bunch of people hit me up and they’re like, you got to talk to Charles Bueller. He’s the lead electrostatic scientist at NASA and he’s been doing this experiment but his own kind of version of it is updated better version of it in a vacuum chamber he’s had access to for a decade plus and so we connected a little bit we kind of fell off. I’m so grateful to have you here now. It’s just a total honor and you’re also I believe about to be the president of the Electrostatic Society too. That’s correct. So you have the credentials to say if you’re saying that you we found another force you have as good of credentials as anybody. Is that right? I mean Don’t don’t be humble. I think I know enough about electrostatics to say that but we’re still learning. What’s your current job title? So I am the lead scientist of NASA’s electrostatics and surface physics laboratory part of Swamp Works at Kennedy Space Center. So before I go on I have to dive to to make everyone aware that this is not a you know affiliated with NASA any of this work that we’re doing. Absolutely.
🎙️ by NASA and it’s we are not giving any credence to NASA in this. Disclaimer accepted. I think maybe it’s a little bizarre that NASA wouldn’t want it immediately kind of jump on this work. Okay. But they’re probably going to be a customer later on. They’re not we are not working this technology at NASA at least not in my laboratory or not. But you are is it safe to say you’re the lead electrostatics scientist at all of NASA? I would say that I mean we only have one electrostatics lab in all of NASA and I lead it so
🎙️ And you run it. So by default yes. Yeah. Okay. So again if this sort of force were attributable to basic electrostatics you would know. Sure. Let’s let’s back up a second and you know that’s a really impressive cool title. What does somebody who leads electrostatics at NASA do? Our lab does a lot of things. It was founded about 26 years ago by Dr. Carlos Gae, a physicist who spent a summer working at Kennedy Space Center, came back the following year and started the lab. We do electrostatics at NASA at Kennedy Space Center because of incidents that occurred in the 1960s. So, there was an incident that trapped 11 people in a spin test facility. Um where they accidentally set off a rocket, a solid rocket. And there were some casualties there. So, we also had the Apollo fire that you’ve heard about. So, we’ve lost, I think, 14 people to electrostatics at NASA. So, Kennedy Space Center has kind of led this effort to study this phenomena and test it. Um and a lot of the tests that we do that we’ve been doing um date to the 1960s, long before they had standardized testing for the electrostatics. But, Dr. Carlos Gae formed or formed he formed a research arm of that test um about 26 years ago and Aren’t there also issues with uh lunar dust, you know, getting attracted to the lunar lander and electrostatics uh sort of allowing or or removing the dust or something like that? Is that Is that a thing? Yes. So, when I get on the when I on the stand and I talk about these things, uh my pedestal I always talk about the safety indeed to study electrostatics, but no one pays us to study electrostatics. You know, it’s a case-by-case thing where people will give us funding to look at and investigate, just like any other investigation. But, doesn’t pay the day, you know, doesn’t pay the bills. So, what we’ve done is we’ve understood some of the needs for NASA that are in the electrostatics um realm. For example, the dust mitigation aspect. So, dust is considered one of the two greatest challenges that have to be overcome for long-term human presence on the moon or Mars. The dust was uh um was very problematic for the Apollo astronauts where they couldn’t even do a fourth EVA. They could do three, they couldn’t do four. Dust would clog the the suits and get into the to the arms, uh into the helmet, into the into the joints, and it just prevented uh further, you know, EVAs, extravehicular activities. So, the dust mitigation is a serious one that’s taken by NASA. I think every center is working on it. Um but we actually have many dust mitigation technologies that we’ve developed over the years. Uh the our primary one is the electrodynamic dust shield, the EDS. So, this uses a a a surface that has embedded electrodes inside of it that lifts and removes dust without moving parts or gases or fluids or anything.
🎙️ Wow.
🎙️ So, we can embed that into glass, we can embed that into thermal radiators, uh solar panels, solar arrays, all kinds of materials.
🎙️ Very cool. And wasn’t there a recently like a lunar dust mission? That’s right. So, we’re almost just over a year ago we landed our our EDS payload. Had nine EDSs on there. Uh so, there were six EDSs used to get dust onto us so we can use our EDS to get show that we can get it off. Cool.
🎙️ a thermal radiator EDS and we tested a a glass EDS on the moon and a camera EDS. So, we tested the technology on the lunar surface. Successful. It’s very exciting.
🎙️ That’s amazing.
🎙️ work 25 years on something you finally get it to the moon and it works, you’re you’re pretty happy.
🎙️ Congratulations. Yeah, it would suck if it didn’t after 25 years. It’s a lot of sunk cost, a lot of time, and effort, and energy. One other very credibility enhancing thing about you uh that I think it’s really important to note is you’ve contributed to the field of electrostatics outside of this anomalous force that you’re talking about. Is that right? That’s right. So, you know, I’ve been in electrostatics for 26 years and it’s um it’s been around obviously for a very long time. But it doesn’t get the attention that the other scientific disciplines get, I don’t feel. It shouldn’t be the case where I come in, you know, as a young kid uh and I should not be discovering phenomena in electrostatics. You know, like I did with the showing that there’s no brush discharges in high vacuum conditions. High vacuum conditions, I know obviously people don’t have access to that, but it was not you know, generally accepted that this did not happen under vacuum, you know, pulling off charges from an insulator. We know that happens very well in air. Why doesn’t that happen in in high vacuum? When we were able to show that you cannot get the brush discharges the way you do in vacuum as you do air. It’s more of a gas breakdown effect. Which could be, you know, expected, but it was never shown. This This is a little bit surprising. And you were the first person that showed that. As far as I can tell, yeah. In the literature. So, and that’s, you know, obviously because I had interest to do that for the NASA mission. Um not a lot of people want to do electrostatics in high vacuum, but it’s something I love to do every day. Clearly. Um and the other phenomena that I discovered, which I thought would be child’s play, for sure, would be the fact that if you take a lab of particles of all the same size and tilt them, they would roll over top of each other. And the ones that do the rolling are positive and the ones left behind are negative. This is very intriguing because for particle charging dynamics, we know that in volcanoes and wind um cloud formation, the larger particles will become positive and then smaller ones will become negative. So, there’s a size difference. We don’t exactly know why it occurs, but I was the first to show it has nothing to do with size. It has to do with dynamics. So, the part the particles that partake in the interactions more often will become positive than the ones that do not. So, if you have a cloud mixture of bigger particles, giant spheres with small particles, the bigger ones are getting bombarded a lot. So, you’ll have the ability to sample more than the smaller ones. The bigger ones will be positive and the smaller ones will be negative. There’s some basic band theory reasons why that might happen, surface state theory, but no one’s ever showed that. What are the practical implications of both of those kind of more conventional contributions to electrostatics? Probably maybe electrostatic beneficiation, that’s where you separate materials. We do that a lot of times when we separate plastics and you recycle them. You can chop them up and you can tell the high density from the low density polyethylene by tribo-charging them together into fine particles, putting them in a field, one goes one way, one goes the other. So, you can separate plastics that way. There’s a lot of different uses of tribo-charged electrostatically charged materials. Um a foreign industry. That’s one case. Obviously explains lightning, cloud-ground lightning, volcanoes and and things like that nature. So, there’s a lot of interest in in our community on the triboelectrification of materials, especially for the moon, Mars programs. Um how does cuz you’re honestly you’re probably living, you know, the dream of, you know, many nerdy kids in their in their bedrooms right now, you know, thinking about NASA and uh you know, working in, you know, sort of uh cool physics and and and electrostatics, doing stuff for them. What’s the what’s your journey there? How did how did you get hooked up with NASA? You know, uh yeah. That’s a long one. Okay. Well, essentially I’ve always had a fascination um with space as a kid. I always have. Uh and that didn’t end when I went to graduate school and after I graduated. So, you know, my PhD is in theoretical condensed matter physics. I got that at Florida State University while working at the National High Magnetic Field Lab. And um after that, you know, the grad students, we went different directions. Some stayed in academia, some went you know, got jobs, you know, in the in the industry or whatnot, and I decided to go to NASA. And there was an opening for a postdoc in the electrostatics lab under Dr. Carlos Calle. He’s trying to start that laboratory back in Florida. I was living in Tennessee at the time. I said, “It’s a chance to get into NASA, see what it’s about.” You know, what what what was there to learn on electrostatics? Everything’s known. It’s Maxwell’s equations. This can’t be anything to learn there. And when I got there, I realized that even the most fundamental uh studies in electrostatics were not complete. Even understanding how you rub two materials together and you separate them, one’s plus, one’s minus, how does that even happen? They didn’t even know if it was the electrons responsible, ions, material transfer, all the above, none of the above. So, there was a lot to learn. So, I found it to be a very interesting field of physics that that the mainstream community doesn’t care too much about. So, I I found it as a nice way to to learn and to learn something new. Um and that’s that’s what got me excited about electrostatics once I got there. And uh what really got me excited is it could help people. I could solve problems. That’s what electrostatics does. It solves problems. And it’s involved in just about every industry. Whether it’s um you know, making the dust masks for the Those are made by 3M, those N95 masks to fighting COVID. Those are electric filters. So, you actually make those using electrostatics, and they actually work for 8 or 9 hours cuz they can trap those nano meter particles. It’s don’t know these things. You microphones are all electrostatics properties. That’s electret. So, there’s so many different fields that electrostatics dives into and it was very useful for us to as NASA go to these electrostatics conferences where you have um the pharmacy industry there, the biologists are there, chemists are there. It’s a very wide open discipline because they all need help in electrostatics and they’re all advancing that field. And so, I could use what I learned there to apply to NASA. So, whether it’s the EDS technology that came from that community or um other technologies that we learned from that community like the electrostatic precipitation, that’s air filtration. There are so many so many technologies that come out of that field. It was originally discovered by you know, founded by the um the scientists at Xerox Mhm. back in the ’70s. So, it has a very rich deep history in in America in that north uh New York area with uh Cornell and uh not Cornell Corning, Kodak. And these companies that are you know, very prominent back in the ’60s and ’70s formed together this electrostatic society and they they share that technology with people. It’s fascinating. Yeah, I always found it interesting that Townsend Brown along with his thruster work which you know, involved you know, what he thought would lead to interstellar travel, he also I believe was responsible for the patents that ended up you know, Sharper Image ended up buying them and it was like an ion you know, air filter or something. And so, I found that really fascinating. Um at what point did you get the idea that maybe there was another force here that could take us to the stars and that chemical combustion and the rockets that you don’t work maybe directly on but you work you know, around with your work at Kennedy Space Center might not be, you know, the frontier of space travel. I always knew there was something else. Something more than just Newton’s laws. So, I kind of tailored my career just to try and understand physics enough to see if this to see if something else could be done. Just anything. So, this goes way back into high school. So, I started doing tests in high school. I started doing tests in college. I built rigs in graduate school. So, it never really ended. But So, I continued to do it, but it’s hard to say when that it start. I’ve always believed, it’s just a belief, that there had to be a better way to move an object from point A to point B. There just had to be. Uh Newton’s laws is great. Um relativity wasn’t very useful to me. Probably cuz I just didn’t know it. But But uh electricity and magnetism seemed to have uh a nice appeal because, you know, it’s 19th century. There had to be a 19th century equivalent to it. It had to be a conservation. It had to be. So, I spent, I don’t know, two decades looking at the conversion from field momentum to mechanical momentum. If you’re familiar with that field. So, essentially, you know, you can convert momentum stored in the field into real momentum. They’ve done that in the ’70s with the angular momentum. But the linear analog to it was always hindered by a third momentum called hidden momentum. So, I went I went out on a limb and tried to find systems that did not have hidden momentum. Fascinating. Well, we’re going to dive deep into that and your theories around it, but I think first just, you know, for the the lay audience, mass ejection is the current kind of paradigm. And so, it’s yeah, it’s Newton’s third law, and it’s just, you know, you expel a ton of mass. You A lot of these rockets, like look at like, you know, SpaceX’s, you you Starship, it’s mostly fuel in the rocket itself. That’s That’s most of the the tonnage is just fuel. And then you obviously have a you know, a decently high payload capacity on top of that, but that’s a very small percentage of the overall rocket. And so it’s very inefficient from that standpoint. And then because you have a limited amount of fuel, you can’t really get to like Proxima Centauri b, and if you could, it would take you 80,000 years with current current speeds, and that’s like the closest habitable planet. So I always, you know, bring these things up because I even if Elon Musk were sitting in your chair, there’s no argument he would have to defeat. That’s just physics, you know, like there’s there’s nothing he could say to that. And so I think what you’re looking into is like the most, you know, people can come back with first principles arguments and say you’re wrong, but like it’s the most important thing. For space, it absolutely is. There’s no question. Cuz like you said, 90 I think it’s 95% of the of a rocket’s mass is just fuel. Yes. And it’s you expel it almost immediately, then you’re done with it. So then you’re just how using inertia to get you wherever you need to go, unless you have a little bit of fuel to get back, but you know, just the amount of fuel that’s going to take to get to Mars, how many Starships it’s going to take that had to be fueled just to get to Mars. It’s just astounding. It’s an incredible amount of mass of fuel. Yeah, I mean, just to the moon. Do you I don’t know if you know this, but the Starship burns 9/10 of its fuel tank, it goes into lower Earth orbit, then it does butt-to-butt refueling with another Starship that goes up, burns 9/10 of its fuel tank, and then that gets disposed of. So you end up with 2/10. You have to do that eight more times, then you have, you know, the a full tank, and then that goes to the moon. And that’s just the moon. That’s not even Mars. Oh, it’s it’s astounding the numbers I’ve seen. It’s astounding. It’s doesn’t seem rational. It doesn’t and you never bet against Elon. He all you know any engineering feat, you know, people were saying Starship itself wouldn’t work and the the Pez dispenser flap that allowed the Starlinks to come out was like, you know, that was get ripped off and that there all these things they had and it seems like it’s starting to work, you know, it has orbited Earth um and then they’re still you know modifications and updates they need to make. So I you know, not pouring cold water on that engineering effort, but again I do think from a physics perspective, from a pure design perspective, if there is this other force, we should obviously be looking into it.
🎙️ Sure. I mean there’s got to be a better way. And I always believed ever since I’ve started studying science that there has to be another way. Even a even as a young kid. Totally. Just it doesn’t make sense. Yeah. I agree. It doesn’t make sense. So I was like so I kind of just tailored my my career just just understanding science, what we knew about it, everything that I could. So it clearly you had this kind of imagination and just preconceived idea that maybe we could transcend the limits of chemical combustion. Maybe there was something sitting in electromagnetism, this 19th century modality. Describe and hopefully in detail, kind of in visceral detail, the first time you witnessed this force and what it felt like. I would say the first time I witnessed it or a force um based on the theory that I had um was probably 2010. It’s wild. So that was 2010 with my um brother-in-law future brother-in-law. We were he we weren’t married then, but uh he was in the laboratory working with me and I set up an experiment and I had him run it. Now the other scientist I was working on on another project you know, thought I was just full of BS, which is perfect fine. So, he did not help us at all. You know, he’s a seasoned physicist, you know, very well known in in in his field, and um just thought I was just doing garbage. And that’s fine. I don’t care. So, I still had, you know, my brother-in-law Nathan do the experiment in the in the laboratory. And we were looking at a laser on a on a wall so you can see small displacements force in a in a chamber. It wasn’t an air chamber, it wasn’t a vacuum chamber. And he did the test, and we saw the You saw the laser move. Like, “Huh.” Well, that’s pretty cool. It’s supposed to do that, I thought. And uh my colleague, Dr. Clements, said, stopped what he was doing, went over to Nathan, “Okay, you’ve done this, you’ve done this. Okay, now we got to do the” And he just completely immersed in that experiment after that. Yeah, wow.
🎙️ like, “What is happening here? This is really crazy. Something is weird.” So, that was the first time. That was very very exciting for me cuz it was the first time we all seen it, and it happened to be a world-class scientist there to to help us, you know, it was actually like, “Wow, what did what happened here?” So, you kind of you converted him almost, at least into thinking it was worthy of inquiry.
🎙️ need to say anything else after that. That’s amazing. Is he now a believer in
🎙️ Oh, I I think so. He’s seen it a few times. And what’s his background? Um he is an electrostatics expert. Okay. He is my mentor. And what’s his name? Dr. Sid Clements. Dr. Sid Clements, okay. So, he is my mentor, so that’s where I learned electrostatics. That’s wild, but he saw your experiment, and he was like, “Oh my god, there’s something else here.”
🎙️ There’s something there. There’s something there. It’s exciting. It was an exciting moment. That’s incredibly exciting. Um and so you see this, and what do you think is the next step at that point? Cuz, you know, you see this little displacement this laser displacement based on this possible force. Do you design a new experiment right after that? Uh we designed many experiments after that. Um it led us down many different paths. Mhm. And you know, it’s kind of how this goes. If you don’t know exactly what’s happening it can lead you down different paths. Some were successful, some were moderately successful, some weren’t. Really didn’t hit too much success uh after that until I met Andrew. Okay. Here’s the story with that, if you’re interested.
🎙️ I’m very. So we had a colleague Andrew and I, a friend named Mike. He knew about us working on this independently for years and never told us. Never did. He wanted to see if we can do it independently. You know, like a race against I don’t know who. So he’s playing dumb.
🎙️ He was playing dumb.
🎙️ He knew about this force and he was just like, let’s see how far they get.
🎙️ He knew Andrew was working on it, he knew I was working on it. He just wanted to see who was, you know, who would win the race. Oh, Jesus. That’s like this like Machiavellian level 4D chess going on. You know, and Mike, his his excitement was that, you know, how we were not We were both working at NASA or as contractors. Or or been at NASA and he was just ex- super excited that we were not doing this at NASA. So he thought this has a chance. Cuz what you get at NASA, you get a bureaucracy, you get in the government, there’s a lot of There’s a lot of ways that can be hindered. So he was loving that we decided to do that outside of of work. Of course, at the time I wasn’t working at NASA. I was a con- I was a consultant for ExxonMobil. But um so we worked together cuz Andrew needed an electrostatics guy. Andrew was knew he was getting into the realm of electrostatics. Mhm. What was Andrew’s background? Andrew? Yeah.
🎙️ Andrew He is an engineer. Okay. He He’s been an engineer for, gosh, 35 years or so. And he goes by Drew. Drew. And he so he wasn’t getting into this via electrostatics. If if that’s the case, what what exactly was he doing? Well, he he was using the term electrogravitics. Oh, interesting. So, this is the Thomas Townsend Brown. So, he’s in he’s in that he’s in that it was in that camp. I love it. I’m in that camp. I’m not exactly there, but
🎙️ Yeah, yeah, yeah. I might move there. We’ll see. I don’t know. I’m still on the fence on the gravitic part. We’ll we’ll we’ll we’ll meet in the middle. We’ll figure it out. To me, it was a little bit pretentious. So, okay, you’re doing gravity and with electromagnetism? Maybe. So, you meet Drew and then what happens? So, at the time I was working with the the field momentum converting into linear momentum stuff. I wasn’t in the gravity world. I was in the field momentum world. So, we go to Drew’s house. I take my wife. And we spent, you know, 4 or 5 hours looking at his setup, looking at what he’s doing. Um and um and I gave him a lot of pointers. You could try this, try that, try this, you know, all the things I would do in electrostatics to help him along. His experiment looked very different than mine. His was just a needle, high voltage needle in a in a in a Teflon casing. Um I said, you know, it’s pretty interesting. Um if he’s getting forces with that, that’s kind of interesting. I don’t know how he would. Until my wife told me as we’re leaving the driveway, my wife was like, “Isn’t that the same force you’re working on, just manifested differently?” Uh, she’s a physicist, too. She’s the best. Wow.
🎙️ So, she like we go back and forth on these things. Is she at NASA as well?
🎙️ She is. Wow. What does she do there? She’s in the launch services program. Cool.
🎙️ So, she doesn’t have a PhD in physics, but um she’s taken engineering physics in undergrad, and she’s really good at math. So, if I need help with math, I just Hey, Janessa, help me with this equation. Help me with this integral. She’ll have like a baby on her arm. Okay, fine. You can’t I’ll do it for you. That’s awesome. She’ll come in and look at the whiteboard. She’s like, this is not right. So, she’s very smart. It’s fun to bounce stuff off of her. Um but uh you know, she she was clear. She’s like, no, you you should look at this your force that you’re you’re trying to do with his setup see if you’re working on the same thing just a different twist. I says, well, that can’t be right. So, I went back to my lab and I made a needle, but I did it differently using what I thought would work. And I would you know, I’d put a This video’s in this on our website. You put a tube over the end of the needle and you put Scotch tape on the tube so there’s no ion wind getting out. And you shove the needle in that tube. You encase it on tube. Then I cranked up my power supply and that thing moved 3-4 ft in the air. And I sent a video to Drew. I says, And Drew’s like, oh, I guess we’re working together now. Wow. Um so, you have achieved how much force roughly now with your current experiments? Add it is somewhere to 5 to 10 mN range. Okay. And so, for people listening, if you were to apply that to like a satellite in space in a microgravity or zero gravity environment, that would be huge. Sure. You would be able to do Yeah, initial markets that’s what we’re comfortable with. We’re a space company. Uh we all work at the space agency at different levels not just NASA, but you know, the peripherals and this is where we’re comfortable with. There’s definitely a when we say um when do we hit unity? Well, we’ve hit in unity for space. Unity for moon, Mars, all of these places. So, we can make flying cars in the moon and Mars and all of that. Um So, it’s a very exciting place to be right now Yep.
🎙️ without any significantly huge development. It could theoretically lead to deep space exploration. You could um help maintain orbits for satellites where there’s orbital decay. That’s what That’s what our hope is. Okay. And you can move these satellites maybe um to other orbits as well. Like there’s a There’s a company called Impulse Space. They’re They’re like, you know, they do like kick stages where you would move, you know, between orbits where maybe you’d go up on SpaceX ride share with a another group of satellites, but you’d want to move into a dedicated orbit. You could use a thruster like this to do something like that. No doubt. That’s what our goal is. Super cool. And then what about like replacing rockets? Could we ever do that with this?
🎙️ Well, with the Earth Unity, we won’t need rockets, right? That’s true. We’ll have to think about things a little differently. Mhm. Um but could could the 10 millinewtons of thrust turn into newtons of thrust? And could we end up launching things into space with this, you know, Exodus method or this other this other force?
🎙️ our main goal to try and do that. You know, that’s where we the self-launchers we is what we call it. Do you have blueprints around this self-launcher? Do you have a sense of the energy requirements or anything like that or We We don’t. Okay. But we’re on the path. So, we know what we need to do. We just have to go set out and do it. Have you gone up in over the 2,000 iterations, have you gone up in millinewtons of thrust? Like
🎙️ Sure. Okay. So, you have a sense of the levers to get more thrust.
🎙️ There are levers and there are several. Uh-huh. And we’re trying to optimize those. And what are the primary levers? There’s like we talked about voltage, the materials properties, breakdown strength of materials, um the type of signals we send, the physical limits on the materials. Oh, there’s so many. What are the ideal materials for this sort of experiment? Well, we’re dealing with high voltage, so we need new materials with high dielectric breakdown strength, but we also have permittivity issues we have to contend with, geometry issues we have to contend with, static dissipation issues we have to contend with. There are a lot of other issues, and that’s just the DC. When you get to uh uh you know, other frequencies or you get to other exotic types, you know, charge injection electrodes, things can get even wackier. Yeah.
🎙️ So, um we are looking at some of the interesting materials now that have other properties, which going to keep to ourselves for now, but there’s something that’s very very interesting for now. Let’s just see if it goes anywhere. It could lead to nowhere, but um we’re just looking at it. Cool. You know, there’s other things out there. In the Townsend Brown context, barium titanate and bismuth often come up. Are either of those relevant to your experience as well?
🎙️ some some uh experiments with barium titanate a couple years ago. It’s a good high uh permittivity powder. Mhm. Um I don’t know what the results of those were. They weren’t uh particularly interesting. What was the other one you said? Uh bismuth. Oh, bismuth. Yeah, I’ve seen bismuth a lot. Bismuth looks like fun. Mhm. I would love to test with some bismuth. Um there’s some cool things that they found in the Arts Parts materials.
🎙️ Yep. Um which is kind of neat cuz they had some weird geometries in there which I would project that we would have needed. But to see that real life already made, I was like, “Oh, that’s kind of cool.” Um can’t wait to go test those exotic products, but that’s down the road for us.
🎙️ Yep. We’re going to try to stay focused and do what we’re good at right now, and then work on the more exotic stuff later, I think. And so, in doing these experiments, uh did you have access to a vacuum chamber? Because I I feel like it’s been a lot of the the reason, you know, everybody always questions me on this. They’re like, “This experiment sounds very simple.” Cuz I always bring up the Townsend Brown experiment. And they’re like, “Why has nobody done it yet?” And I say I give two reasons. I say people always try to explain it away via the ion wind. And it’s so similar to the ion wind related experiments that it’s easy to do that. It’s always easy to say there’s ambient ionization in the vacuum. That’s number one. And then number two, access to an industrial grade vacuum chamber is pretty limited. And it’s obviously very expensive. And so did you have access uh you know, based on your kind of NASA background? Uh yes. You know, Drew and I have access to a chamber. He’s got one at his house. He’s very resourceful. Amazing.
🎙️ He funded it himself. It’s a nice size vacuum chamber. He also has a second one that he’s going to get online soon, which is almost a walk-in size vacuum chamber. So, very pricey, but hopefully with some funding we can get that thing um up to par and running. Um but yes, so we do have access to a high vacuum chamber. That’s where we do most of our tests. And let me let’s describe to the audience why it’s important that ion wind can’t get out. Because this is how uh you know, I learned about all this stuff through Thomas Townsend Brown. And he used to do these experiments. So, Thomas Townsend Brown’s this super interesting mysterious guy who pops up at extremely high levels of aerospace. He was at the Navy for a very long time. He was at Martin Corporation the year that Skunk Works was formed in 1942 or three. Um there’s a a an FBI document um that is circulated now and out about him uh and says that he’s the lead radar scientist in the entire Navy. He knows more about radar than anybody in the Navy. We have a lot of evidence that his electrohydrodynamics work, you know, this electric fields to manipulate airflow work ended up in the B-2 stealth bomber. So, you have like two out of three things that he’s talking about definitely being legit. And then the third thing he’s saying is I’ve merged electromagnetism and gravity. And he talks about electrogravitics. And it’s specifically two experiments, 1956 in Paris, of which we have a witness who there’s a an audio recording of a deathbed confession in 2009. This guy Jacques Cornillon, who’s uh technical consultant for Sud Aviation, which is uh you know, an aerospace corporation there. And you know, they say there is a a a a a a a a a force that is not only measurable in a vacuum at 10 to the -6 torr, but um the force exceeds what you would ever see outside of a vacuum. And then he does the same experiment at the Bownson labs at the Institute of Field Physics in North Carolina. And it’s this remarkable thing where you have this guy two out of the three things he’s saying probably right. You have you know, he’s dealing with Curtis LeMay and the RAND Corporation, all these super high-up people. And then the this electrogravitics thing just gets stigmatized and people just kind of forget about it. And it almost feels like he’s trying to he has this wounded prairie chicken routine where he’s trying to stigmatize his own work. And so it’s it’s fascinating. And the reason so I this is very long-winded, but you mentioned ion wind. The way people write off any of these experiments, including Thomas Townsend Brown’s, is they say that uh these capacitor experiments, especially if they take place not in a vacuum, you end up with ionized air. The ionized air then bounces off of uh other air particles and it’s basically just Newton’s law taking place and then you get thrust. And so that’s very different than showing this in a vacuum chamber or in this case you mitigated ion ions in an in another way. Is that right? Well, you kind of have to. Otherwise, you’ll see the ion wind thrust. So, you You either cap it, enclose it in a volume, whatever you have to do. But you don’t want the ion wind to be playing a role here. Yep. And one of the things that’s different about the force that we’re talking about in the ion wind force is in terms of geometry is that the devices will move with the wind. So imagine a rocket moving in the direction that the exhaust is. That’s crazy. So you have to remove the ion wind cuz of the stigma from it because a lot of scientists have tried to do these things and they’ve seen the ion wind and it’s not a real force in the sense it’s not a propellantless force. There’s propellant there, it’s the wind. Yep. Um but the other thing is not, that’s a different thing. Yeah. That’s a completely different beast. And you would be an authority in your ability to delineate between
🎙️ Sure. I do I do videos where I take those um the lifters and I put them in a in a in a plastic box and put it on a scale. Yeah. And you watch the weight. And you turn it on the thing lifts up and the weight flatlines and does not move at all. Wow. So Drew was like, “Man, I’ve never seen that video before. That’s conservation of momentum right there.” That’s what ion wind is doing. Yep. So that’s exactly like the all that you have all these DIY videos of these balsa wood lifters with tin foil and you have the ions moving around the copper coil or whatever and then you end up with thrust. But that is not this electrogravitic force or what you were calling, you know, this this exodus force or you know, electrostatic variation force, whatever it is. That is different. That is another force. Um so it’s important for, you know, any experimental physicists who want to pour cold water on this. And the funny thing is Brown himself would use the electrohydrodynamic stuff, the the stuff involving ion wind to cover for the electrogravitics. He would literally like because it’s 95% similar. But it’s not the same thing. And again, you are in a kind of an authoritative position in order to you know, you have the ability to delineate between those two things. Yeah, that’s important. I think it is really important. Yeah. Um and it’s yeah, it’s important because it’s the always the first order debunk on this entire thing. So, you do this experiment that eliminates or controls for ion wind. I’m assuming you since then have done a series of experiments to control for all sorts of other possible confounding variables. Yes. So, after Drew and I did these experiments in 2016, uh I think we spent about 2 years trying to package it. Now, there’s one thing to put 100,000 V on a device and have it move around in the room. Drew and I both knew that was completely impractical. You can’t do anything with that cuz you have to make something to attach it to a vehicle, to a rocket, to something that people have to be around. And this this better damn well go inside of grounded box. So, we made a lot of effort. It took a lot of effort those 2 years to get this sucker packaged up in a in a way so it can actually be transportable and confined. Um so, that was the initial pull to to go into a to get into a system where we can actually enclose everything. Coulomb forces are the biggest killer in vacuum or in air. So, you can you know, you can apply high voltage to something, it’ll attract to the wall, the floor, the ceiling far away. It can still do that. So, you have to make sure that everything you do is inside a a very well grounded Faraday cage. So, that is another one of our our tests, our checks and balances. You know, do we have it inside of a Faraday cage? Is it all completely housed? Is it fields trapped within the system? Do we spin it the other way? There’s a lot of checks and balances we have to do along the along the along the way. So, Faraday cage would eliminate magnetic field interference? No. Okay. Only electric field. Only electric interference. And then you also need vacuum chamber because is that right or no? You don’t need it. It’s a lot easier. Okay.
🎙️ Cuz you get rid of the air. The gas breaks down like like a million volts per meter fields. So the gases start breaking down. And when they break down, they create their own charges. And when they create their own charges, you can put charges where you don’t want it. You can short. You can have charges leaking around the side. It really messes with you. So to do things in air is a bit more complicated than vacuum. Vacuum you don’t have to worry about that. Moisture is the biggest killer, especially in Florida. So you want to do stuff in in a very dry environment or high vacuum if you can. So you’re saying that in a vacuum chamber you get more thrust. You could make a system work better. Yes.
🎙️ Interesting. Well, that that’s Townsend Brown also said you’d get more thrust. You get more thrust because the field limit is not 10 to the sixth anymore. It’s 10 to the eighth. Right. So that’s because it goes the forces are related to pressure. They go up by field squared. So instead of 10 to the sixth squared is 10 to the 12th. 10 to the eighth squared is 10 to the 16th. So now you have a much you have four orders of magnitude potential higher thrust just on the on the exterior part of their of your uh thrusters. So there’s more to draw from from the field. That’s right. This is a field effect. It’s not a voltage effect. It’s fascinating. Yeah, it’s so interesting. And it’s it but it really flies in the face of the debunkers saying that it’s attributable to ion wind because in an environment where there is less ion wind, you are getting more thrust. And it might be due to this field effect, but still you’re controlling for the ion wind, which is what they’re saying is accounting for the thrust. Yes. And you have to also when you’re in a vacuum chamber now you have a new falsity, which could be the walls of the vacuum chamber, giant metal ground. So you want to make sure that you put your test device, whatever it is, inside of a Faraday cage and then you measure the force on the Faraday cage, nothing else. Not what’s inside of it, the whole box has to move. So, you got to measure that. That’s to make sure that what you’re seeing is real. Then you got to take turn that sucker around so that you’re not being attracted to the wall through the Faraday cage. So, you want to make sure you’re always going in the correct direction. So, describe the current kind of state of the art experimental setup on this. So, that’s basically what I was saying. So, we’ll put it a box, it’ll be a Faraday cage. A lot of ways to make Faraday cages. Ground it really really well. Um if you do have voltage coming in from outside or if you put the voltage inside, you have to make sure it’s shielded really really well. You don’t want any Coulomb attraction to the walls or the housing or anything like that. We’ve gotten good where we’ve lowered our voltage way way down. We don’t need 30 40,000 volts like we did 10 years ago. Um I try to keep it all contained and then reverse it, make sure it works. Put it in air, see if it works. Put it on the mass, put it on the scale, see if it works. Do the pendulum, do the rotator, do the spinner, do everything to make sure it’s real cuz we hate falsities. They’re they’re we hate them. We don’t want them. Okay, so what we have here is a thruster that is set on top of a scale in room air. Okay, so what Beeler is basically saying here is that he’s testing a small experimental in air thruster to show that it actually works. His team puts the thruster on a sensitive scale. Next, they connect it to electricity, about 480 volts to be exact.
🎙️ look to the bottom right of the screen, you see the voltage that is applied. You can also see the current in the center, the electric field and the run time. So, this is a 42-minute video that we sped up to 5 minutes.
🎙️ They watch to see if the scale reading changes as a result of the thrust.
🎙️ We turn on the voltage here, it’s about minus 480 volts. When they turn the power on, the thruster produces a tiny force.
🎙️ Within a few seconds, the force starts to be applied to the thruster, which is on top of the scale and it goes in the negative direction, it’s lifting up. They’re specifically demonstrating that the force is real and controllable, enough to lift about 0.1 g.
🎙️ see about 0.1 g, that corresponds to about 1 mN of thrust.
🎙️ When they turn the power off, the force goes away.
🎙️ Okay, so we leave it on for a few seconds, and then we turn it back off, and then you can see that it’ll come back down. They repeat this to show it’s not a fluke.
🎙️ So, what we’ll do is we’ll do this again, we’ll turn it back on, get it back up to the mN range, and let it sit for a few seconds. So, what we’re showing is that you can actually turn this force on and off.
🎙️ flip the thruster upside down and run the test again.
🎙️ So, you’ll see that here in a moment. And the reason why we have it off the scale itself, we do not want any attraction of the thruster to the scale itself. Although the fields are very, very weak, and in most cases there is a Faraday shield, we also want to make it so that it’s very, very far away.
🎙️ Finally, they take full precautions to make sure nothing else is affecting the measurement.
🎙️ flip the thruster, we deionize it, basically ionize the gases, we neutralize any charge that escapes, and then we re-tare the scale. It’s typical this what’s needed for scale testing. This thruster itself is surrounded by ground plates, so we try to minimize the field that escapes, but just in case we neutralize it anyway. And then we turn the voltage back on, in this case about 480 V or so, wait a few seconds, the thrust kicks on, and then we see the force is in the positive direction. So, now it’s being pulled down.
🎙️ Now, the force pushes down instead of up. This proves that the thruster itself is creating the force, not some outside interference or attraction to the scale, like electrical interference or the thruster just sticking to the scale. I would say this video proves the force fairly definitively to any skeptic, but you could technically say that this experiment requires a vacuum chamber because open air can get ionized. Again, ionized wind can result in thrust based on Newton’s classical laws, but 480 V isn’t nearly enough to ionize the air, so it’s kind of a moot point. But just for good measure, here is another variation of the experiment, also showing thrust, this time in a vacuum chamber. What we have here is a vacuum test highlighting actual movement in vacuum using a dual thruster pack in the vertical spinner orientation. And how we measure the forces here is we have pegs at the bottom of this stand that are about 2 mm apart and the deflection once the thruster is turned on moves about 14 mm, which corresponds to roughly about 2.5 mN of thrust. When we turn this device on, these devices are actuated externally to the vacuum chamber through a Bluetooth connection, so they’re not in contact with anything but the ITO walls that surround the thruster pack shown by that clear transparent plastic is perfectly grounded, so that eliminates Coulomb attraction to the wall. We’re also in high vacuum, so there’s no ion wind interference just to highlight that these thrusters are actually developing thrust internally, not an external effect. So, power systems inside the chamber, all the high voltage is encased, surrounded with an indium tin oxide sheathing, and thruster does come on as expected and go off as expected for these earlier versions. So, that is a nice way to show that there is actual physical movement in high vacuum. We’re not just recording force measurements without actually corresponding that to real force. So, these are just two out of the 2,000 experimental variations from Charles, Drew, and the Exodus team. If you’re an experimental physicist with a credible background, maybe you have a PhD or you’re a professor at a top 200 physics department and you’re a bit bored and interested in exotic propulsion, and you want to see one of these experiments with me live in person to help vet it and maybe change the world in the process, hit me up at usa.alchemy@gmail.com. Skeptics are extremely welcome. I want people who are in good faith trying to poke holes in the experimental setup here. If I were to pluck a random experimental physicist from an elite college and place him in front of this experiment, the exact experiment you just described. Is there anything they could say to deny the empirical effect that you’re seeing? I honestly don’t know. I mean as far as we can tell in the electrostatics community and and with my colleagues um because it’s DC, that eliminates all the magnetic effects. Mhm. So, you can get all kinds of weird stuff happening when you have magnetics going on. Earth’s magnetic field or what not. So, it’s like you
🎙️ is direct current. If you had Are you saying if you had alternating current, you’d have weird magnetic field effects?
🎙️ to account for any uh fake readings with that, yes, if you have AC, I’m sure. Interesting. Okay, so that’s
🎙️ a lot of that. Yeah. And then when you turn it off and it’s still there, that eliminates a lot of that. Right? So, now you really are scratching your head like, “What is happening here?” And that’s where we’re at. What is happening here? Is there anything that they can hang their hat on as far as being skeptical about this actually happening or being able to explain it away through prosaic physics forces that are known? I mean, I think if you look at every single experiment, you could say, “Well, this might be fake cuz of this.” Mhm. I say, “Okay, we’ll put it over here.” Oh, well, now it’s maybe fake cuz of this. I say, “Well, put it over here.”
🎙️ Yeah. So, show me a rock. What about this? Okay, now do the do this, do that. So, Is there anything left is what I’m trying to ask you. Like, if you if you had to stress test your own If there is, it’s something quite exotic that I have no idea what it what it would be. It’s I I I I don’t know what else it would be.
🎙️ It’s shown itself over and over again. How many variations of this experiment do you think you’ve tried sequentially from 2010 till today?
🎙️ We Well, since Drew and I, we’ve been keeping track, we are close to 2,000. Oh my god. 2,000 instances of the experiment or 2,000 variations?
🎙️ 2,000 variations. Holy
🎙️ 2,000 test articles. Each one is tested multiple times. Wow.
🎙️ Folders of folders. Has anybody come in, thoroughly examined your experiment, and come out skeptical? Or has everybody that’s thoroughly examined it come out saying there’s something here? I would say the latter for sure. There’s something there. You cannot think of one person who is still like, “I spent, you know, a day plus with the team, and I still you know, think I can explain it with some other, you know, force.” I haven’t
🎙️ Or with some conventional force.
🎙️ think of anyone. Granted, there’s not that been that many people have seen it. You know, a couple dozen or so, but um but I don’t think so. You know, what’s really cool though is some people have called me up and say, uh you know, “I represent an investor. I you know, I would I would like to um the investor would like to, you know, invest into your company or whatever.” I said, “Okay, well, what you have to do is you have to fly down, you have to see it, put your hands on it.” And usually that’s the kind of the routine. He’s, “Oh, I don’t need to do that.” I said, “What do you mean?” “I already built one in my garage.” I got a 1 million Newton. You showed us how to do it, so I just did it. Wow.
🎙️ So, it’s been the opposite. And people have been very taken into this, and they’re very excited about it. That’s amazing. So, the people with the know can do it. And the people that have seen it, um I just don’t know if they know what they’re seeing, but they definitely like it. And they’re probably not good enough to vet it, I would say. Because take the vetting it would take um a lot more a lot more work. And I think it would take a lot more expertise. We haven’t had too many, you know, other than, you know, Dr. Clemens, and there’s other physicists that have seen it that have said anything negative about it. Um I haven’t seen any of that have said it negative, but we haven’t seen it hasn’t been exposed to the entire sci- scientific community either. Um I think in this field it’s hard to find who are those people. Like who would be interested in it? My hope is um that one thing I did want to mention is
🎙️ I think everybody should be interested in it.
🎙️ Well, I think so. Yeah. Um you know, my when we are hosting the Electrostatics Society of America conference this year. My lab is. Um that’s in Cocoa Beach, Florida. And I will do a live demo of this. When is it?
🎙️ There, in June. Can I come and film? You can. Ah, it’d be amazing. Let’s go. I’m so excited.
🎙️ Society of America is just a They’re happy. It’s called a friendly society. Cool. You know, and um and this is an electrostatic phenomenon. So, you know, I’m going to highlight how electrostatics is so necessary for space. And propulsion is one of the things I think it could help for sure. So, I’m going to mention that. Why don’t you submit this to peer review and try to get it kind of academically checked off?
🎙️ I’m trying. Okay. It’s just a very busy person. Yeah, yeah, you’re busy, but I want to see this destigmatized.
🎙️ I do too, but you know, you know, there’s the path. Um right now we’re focused on getting the company started so we get some funding to to really get the forces up. That’s That’s our main focus.
🎙️ Yeah. Um the peer review and all of that’s going to take 20 years. So, I’m starting that. I don’t know if it’ll take 20 years.
🎙️ Yeah, maybe 30. What?
🎙️ It just will. It just will. It’s too different. It’s It’s It’s
🎙️ Oh, because of the antibodies.
🎙️ Yeah, this is This field has been poisoned multiple times for a century. You know, I would say that and then I think people are becoming more and more open to these sorts of effects. Are you familiar with Sonny White? Sure. So, you know, he’s dealing with them, but he’s another NASA guy, NASA Eagleworks, and he is kind of similar to you where you know, he’s has this kind of pretty credentialed impressive background and he’s claiming to 1.5 kilovolts, you know, um powering up a a little microchip based on the Casimir effect. And the Casimir effect is this long legendary kind of anomalous effect that if you were to walk into elite physics, you know, departments, I don’t think you’d get too many people denying the effect itself, but it’s essentially two not charged but conductive plates and it seems like there’s some sort of maybe quantum vacuum fluctuation thing going on between them and the the plates attract in this sort of anomalous interesting way. And he’s claiming to be able to tap into that, which is I hate the word zero-point energy. The term, you know, is so quacky, but it is that. And so you have that, you have Beatriz Villarroel. I don’t know if you’re familiar with her and I don’t know if you’re into UFO stuff. I don’t want to muddy the waters too much, but um she’s at Stockholm University and she’s you know, again, like traditional astrophysics credentials, really impressive, you know, uh astronomer. And uh she went back and looked at these plates from the Palomar Observatory, which is you know, the was the most in use observatory in the late 40s and early 50s. And she looked at the plates from ‘49 to ‘57, so pre-Sputnik, and she found all these transients, these light-reflecting objects that that are flat and mirror-like and seem to exist somewhere probably in geostationary orbit, so kind of like outer, you know, Earth orbit.
🎙️ And they’re short flashes and not streaks. They’re associated with things that are extremely flat and extremely reflective. Wow. Like mirrors. And that makes it more fun. Like mirrors. And they’re exactly how all the early CIA documents would describe UFOs and they show up 68% more around nuclear detonations, which is we know UFOs are kind of attracted to nukes. Out of those 2,700 days, if there’s no nuclear test, there’s a transient on 11% of those days. But, if there’s been a a nuclear test the day before, then it’s uh almost 19% of those days have a transient. So, that 11 versus 19 is about a 68% increase in risk for a transient if you’ve had a nuclear test. And she got that past through peer review. So, I don’t know. I think the world is opening up to this stuff, and my hope is that uh 30 years is is a way over estimate. And I hear you. I mean, academia is totally close-minded and dogmatic, but I think maybe sometimes you just have to walk through the front door, you know? You just have to like knock, and they’ll let you in. Well, I’m going to I’m going to be the front door. I’m going to I’m going to be the house that lands. I love that.
🎙️ you know, peer reviewing a paper, the physics people are going to to debate for for decades.
🎙️ Sure. I like having the the website and and Drew and and having videos how to make the things. Go and make them. Yeah.
🎙️ believe me, go and make them in the garage. Yeah, yeah, yeah. This has been very helpful. Some people have done this. So, you’ll do this like do you have like these DIY videos where it’s like go do this at home? Woah. And And where are these videos? They’re on our website.
🎙️ Oh, wow. And where where is that? Is that exoduspace.com or what or exoduspropulsion.space exoduspropulsion.space. Okay, check that out. And you’ve shown your experiments with all of the configurations that would
🎙️ Okay. We have to keep some stuff quiet. Okay. Cool. So, are you doing like lateral propeller experiments or are you doing things that involve like lifting objects? We’re not lifting objects yet in Earth’s gravity. Okay.
🎙️ the forces of these objects
🎙️ Yeah. and seeing how much their force can lift as compared to Earth’s gravity. Got it. So, we do have thrusters that are theoretically capable to lift themselves up. The The problem is all of the hardware that goes with it. The voltages and the powers and the wires and the framing and all that other stuff is not there yet. So, you have to it’s like saying your car engine um can lift the engine can move the engine down the street but no tires and and no frames and so it’s not very useful. Sure. Um but for right now, for what we have for lunar applications, space applications, oh it’s awesome. It’ll be fantastic. That’s amazing. So, in microgravity or or no gravity environments, you’ll get a ton of thrust.
🎙️ Sure. That’s amazing. Um and you’re seeing weight reduction, is that right? Well, we were saying that yeah, the the weight reduction would be something we’re seeing. Not mass reduction. Just be careful. Okay, yeah, yeah, yeah. No, I I know that gets thrown around in UFO world all the time. You’re like, “Wait, are you you’re reducing the mass of the thing?”
🎙️ It’s definitely not negative mass. Yeah, yeah, yeah, right. But yes, you we could do we do those tests. We have videos. Um I can share some with you. Please. Uh where we put stuff on a scales and we turn it on, it gets lighter, you have flip it over, it gets heavier. We are going through a peer review. Okay, amazing. For our second patent. So, the examiner’s office is doing a a thorough peer review. They’re the ones uh going down that path. Okay, great.
🎙️ apparently equivalent to a scientific peer review. So, they’re That’s what I’ve been told. Amazing. So, they’re reaching out to the people that have done reaching out people have signed affidavits to say yes, I’ve seen it. Not yes, I’ve reproduced it blah blah blah blah blah. So, they’re going through that process now. What inspired you to pursue kind of more exotic propulsion to begin with? Did you have any childhood experiences around this sort of stuff? Yes. Yes, I did. Um I always had a fascination with with UFOs and I think it’s been around a long time. Just you know, strange phenomena. But I think it really hit home. Um I think I was 11 or 12 when we worked our haunted house. My dad would make haunted houses in our in our garage in New York.
🎙️ Really? What does that even mean, make a haunted houses? My dad in the garage built a haunted house for the um hotel that he worked at. Mhm. A giant Holiday Inn, I think it was, or Hilton in uh Connecticut. And it was a massive haunted house. And his job was to build the whole darn thing. So, he liked that. He So, the next year we did it in our house. And we charged people like fifty cents to get in and go through the haunted house. And it was probably uh I think it was a nine by eleven single car garage haunted house. And uh we made eleven hundred dollars. So many people showed up, it was crazy. It was a lot of fun. But, you know, we had a haunted house and it would go on for several weeks. One night, while I was there working it, um a whole bunch of cars came in the driveway. And uh I recognized one of the kids getting out of the car. He said, “Charlie, go look look at that.” And he shows me you know, we look up and there’s these six bright white lights at the top of the trees, just hanging over the trees, just going over the road, just uh you know, not moving very fast, just just hanging hanging out in formation. No sound, no wind, no nothing. And all these cars were following this these lights for several days. This happened over the course of several days. Was this like a a famous UFO wave or flap or something?
🎙️ It was. It was in the papers and all that jazz. Southeast New York in the mid eighties. It was a lot of fun. You know, I was I thought that was pretty cool. So, I kind of like geared my career towards trying to understand some of that stuff. I just wanted to know what the heck that was and uh it got me interested in physics, I think, and science in general. I was always interested in science. Did they look like orbs or were they Were they part of a formation or do you think they were part of the same craft?
🎙️ different craft. I think they were just separate crafts. Wow. didn’t
🎙️ a solid object or anything. And so this was for days at a time and it was they’d be different parts of the of the city. I don’t know what the heck they were doing or why they were there, but it was it was pretty pretty cool, pretty wild. It was about the same time where somebody said they saw the Men in Black, which I thought was hysterical. Wild.
🎙️ Cuz I was you know we were trick or treating out with my friends and we ran into another group of friends and that group of friends said, “Hey, these two weird guys showed up in these 1920s outfits and they said, you know, if you see something weird, they said just close your eyes and tell it to land.” Do you guys know what the heck that means? I knew what it was. I said, “Where are these guys?” They’re right over there. So we went running to go look for them, but I I didn’t find anybody.
🎙️ But you knew of the Men in Black.
🎙️ phenomena. No one knew what the Men in Black Black were in 1980s early ’80s. I don’t think that was a a thing, but I like to study that stuff. So I knew what I knew what who that was or what that was. That’s fascinating.
🎙️ “Oh, this is cool.” How can How can we learn more about this UFO flap? Does it have kind of a a name that it’s been kind of preserved by or is there a way to search it or You could just look up Brewster, New York.
🎙️ Brewster, New York. Okay. Probably ‘86 or ‘85, somewhere in that range.
🎙️ Wild. Newspapers and television almost weekly carried reports of the sightings from different places throughout the area. Eyewitnesses all reported seeing the same thing. I looked up and right over my head, virtually. And it wasn’t far up, it was right over my head and very still, it was a ring of lights in the shape of a triangle. It was just a tremendous object. It was anywheres from wing tip to wing tip about four 50 or 60 yards. These were very very unusual lights. I’ve never seen anything like it in my life. And so I pulled my car over and I had to take a look. But it it it was in the I remember that cuz it lasted several days. And you hinted to me that you had an even more surreal experience.
🎙️ a surreal experience. That was just me seeing some lights. That’s surreal for many people. Yeah. Just lights. It was light, but yeah. I had a more intense experience, I would say. Many years later. Um my wife and I experienced this. And uh this was it was pretty cool event now that it’s over. Little terrifying at the time, but uh we we live in Cocoa Beach. So, we went out to the beach one night. I would say 9:30, 10:00 at night. And um we’re the only ones there. It’s not uncommon though back then. This is maybe 10 years ago. And uh maybe 12 years ago. So, we live close to the Patrick Air Force Base, mhm, which is south of us. And uh so out in the ocean maybe about 3 miles outside south of us in the ocean. I would say about 3 miles. We could kind of gauge how far things are apart because we’re used to the all the rivers and they’re all 3 miles wide. So, this is about 3 miles out in the ocean. We see a red light. Just a beacon. Just bleeping. No big deal. Just a boat. Thousands of boats. But not that night. There were not thousands of boats. And uh it gets brighter. And it gets brighter. We’re like, man, that’s it’s getting kind of bright. What is that? What, you know. Beacons don’t get that bright. This has got to be a boat. Maybe someone’s in trouble. And then it gets really bright. And then it explodes. So, we see this giant I don’t want to say mushroom cloud, but it got very very bright. So bright, it lit up the whole beach as far as the eye can see. For, you know, all the way from Cape Canaveral all the way down. And I said, my god, what the heck happened there? My wife and I were like, what? That’s crazy. Clearly someone’s going to call the police and tell them that a boat exploded. You know, we’re on the beach, we didn’t have phones or anything at the time. Like, what the heck is that? So, I would say 5 minutes later wasn’t that long, 10 minutes. We see one of the helicopters from the air force base go out to it. Mhm. So, they get up and they they fly over it. And they hover right over it, and it’s still blinking. It’s not exploding, it’s still there, still blinking. Just a nice pace, blink blink blink. Helicopter hangs over it, looks at it. Doesn’t do anything, goes all the way back. So, like, well, are they going to help the people? Are they going to go, you know, rescue them? Or are they going to do any of that? Nothing. That is so weird. That’s when it got fun. So, now, as we’re watching this thing, it’s about 10, 15, 20 minutes into it, it gets closer. Still bring still blinking. It’s getting closer. It’s leaving. It’s moving. And then I guess within a mile. So, is that 3 miles? Is it 2 miles? It’s about a half a mile. And then somewhere around I think about a half a mile, it’s not one light anymore. It split into six. And it’s not just getting bright. Um these orange pinkish lights split and then they started rotating. And they just started rotating like bicycle spokes on a wheel. And they kept getting closer. And then they would go under the water and come back out. Under the water come back out. Under the water come back out. I’m like, this is really weird. And they got closer to us. So, when it got about a quarter mile or maybe a thousand yards out, we’re like, okay, we’re we’re going to walk up the beach now. This this been fun. That’s a little bit too close. It kept following us. It got closer. It got closer. It got brighter. It got brighter. And I think it was about when they got about I wouldn’t even be exaggerating if I 50 yards. I mean that close. I started getting a little scared and and I I know she was getting scared. Um then after about 40 minutes of looking at these lights and and trying to run from them but not full out sprint but kind of just walking super fast. Mhm. Like 12 blocks. Mhm. It went up. And then um then we walked home. And it was ter- it was terrifying but it was that super scary but it was scary enough. Cuz I didn’t know what the heck that was. That’s wild. What year was this? Probably 2013. Okay. Somewhere in there. So you had already started your work on the more exotic propulsion stuff. Probably, yeah. Couple years in by by then for sure. That’s fascinating. It’s so interesting. So you saw this thing out in the distance and then it started to loop in and out of the water. And then a and approach you and it got to like 50 yards-ish away. Yeah, it got really close. Beyond the waves. Like where the where the waves started. Did it still look like the same amorphous light at 50 yards or could you make out the structure?
🎙️ There’s no struc- I couldn’t see a structure. Just six or seven lights going in a pattern. Faster, slower, faster, slower. In and out of the water like the water wasn’t there. And just it was responding to us. Really? Wha- wha- so what cuz that’s a common thing for people to say who’ve had UFO experiences.
🎙️ If we went up, it went up. If we went faster, it went faster. It was mirroring.
🎙️ It was mirroring us. Did you get any sort of consciousness download or feel mentally locked in with it or anything like that?
🎙️ No. No, I don’t think so. Do you know
🎙️ These lights are kind of common over there. If you If you study these these type of lights
🎙️ Mhm. cuz you live near a cruise ship the ports. You’ll see a lot of videos online with these lights. Steven Greer takes his his group down there to that same almost that same beach but about 40 minutes south to look at and you know, kind of conjure up the lights. So, that and I have had other friends since then have the same experience or similar experience. Which I thought was super cool cuz he was out of the beach with his family and they saw it late at night. They’re the only ones on the beach. They saw them, too. It was like maybe 7 or 8 years later. So, it’s pretty weird stuff that’s happened. What do you think this Patrick Air Force Base helicopter was doing? Do you think it was doing recon on this UFO or I’ve no idea. It’s so interesting. And the way it behaved it was just like, oh, it’s these darn lights again. It didn’t act But it looked like it was intentionally dispatched from Patrick Air Force Base.
🎙️ After that very large bright event, which was blinding to look at, is how bright it was. They addressed it and went out there and looked at it and it’s still something getting bright, dim, bright, dim. It was very bright still, not blinding bright, but it was very bright. And it just That’s good. I just went back home. Do you ever get one step kookier and say, “Why did this happen to me? Do you Does it have something to do with the work that I’m pursuing?” You know, I I don’t think so. It happened to a lot of people have seen these things. You know, these lights they follow cruise ships and boats. There’s a lot of weird videos of it. So, they’re probably just chasing people. Yeah.
🎙️ If I had to guess, I don’t think I’m I’m anything special. They’re just following people. Well, I might follow the person who’s working on interstellar propulsion a little more disproportionately. Um did you know that Thomas Townsend Brown had a very similar experience Catalina Island. And a little orb light approached him. Literally came up to him. Townsend Brown had a a UFO experience in Catalina as a teenager. Is that right?
🎙️ Yes. Yes, and I know the exact spot. He was where he was standing. I used to ride my horse up that ridge and approached him. He actually approached him. And And he said that he learned so much standing there with that ball of light that he went back to his which at what the time was he had a lab in Pasadena that was funded by his parents. So, he had his own private lab and he said he went to work immediately and he worked That was That was the beginning of his life’s work and he said that everything that he ever learned about his work he learned instantly. Wow. Wow. So, you got That’s so fascinating.
🎙️ I wish I got a download. I’d have been 10 years further ahead.
🎙️ Yeah, well, maybe you’ve gotten a lot of downloads and you just don’t know it, you know? It’s always interesting how, you know, science is treated like, oh, it’s you’re just figuring this out like you figure out the last, you know, term of an equation on a chalkboard or something and often if you were to probe the scientist, in many cases, I don’t know if this comports with your experience, it’s far more like revelation. It’s like, ah, it just hit me. You know, it’s Dirac. We were talking about Dirac. Dirac, you know, staring at the fire in Cambridge and just downloading the Dirac equation or Heisenberg at Helgoland, uh, you know, figuring out quantum leaps and, you know, um, probability matrices or whatever around, you know, electron shells. And so, this is a very common experience. I don’t know if you’ve ever had anything
🎙️ I would say, yeah, some of the the math is just very discretized. Oh, we’ll try this and big leap there and Yeah.
🎙️ And then months go by. Oh, just try this. Oh, yeah, that works better. That makes more sense. Whether it’s experimental or theoretical, yeah, it it doesn’t it’s not a super gradual thing. Yeah, it does have little step functions to it for sure. I don’t think if you put one of these debunker types, like Michael Shermer or you know, Neil deGrasse Tyson, I don’t think if they were in front of either of you, they would be able to beat you in an argument. Like Well, the argument to have to anyone is just go go try it. Go try it.
🎙️ Yeah, seriously. Don’t take my word for it. Yes.
🎙️ Go build this thing in your garage. I think they’d be too arrogant to show up, but I think if Neil deGrasse Tyson were in a room with your experiment, I don’t think he could explain it. And that seems like a really important fact that you have one side that’s like showing an effect, you have 2,000 iterations of that effect, you are an expert in this field, you’ve contributed to, you know, really important things to the field itself that are conventionally now, you know, accepted. And you say you’re getting an effect, and then you have somebody else who’s just smugly dismissing it. Like I’m going to go with you over the smugness missile. You know, that’s that’s how science works. You know, it is inherently skeptical. Yeah.
🎙️ to understand everything, the theory, the modeling, the experiment, so I expect it. This is why I didn’t go the peer review route Yeah.
🎙️ I went the other peer review route, which is through the Well, it’s a good patent office. It’s a good um That’s a good attitude to have, and uh yeah, the patent office. There you go. It’s smart. Yeah, just just make money off it. Just commercialize it. Just let that You know, let’s just do that. Let’s do that.
🎙️ they’re wrong, you you win in the free market, and yeah, yeah, no, totally. So, it’s still peer reviewed. The the examiner’s office is peer reviewing it, so Yeah. But in the meantime, I’ll I’ll just keep building away, keep working away. Having said that, I I I like, you know, Thomas Kuhn talks about, you know, in the structure of scientific revolutions how science moves more around politics than it does truth. And I do think the fact that you lead electrostatics at NASA is this really important thing. There is the kind of, you know, patent you know, commercial route that you can take. You can just do the kind of startup thing and just win on your own. And then there’s another part of me where I’m like you know, Niels Bohr didn’t create the first semiconductor company. And you know, if you really are you know, contributing to fundamental physics in the form of this new force I I like that you’re coming on this show and that you have videos and you’re telling people to do it at home because it’s hard to know where that even leads and I hope you know that.
🎙️ Sure. And so I do think um you just letting this out in a public way I think also will amount to a Cambrian explosion of people working on new cool ideas and I think the more you let it out the more you become a lighthouse for like you kind of did it first and the other high agency people who do other variations of what you’re you’re doing will come to you. And so I think it’s this flywheel where I I do think being public about it is the really the right thing cuz God forbid I mean you have like all these other scientists that spend like uh their lives in secrecy and then sometimes they you know, the frameworks that they’ve helped establish just kind of go away and they’re still stigmatized to this day. I mean Townsend Brown being a great example. So.
🎙️ I agree with that. I think getting it out there, letting people see it this is something that’s just too important to be bottled up completely. Really let’s keep it fair. This is a new force. That’s just what it is. Whether it’s a gravitational force or some other quantum mechanical effect it’s too important to just say no no no, I’m going to work on it until I’m done then I’ll let you let you see it at the end. That’s not what this should be. Yeah. You know, we need this. Yeah. We need it. We need it now. You know, we have we say we have an energy crisis. Oh my god the energy crisis. Well, it’s could be considered an energy crisis but it’s really a force crisis. It’s a transportation crisis. How do you get an object from here to here? That is the real problem. Absolutely, and we’ve been flying with Boeing 747s or equivalents, uh you know, for the last 60 years. It’s just crazy. We’ve seen total stagnation in the world of transportation. And so So, the world needs this. The world absolutely needs it.
🎙️ help, I’ll I will. Well, I I love that attitude. That’s that’s awesome. Um you mentioned a patent, a second patent. Your first patent, there was a national security hold on it. Is that right?
🎙️ We don’t know. Okay. But, it’s possible. What does that even mean? Some patents apparently go through the Department of Defense Okay. before they’re released depending on the nature of the patent. And some never see the light of day, right? There’s the Invention Secrecy Act of 1952.
🎙️ Yeah, I believe that’s that was one of the risks that we were aware of. Mhm. Fascinating. Do you So, this is the weird thing about these sorts of experiments. There is so much smoke, not only from you. I know a lot of engineers who’ve worked at Aerospace corporations, you know, Lockheed, Northrop, those sorts of companies. And they give you a little wink wink nudge nudge. They often can’t say that there’s anything to you know, the Biefeld-Brown experiment. But, you know, it’s often you’re on the right path, buddy. And there’s weird things happen with high, you know, electric field strengths at short distances and with you know, big gradients or you know, asymmetry. You know, that off that always comes up. And it is it’s there’s something going on. Am I Am I wrong to say this? Cuz I look, a lot of the physics is above my pay grade. But, there is just an overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence that there’s a there there here. It seems like that. Have you met others who’ve probably converged across the same force that you have? They’ve they’ve kind of stumbled on to it. I have to think about that. I can’t think of anyone off the top of my head. Um but it’s possible. I To be fair, I haven’t done that much research on the electrogravitics and all those folks. I’ve started reading some of the books and there are a lot of books on this stuff. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Oh, there are a ton ton of these drugs. And everyone has a theory and I just try to have to sift through that to see where are the experiments, you know? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Cuz, you know, the old adage is everyone everyone has a theory, but no one believes the theory. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But the experimenter doesn’t believe his own experiments, but everyone believes the experiments. But if you look at how science gets pushed forward, to me, the experimental physics is a bigger tell that the theory is like a prison or something. And so I never like, you know, this can’t work because theory. Yeah. Like I think it’s this worked and we have to explain it with a new theory. And it’s like the Casimir effect or like some of it maybe the Casimir effect makes sense in quantum electrodynamics, I don’t know. But there are a lot of these, you know, what what’s a good example? Like blackbody radiation in the 1860s with Gustav Kirchhoff. It was should have produced this ultraviolet catastrophe and it didn’t and it was because of, you know, quanta which Planck discovered 40 years later. And so there are a lot of these sorts of examples and you can’t say the anomaly isn’t right because of the theory and there’s just so much anecdotal evidence around this anomaly working. Yeah, I I think there are examples. I gave some of those in in the APEX. Mhm. Some of the examples of what this how this force may manifest, you don’t even know that you’re seeing it. Mhm. Like momentum anomalies for spacecraft when they go around the Earth and they get to the Van Allen belts, they either speed up or they slow down just by going through the picking up charge as they go through the Van Allen belts, which doesn’t make a lot of sense, so they have to actually add extra fuel to spacecraft to account for that. They don’t know where it comes from. That’s fascinating. So
🎙️ So there’s all kinds of things like that. So those momentum anomalies are possibly attributable to this force. I I think so. It’s possible. And you’re calling this the Exodus force and your company is Exodus space.
🎙️ That’s right. Okay.
🎙️ you know, the force is really two forces. There’s a surface force and a volume force. We call the surface force that’s actually electrostatic pressure force. Mhm. Um just because it comes from electrostatic pressure. And then we have a divergence in the E-field force um for the volume element cuz you the integral has a surface and a volume component. At least the classical version, which is not truly correct. It’s close, but it’s obviously you can’t explain this force I think in classical mechanics. You have to use quantum, but it at least the classical kind of steers you in the right direction cuz you can actually build something on that to test it. But to be fair, it has to be a quantum mechanical effect. It’s not a classical effect what we’re seeing. Mhm. Which has always always been known. Why are you sure it’s not a classical effect? Well, for one, we’re not conserving energy in the in the in the classical world. Right. You know, if we put something on the scale and we turn it off, Mhm. it should go off. Um because the fields are intact, the force remains. So now we’re dealing with something else. Mhm. Just like the Casimir force effect.
🎙️ Mhm. It’s dealing with something else. You don’t need power for the Casimir effect. Mhm. You could just put two plates in in space and they will attract. You do not need to add power for that. Mhm. It is an artifact of the structure of the vacuum. This might be another similar thing. Um just in a different light. In um you know, in the Townsend Brown experiments involving electrogravitics, they were capacitor experiments. So you had a negative electrode, you had a positive electrode, you had a high K dielectric in between them. The high K factor, which is the ability to store and discharge easily a lot of, you know, high electric fields, was this really important factor for determining the thrust in the experiment. Does that make sense in the context of your experiment? Sure. Okay. So, usually if you have a high capacitance, you can store more charge, right? So, more charge, more energy. But, um we have to look at We look at all the capacitances, not just the capacitance between the two plates. Um we look at the fields and how you can strengthen the fields. You know, sometimes high capacitances or high K values, high dielectric constants can lower the fields. Hm. So, you want a high field depending on where you’re where you want the thrust to be. Hm. So, you can tailor some of that with capacitance, just like Towns and Brown did. Um but it is a field effect. So, those are the things Those are some of the knobs you have. You have a lot of knobs. You have geometry knobs, capacitance knobs, voltage knobs. You have a lot of things that we can do. Uh but how you can explain this force classically, I don’t really know. At least with the conservation of energy stuff. Is the, you know, Brown would use DC pulsing and like, you know, kind of high climb rates of the voltage, so that the voltage would There’d be a steep climb rate where it would, you know, increase very very sharply. Is that also consistent with your theory or I don’t really know. I mean, we try to stay away from the AC stuff with the very high slew rate stuff if we can. Yeah. Damages to the plastics, or damages to the metals, damages to the materials. Too many Too much current. Um we we haven’t explored all of the different ways to actually enact it. We’re still exploring the DC versions. We haven’t explored all the different ways you can apply different voltages and different currents to it. Which is something that we could We have a lot of room in the future to improve upon. But we’re doing so many variations with all the other parameters, we don’t really need to change the the slew rates too much yet. Do you take issue with the term anti-gravity or
🎙️ I don’t like anti-gravity. Okay. Well, because that is that would be like an opposite of gravity force or
🎙️ Yeah, or the like the electrogravitics. It’s pretentious to say that we’re messing with gravity. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Uh even Drew calls this warp drive. Mhm, I’m not there yet. Mhm. You know, I’m not I’m not there yet with the bending of space-time. Yeah.
🎙️ There are experiments to check that. You can use interferometry or something like that. And I believe the Apex folks are are looking into that. Mhm. So, we’ll see what they find. Mhm. But um I don’t know if we need to I don’t think I’m bending space-time with my my 2,000 volts and you know plates and wires and needles. I don’t I don’t think I am. Maybe I am, but I don’t think I am.
🎙️ But you do think you’ve discovered an inroad towards uh propulsion mechanism that could get us in into kind of interstellar travel and actually deep space travel. Which that that’s amazing. Yes, but I don’t know if I’m bending gravity for that or not. Sure.
🎙️ want to go there yet. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, fair enough. You know, cuz if you if that’s the case, then you’ll go down other paths, other rabbit holes that I don’t want to go down. Like, oh, well, then you can make a teleportation device or a wormhole or this or all that other stuff.
🎙️ Yeah. Yeah, I don’t I don’t I’m not ready for going down those paths yet either. Have you looked into any of the other kind of exotic physics world work, people like Ning Li or other people who’ve claimed kind of weight reduction? Have you heard of that? There’s a story about this Chinese scientist that was working on anti-gravity and then vanished. Yeah, I’m real excited about the spinning superconductor stuff. Yeah. Cuz that you know, my PhD is in high temperature superconductivity.
🎙️ Yeah. And um I was like, oh, maybe that’s a that’s a way to shield gravity.” Something like that. Um, and then someone else I think NASA reproduced it and they couldn’t didn’t see the effect.
🎙️ Okay. So, I never did anything with it. It’s a very expensive experiment to do. It’s something very large superconductor and spinning it. Um, superconductors are not cheap. Especially not in the ’90s. Um, but um, I I I I I don’t know. I haven’t seen anything that’s definitive. Yeah. This guy Podkletnov at the University of Tampere in Finland who claims um, weight reduction based on spinning superconductors. And I believe there might be a connection between him and Victor Schauberger, this like World War II uh, Nazi I guess he was in Austria. I don’t want to call him a Nazi. I think he was just like a hapless scientist. But uh, he had this whole model for spinning superconductivity and I believe um, uh, Podkletnov’s father was like uh, like Stasi guy who was doing tech retrieval for the Soviets. And so, you know, I think there’s some sort of lineage there. Nick Cook uh, describes this as in his amazing book Hunt for Zero Point. And um, and then you have Ning Li popping up in the early 2000s. It’s a great book, right? Yeah, it’s awesome. And then Ning Li has uh, yeah, he’s amazing by the way. Everybody should read that book. Nick Cook is a hard headed aviation journalist at Jane’s Defense Weekly in the UK. And he just stumbles on on this anti-gravity research in the ’50s and then realizes it just vanishes and goes nowhere. And he looks through the entire lineage and he comes to the very interesting conclusion that there’s so much smoke there probably has to be some fire, but like never kind of finds a smoking gun. Never knows exactly, you know, what the there there is. Uh, but it’s it’s fascinating.
🎙️ It is. He eventually is like it’s somewhere in America. It has something to do with zero point. That’s right. That’s right. And that’s where he ended it. So Do you think there that in the black we’ve discovered some of this stuff? I honestly don’t know. Has it I I don’t know. That’s I just don’t know. Has the DOD ever reached out to you? The I guess the Department of War now or the Pentagon or DARPA, have any of these organizations reached out to you?
🎙️ No. It’s so strange. It’s pretty sad. I was hoping to be, you know, taken away and work on some weird UFO project. I know. Well, it hasn’t happened. I mean, if anybody should, you know, deserves it. It’s just it’s so weird. It’s like it’s like they already know and are miles ahead and they’re sort of gaslighting and waiting for us to catch up or they’re brain dead and it’s just bureaucracy and I don’t know if you lean on either side.
🎙️ really know. Like your last interview pointed out how few physicists there were for the retrieval program. This can’t add up. It’s it’s a two-line proof. It defies the laws of physics. We haven’t made progress. We have no physicists. And I thought that was very interesting because um my wife and I were approached to help with the UAP. NASA’s doing their own UAP thing. And they finished one report and then there was a second one a second follow-on. Really? Um I forget the name of the gentleman who reached out to us saying, “Hey, we’re doing this investigation again. Really like your help.” I said, “Oh, okay, just put me in with all the physicists.” “Oh, there are no physicists.” What? What do you mean there’s no physicist? Why am I the only physicist? I you know, um and it’s an instruments group. So they’re they’re they have advanced instruments to try to capture these events.
🎙️ Sensors. Sensors or something I’m not, you know, quite familiar with. So I I don’t really have time to join that group, but I was shocked by that, too. Like why are there no physicists here? Maybe I’m missing something. It’s very bizarre. Yeah. I was like, you would think they would be only physicists. That was one of the most bizarre conversations I’ve ever been a part of. I would I would have to watch that twice. I was like, “Are you Are you serious?” Yeah.
🎙️ Why wouldn’t there not be any physicist? I don’t know. Either again, they figured it out and they’ve are sort of gaslighting us or they have this limited hangout strategy where some of the more popular physics frameworks like you hit certain areas of it and then you get sucked up or it’s brain dead or the UFO stuff is so weird and consciousness-based that our physics is so clearly kind of not equipped to deal with it that it’s like futile to even deal with physicists. I don’t know. I don’t know.
🎙️ But it was weird. Did you You didn’t see my um Gary McKinnon interview, did you? I was just a guy, normal guy, interested in UFOs, happened to have some IT skills, nothing genius level.
🎙️ You hacked into the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Department of Defense, and NASA. Do you know who that is? Name sounds familiar. So this is a guy who he lives in the UK. Mhm. He was uh in 2001, he was like in his girlfriend’s aunt’s basement at 4:00 a.m. smoking weed, had some IT skills because he worked with a bank, and was a UFO nut, obsessed with UFOs. And so did some like basic blank password phishing techniques to essentially hack into NASA, Navy, Army, CIA, DIA, like every elite Was it the guy that’s still trapped over there? He’s still there. Yeah, because there’s a live arrest warrant out for him now. Theresa May, former Prime Minister of the UK, has finally given him kind of you know, safe harbor or whatever. So he’s there. Um but he can’t He’s not allowed in the US. There’s He’s on the Interpol red list. And he specifically queried when he was when he got in, he was like, “Oh my god, I’m in.” And then he queried the Johnson Space Center because there were um there was a UFO whistleblower named Donna Hare who worked there who saw basically images of UFOs being airbrushed out in a specific building building eight there. And so he looked in and he saw a Tic Tac object floating around the earth like in Earth’s orbit.
🎙️ And the atmosphere comes into view and it’s very blocky. But it’s kind of blue and white so I’m thinking wait it must be uh And then suddenly there’s a big straight kind of silvery line. And then it’s coming down. Then that’s I guess what they now call a Tic Tac but it’s what we used to call cigar-shaped object.
🎙️ And this was in the early 2000s before David Fravor’s sighting um at Nimitz. Super wild um and interesting. And then what So what for our purposes why I think this was an interesting conversation is he then stumbles upon a list of non-terrestrial officers of which there are 40. And it was very strange right? Cuz as of now if you look at you know any of the you know uh Chat GPT Anthropic any of these things it’ll tell you that we have like roughly 10 people in space like globally. And so 40 people in space that’s strange right? And it’s names of these 40 people non-terrestrial officers fleet-to-fleet transfers of these specific materials and a lot of the materials are high-k dielectrics and they’re they seem like these thinly layered materials and then there was like this one material I think it’s like mol- molybdenum I’m molybdenum? Yeah molybdenum. Yeah there you go. Molybdenum. Yeah that’s it. Molybdenum. There you go. And molybdenum is good for like alloying and so we came to the crazy conclusion on the spot that maybe there is a microgravity uh supplied space supply chain for materials for these high K dielectrics, which ironically those high K dielectrics work well for these experiments, for these, you know, again, the quacky word is anti-gravity experiments, for these experiments showing this other force. Okay, so there’s like a space supply chain where humans are manufacturing these exotic materials in space that you literally couldn’t Yeah, make.
🎙️ physically impossible on Earth. Yeah, on Earth, yes. That’s fascinating. I don’t think has anybody ever explicitly tied together your thing like this, like we’re doing now?
🎙️ No, this is fresh and unique. I love this. And there are there are commercial companies trying this right now. So, for anybody who thinks we’re crazy, like that’s a thing. And and then what would you do it with first in kind of a more, you know, like covert setting? You would do it on things that are of extremely high value. And, you know, if you if you produce materials in microgravity, you know, the kind of signal to the noise is much better, you know, there’s less, you know, dust and interference issues. And so, you could do things like, you know, atomic layering, you know, way way easier. And so, I wonder if there’s something like that that then works into some of these experiments being done. I don’t know if you have a take on that. That’s a lot there. Yeah. You mean, yeah, I mean, we’re working with high K dielectrics and Yeah. layering materials and, different things, but I have not heard of anything going on in space manufacturing for that. Okay. I know, not on my end. Okay. But, um, it’d be very interesting. Space manufacturing is something NASA is trying to get more and more involved in Yeah.
🎙️ because of the some of the reasons you mentioned. Um, but I’ve not heard of any space crafting manufactured in space.
🎙️ Yes. I have to ask you while I have you. What’s your best argument for the moon landing hoax people? Um, I think say that the the lasers that are beaming back to Earth or you can beam a there’s reflectors. We just put a new one on from Firefly. You can send a laser, it’ll come back. So, that’s been there since the Apollo days. But, you could put a photo reflector up there with the rover, theoretically. So, it’s not super concrete evidence.
🎙️ That’s not super concrete, but you know, we do have a lot of the Apollo samples. Yeah. I have a 200 g or so in my lab.
🎙️ some moon rocks? Not the rocks, the dust. The rocks were given out to different countries and stuff. NASA probably still has some rocks. I don’t have any rocks. But, Okay. it’s vastly different than the than the simulants that we play with. Yeah.
🎙️ It’s it’s got a very high um angle of repose. Yeah, so basically you try to turn try to flip it over and it doesn’t doesn’t want to flip over. It’s very jagged. It’s very different. Um, it’s interesting stuff. There’s no doubt it’s not weathered. Yeah. It’s not seen a lot of moisture, you know, those kinds of things. It’s it’s different stuff. Have there been any bad actors trying to kind of come in and debunk in like a bad faith way or Um, I don’t think so. Okay. I haven’t seen any. Okay. Um, No, most of the people are, you know, like they have big folks are all they’re open they’re open to everything. How do you answer the question, why has nobody done this yet? I mean, the the other answer to that question is they have and we just listed some of the people earlier who have actually pulled off the experiment. But, do you have a good answer as to why It takes a bunch of things to line up. Okay. You have to have high voltage experience. Mhm. Cuz these tests can be lethal. Right.
🎙️ They have to be packaged up properly. Mhm. Put into a Faraday cage or you’re going to get fake positives, false positives. They can be attracted to walls or floors or ceilings. You have to make sure you’re not doing that. You have to prevent the ion wind, which is very well known Fun thing to make. Does give you some forces, but they’re not what we’re interested in. Um so, there’s a lot of facets there. Then you have to have the technical savvy to you know, show it in many different ways. Pendulums, spinners, rotators, force measurements, scales, all of those things. And each one of those can be fooled. So, you have to make sure that you are do your due diligence and do not, you know, get any false positives, especially on the scales. Everything has to be shielded pretty darn well. Can I bring up another thing that I think limits um our ability to to do this? I think it’s um the amount of people who think it’s possible that there is another force outside of the conventional forces. And so, you need a hypothesis to get, you know, a positive result in certain cases. And I think if you are so dogmatically, you know, confined to, you know, very conventional physics, you would never even try this experiment, maybe. And so, you you have to have the imagination to, you know, realize that there might be a there there to even try it in the first place. That’s right. That’s right. You have to, you know, try to do something if you believe in it, try to do it. Like I did with the field momentum, the linear momentum. I tried that for 15, 20 years. I failed. But, that doesn’t mean I had to give up. I was still seeing a force even in that, even if it had nothing to do with that theory. Uh so, you keep trying. That’s That’s the best thing I can say. You got to keep trying. If you believe it, if you keep trying, maybe you’ll see something. Here, that’s the case, I think. And you think that this vindicates the work of Thomas Townsend Brown, too? Maybe he didn’t understand what he was dealing with in the way that you do, but if he says he understood the ion wind like he said like he said he did. I he did things in oil, Mhm. where you can’t have ion wind. Then he’s possibly came across it. He might not be the only one. Yeah. People that play with high voltage with asymmetrical capacitors have been around a long time. So, it’s it’s entirely possible that they were wrong.
🎙️ Maybe. I don’t know if he did much of He did a lot of energy stuff.
🎙️ Yeah, I don’t know either, but um there’s a actually you mentioned transmission oil. There’s a team in Japan. Um I believe they came out of Honda. And I think Imusha is the scientist’s name. And he claims to they’ve submerged the capacitor in the transmission oil, which you know, apparently doesn’t ionize or at least ionize very well. And they claim some results and they kind of have gone silent, but like they never retracted those results. That paper still out there. So, there’s so much of this. There’s another group I’m working with in Germany who’s reproducing this. So, Really? Yeah, so it’s coming. It’s amazing. Well, I’m really excited to get into you have a whole theory about how the thrust works in your Exodus experiments and it involves quantum electrodynamics. So, I asked you if I could bring a friend of mine, David Chester, who is quantum electrodynamics specialist at the theoretical physicist. And so, um are you down to have a a group conversation? We can we can change sets and uh sweet. All right. So, we have David Chester here who’s a friend of mine. He uh got his undergrad at MIT, uh PhD from UCLA, both in physics, and is uh kind of specializes in general relativity as well as quantum field theory. But I to me, you are the guy who is the kind of intersection, if you have kind of two circles in a Venn diagram, of uh kind of smartest and best credentialed who will entertain all of the quacky stuff. And so, we’ve had long conversations about a lot of this, you know, extended electrodynamics and some of these weird topological or experimental physics effects. And you really, I think, understand kind of the lay of the land as well as anybody, and I was speaking with you, Charles, about doing this interview, and you were like, “I’m developing this quantum electrodynamical theory of how this actually works.” And I was like, “I probably won’t be able to say anything about that, but David will.” So, I’m really excited to have both of you, and maybe we start with you, Charles, if you could just kind of present what the theory is, and then you guys can kind of go back and forth. Sure. No, but this is a good opportunity to talk to a real physicist about my, you know, my proposed explanation for what the force that I’m seeing. So, um I don’t like to create stuff up. That’s kind of one of my mantras. I don’t want to do that. I want to use what’s known in the physics community to see if I can explain what I’m seeing. I don’t want to be one of those guys, I have to come up with a whole new theory. I don’t think that’s necessary. Um so, my approach was to see, what are the tools we have now to try to explain this? Can it be done within conventional physics that we know? Just maybe one other step further or something, you know, within the realm of what we already know. And we have a lot of tools in quantum electrodynamics. We have a lot of tools. So, I started from what I have in my experiments. Basically, two charges. So, I have a plus and a minus charge. That’s my starting point. I don’t have anything else. Not as far as I know. Now, if I’m bending space-time something silly, that’s beyond my knowledge, but are there the tools available to understand the forces in just knowing what we know with QED with two charges? QED is very, very powerful. Um I found an example of how QED can solve a very uh simple problem, which can be easily solved with electrodynamics. Let’s So, let’s make it infinitely more complicated with QED. And that’s what physicists do. Um it’s cuz it’s a more fundamental theory. So, I started with QED to explain Coulomb’s law, force of attraction repulsion between two particles. So, that’s very well explained with Coulomb’s law. But, in the context of QED, I found a book that actually did this. In my grad school, we were not trained how to do that. It’s not uncommon. There’s a lot of very remedial physics problems that take two or three hours to solve that they’re not going to cover in the class. But, I saw the QED version of it and said, “Ah, this is very very helpful. I know where it comes from. I know where the I know where the momentums come from. Um and then you do the math appropriately, you’ll get Coulomb’s law coming out of it. And Coulomb’s law, for people not familiar, can you describe it very basically? So, basically, it shows that if you have two particles, their force is related by one over the square of the distance away relation to the the um the charge. The charges that you have. Very uh simple rudimentary physics. And it explains things like electron repulsion, two like forces repelling. It basically explains everything that we know about two particles, two charges. Just about everything QED explains. It explains why how atoms are bound together and yeah. So, I did not think we needed QC QCD, quantum chromodynamics. Uh W particles, Z particles, I didn’t think we needed that. Uh we’re not looking at the interactions between protons and neutrons. So, we’re not looking at the high energy um realm. We’re just looking at low energy Coulombic charges. That’s it. And when you say you’re explaining uh the Coulomb charge with quantum electrodynamics, how is it normally explained? Usually, you’ll do, you know, Maxwell’s equations or or something simple to to derive Coulomb’s law. It’s not very complicated. F equals QE. Right. So, we know the electric field is point part point charge times Q.
🎙️ And Maxwell’s equations govern electromagnetism.
🎙️ All of that. 19th century. Yeah, okay. But, what they don’t tell you is how do these particles interact? Like, what is causing them to repel or attract? You know, what is the physical mechanism? QED provides us a nice little solution. QED says, well, thanks to quantum and or uh Feynman and Schwinger, they are exchanging virtual particles. Mhm. So, they’re not real particles. You can’t see them. You can’t observe them, but they’re virtual. So, basically, you could picture, this is the cartoon that people use, you have two ice skaters, one of them’s holding a bowling ball. They The first one throws a bowling ball, so they recoil. The second person catches the bowl- bowling ball, so they fall back. Uh except there’s no bowling ball. So, not real one that you can see, but you can see the interaction between the two particles. Mhm. And that’s the Feynman diagram. And what you do is uh each time you write a Feynman diagram, each one of those lines in the Feynman diagram represent a different term, and you multiply them all up, and you get what’s called the scattering matrix element, and you can try to find how these things interact. If you were to take this particle A and shoot it at particle B, you could see where it deflects on a board somewhere if you if you actually measure that. That interaction is all described in that. QED Using QED to solve for to derive Coulomb’s law is very complicated. But, I found a book that did it, so I copied that, looked at what they did, and said, “Okay, this is a good model. Let me just do one thing different. I don’t have just Coulomb’s law. I have something else. So, what I think it is and what I proposed, now, is what would happen if I just went to the next order? So, quantum electrodynamics, uh QED doing Coulomb’s law, is a second-order equation on uh using time-independent perturbation theory. Perturbation theory is the best tool that we have in physics, I think, bar none. Perturbation theory, it’s awesome. It’s outstanding. It’s very powerful. What is perturbation theory, high-level? High-level. So, high-level, you can get the energy states or the the the states themselves using perturbations. You just change one thing, you you change an energy state, you add that back in, you do another perturbation. You see how it changes with this a small perturbation of the energy in this case or the states. And it involves. So, and there are many perturbations. So, I’m using second order perturbation theory for that’s the lowest perturbation and I think the highest perturbation for two charges Coulomb’s law. And after that I don’t think anyone’s done anything after that cuz you not only get a close answer, you get the exact answer. Mhm. So, it’s like why go further? You have two particles. They either attract or repel. It’s Coulomb’s law. Do you need to go further? Not So, I’m like, well, this force with um that I’ve seen with Exodus select a static pressure force um is much much weaker than Coulomb’s law. There’s no doubt. Much weaker. But, I decided, well, let’s try the third order. What does that give me? And when I tried it with my math, which may not be perfect, I’m sure. I was I was seeing three charges now. So, basically one of the charges was weighed twice, multiplied by itself, and then the third order is is being multiplied by the first charge. So, there’s already an asymmetry sort of in the charges even with two charges. Which I thought was useful cuz I wanted to try to get that with classical uh dynamics. It’s you can’t derive that from classical energy. Three charges. But, the QED was kind of nice to show that. So, I looked at that and I said, “Okay, there’s there’s not there’s no longer four terms like there are in the you know, the second order classical electrodynamics give you if not the three
🎙️ when you try to do um conservation of energy, you start with a kinetic energy and a potential energy. And so, for adding more charges to a system, you just keep adding more and more charges to a system. The superposition principle adds them all up. Mhm. It It multiply them all up. It adds them all up. But I needed the addition. I needed the the pressure that I’m creating working on the charges that I’m creating. So I have a pressure on one side and charge from the other. So I have a the multiplication effect experimentally. So I didn’t know how to derive that other than quantum electrodynamics, but classically it doesn’t doesn’t show that. But I thought maybe QED might. And it shows up there. Um but that was the first thing. And the other thing there were 12 terms now instead of four. Cuz I’m I’m scattering. So what happens in QED or or time independent perturbation theory, you start from the zero the state the vacuum state, you scatter to the first state, then you go from first state and scatter to the second state, and you go from second state and scatter to zero state. That’s just how it works. There’s a lot of scattering states and matrices that you have to solve for, then you multiply them together. So I have 12 terms now. Some of the terms are kind of interesting. Uh it looks like that when you draw the diagrams from those states, that you looks like um you get the same things you had in second order perturbation theory where you have a the exchange of photon, the other one will absorb it, vice versa. Um but there’s some states are a little weird. You’ll have states where they’ll just absorb or just emit. Kind of like the first order. Which I don’t talk about, but the first order is basically just a charge with a field line. Well, not field line, but with basically a charge with a the scalar photon. So you have there’s four kinds of photons in QED. One of them is real, one of them is observable, the other three are not. Two of them are real? Two of them are real? I thought I only read that there’s only one of them was real. Well, you have H you have plus and minus H bar for two different spin states. Okay, well that’s cool. Two of them are real.
🎙️ If it was massive, it would be three, but since the photon’s massless, you get two state I mean, light is polarized. You can polarize it into Okay, I didn’t know if that applied to photo cuz I just remember the textbook saying only one of them was real. I was like, “Okay.” But anyway, so these are not real things, but in QED, um you look at the vertices, and every time you draw a vertice, you conserve momentum at that point. So, if a particle comes in, it’s, you know, we use these silly Feynman diagrams. They’re not Cartesian coordinates at all, but they’re basically a momentum vector, and then the momentum changes. And when the momentum changes, another momentum is created or absorbed. And that’s all it is. You can’t think of it any more literal than that. Um so that’s what the that’s what I should, you know, I see in third order. Third order are these vertices that are either giving out these scalar photons or absorbing them, whatever these things are in reality. Is how these things seem to be conserving momentum, if this model is correct. So, that’s the difference between the third order and the second order. At least what I’ve found mathematically is that you don’t absorb this, you don’t emit this scalar photon and absorb it in the same pairing with the two charges. There are cases where the two charges emit and don’t absorb, or absorb and don’t emit.
🎙️ And what is a scalar photon as opposed to a photon?
🎙️ It’s a mathematical photon. You can describe it better than I can, but it has many names. Dark photons. It deals with
🎙️ That’s different. I Is it different? I think it is. Anyway, I think it’s just it’s a mathematical term. Okay. It doesn’t have the polarization that a real photon has, right? Yeah. Very different. Yeah.
🎙️ It’s just a mathematical term. Mhm. That you put inside the matrices and you get the I don’t know how it works. So, what are the What are the What are these scalar? It’s a scalar. It’s a scalar. It’s no vector. Yeah, it’s So, the idea of uh just emitting or absorbing these scalar photons in this third order perturbation, how does that allow for this effect that looks like this new force in electrostatics or it looks like anti-gravity or you know, what you’re kind of experiencing? Well, what it shows is you have an imbalance. Mhm. And the system can be made to be imbalanced. Mhm. Which is weird. So, cuz you’re not enclosing I don’t know what happens to these scale photons, where they go or I don’t even know if they go anywhere. They might terminate somewhere else in the universe, I don’t know. E-fields don’t do that. They do terminate somewhere. But, uh it does you know, show this weird kind of you know, imparting it to momentum into something that is already asymmetric. So, it’s very odd. So, wherever you have these Yeah. Wherever you have these I think um that’s where the field is non-zero, where these things exist. Where these things don’t exist is where the field is zero. So, that’s the difference. And It’s basically an electric field. And super high level you end up with this kind of virtual particle transfer and due to conservation of momentum you end up with thrust. I think so. Okay. And what do you think, David Chester? Well, first of all, I want to commend you on your experimental efforts. I think you’re really brave with what you’re doing and it’s quite amazing how much data you guys have been collecting. However, I would just advise you to be a little careful with some of the theoretical claims you’re making. Uh first of all it sounds like you’re saying you can get uh a momentum Yeah, you’re getting a kick of momentum in the center of mass frame. However, typically in QED uh well, momentum is conserved and you still have translational symmetry. So, you’re I mean, you’re typically not able to get virtual photons to give radiation. That’s the That’s the first thing. So, it sounded like you were saying you you believe that there’s this scalar virtual photon that is getting radiated out. Uh there’s I see two issues with that. The first being First of all, I mean, the scalar mode in QED is not physical. Second of all, so you could say maybe there’s some virtual stuff going on with that, but the virtual particles typically refer to internal lines, whereas in the Feynman diagrams, whereas the you know, the radiation are the external lines. So, you can’t have a virtual radiation mode in QED. So, that seems to be So, what is the in What is the uh the equivalent, I guess? I mean, I’m not exactly sure
🎙️ I don’t know what’s going I don’t know the best way to describe your experiment, if that’s what you’re getting at. No, I’m just trying to figure out like how would you draw the Feynman diagram for just a point charge and its field? Not the self-energy, but just the regular
🎙️ Well, yeah. So, if you think about what the electric field is, it’s the force that you would get if you had a test charge located there. So, you could imagine exactly as you’re saying uh you know, you it’s a four-point tree-level scattering Feynman diagram where you have two electrons going in, two electrons going out, and you could have It’s a little subtle here because it’s a classical phenomenon, but there is that internal line. And at first, it becomes virtual, meaning it can have complex momentum that’s off-shell, but there’s also momentum conservation, as you were saying. So, that when you do that Feynman diagram, and you’re integrating over the momentum, you get this delta function from momentum conservation, and that basically conserves uh momentum such that you know, you get classical momentum that can be transferred from one electron to another and then they can get forced apart. And I, you know, you we should it’s worth mentioning that you can also find the electric field in classical electrodynamics for as many charges as you want. It sound Maybe I misheard you, but it sound like you were saying you can’t study things classically for three charges or something, but well, not really
🎙️ multiply together. I think the superposition is an addition of all the charges. I also know So, you mentioned that you’re doing time-independent perturbation theory, which I didn’t pick that up. So, perturbation theory, yeah, mathematically, it’s kind of like a Taylor expansion. So, the basic idea is you can have polynomials, so you can have, you know, a constant term, then a linear term, and then a quadratic term. And the idea is if you’re doing an approximation, let’s hopefully the thing is small, so the higher-order terms can be neglected. And then so, perturbation theory is this approximation scheme that you can use uh to find solutions to things. And there’s different ways you can apply perturbation theory in physics. Typically, when you refer to perturbation theory in quantum electrodynamics, it’s not about time independence, it’s more about when you write down the Feynman diagrams, you can have what they call tree-level diagrams and then loop-level diagrams. Typically, the the tree-level the the tree-level diagrams correspond to the classical interactions. And the number of loops in the diagram is the level of perturbation theory you’re at. So, the language that I’m familiar with is you’d have the classical theory is essentially the zero-third-order term, and you can think of it as a perturbation in h-bar. Because h-bar is small, that’s a kind of way to colloquially think colloquially think of it. And so, you could have a one-loop diagram, that would be a first-order correction, a two-loop diagram, second-order, so on and so forth. However, I I in quantum mechanics, before getting into quantum field theory, you could I’m pretty sure that you you could do time-independent perturbation theory. I mean, for what you’re working with, you have a lot of DC is is DC. So, there’s no time dependence, right? And so, you could look at the frequency and you could say, “Well, it’s a really long wavelength uh excitation.” So, you I’m actually, you know, I’ll have to think more about what exactly you are doing cuz I just assumed that you were doing the typical perturbation theory of quantum field theory, but now you’re saying you’re mentioning time-independent perturbation theory, so Yeah. I’ve I’ve seen some of your your notes. Obviously, you haven’t published something yet, so I haven’t you know, I I I looked through what you were able to send me, but I’m just realizing now that you mentioned time-independent perturbation theory, which wasn’t what I was thinking, so maybe that it’s worth disentangling. So, not saying you have necessarily have an error there, but um I’m just realizing that now. No, I mean, I you know, this is I haven’t done QED in 26 years. Yeah, yeah. So, could use a refresher. Yeah. But, um I I was just intrigued by just doing the time-independent perturbation theory and getting something. I’d love your help translating some of that. Uh the vertices that don’t end. I understand these particles don’t they’re not real, right? You can’t capture them, but I pictured them more like electric fields. Where you you can’t pull the field from the charge, right? Mhm. Have you now? Field line. It doesn’t work that way. And that’s what these things I think represent. So, that’s why we have things like renormalization, these really complicated tools to try to address these infinities. A lot of infinities here. Mhm. And that that is a nasty integral that I have not been able to solve. Yeah, yeah.
🎙️ But, I’m only looking at the the cartoon picture, trying to interpret it. But, if you want to help me with that, that’d be awesome. You want to know what the the real math that’s that’s some I had like five or six kids try to work on that and then it gamma functions, error functions, these are not fun things. Yeah, the integrals are definitely hard.
🎙️ They are not hard. They’re It’s not a beautiful solution like Coulomb’s law. It’s different. Does the fact that Charles is talking about a time-independent perturbation, which you kind of hadn’t anticipated before the conversation, does that change anything as far as the viability in your mind with QED, or is it Is that something you have to kind of Well, think about offline?
🎙️ do you could you could do perturbations with frequency at the classical level. So, if you’re claiming it’s a quantum effect at some point, I think I believe I mean, with the Feynman diagrams that you would have, would there be any loops in the diagrams that you’ve been studying? Well, the zero sole orders are there, right? The the non Yeah, where they start and they end. Yeah. Also, I know that
🎙️ energy you’re talking about? Yeah. Yeah, there’s self energy terms.
🎙️ There’s 12 terms, and I think half of them are not very useful. But, maybe the other half are. That’s the That’s what I’m proposing. Maybe they’re interesting because they don’t they don’t close in like you would want them to. You can’t make the picture nice and neat in your head. And so, it’s a It’s Is this a This is a game, and I love this game cuz it’s like try to try to use your mind, and our brains are not good at this. If I take two charges, we know they can attract, and we know they can repel. But, if you didn’t see this one, and you see this one go there and go there, your brain would say, “Well, I can’t do that.” Or if I take two charges and I stick them on a box, don’t let them touch. Take the electrons away. Are they still attracting? Damn right they are. For how long? Forever. So, that is a fundamental property of charge fields, which QED I I it quite well. So, but is it conserving energy? You know, that’s what you have to think about. Is it conserving energy? Still there. You’ve removed all your energy to get that there. Why is it still there? Mhm. So, there’s there’s a little mind games with this, I think. Kind of helps. I think this Exodus is kind of a haha, here’s another mind game for you. I mean, it it It is hard to imagine what is going on there. I I have to experimentally I I I don’t I don’t know what’s going on. I it but it’s It’s curious because we have Noether’s theorem which describes energy momentum conservation from uh space-time translation symmetry. And Noether was actually studying quantum field theory and discovered something profound about classical mechanics about the conservation laws, but even still things are conserved off shell, so it’s hard to right as you’re saying, I mean, maybe there’s some charges that we’re overlooking, right? But there there Honestly, it’s at the point where if it appeared as if momentum conservation was violated then you would claim that there’s something else there that we don’t understand, right? There must be something carrying that momentum. Yeah. I mean, that’s how the neutrino was discovered. Initially, they they had these decay channels and they’re counting the energy. They’re accounting for the energy is is like, wait a second, this the bookkeeping isn’t adding up. Yeah. And then Isn’t that how science kind of moves forward in some ways? I guess if you were to take your physics hat off and just as a human being look at all the kind of overwhelming anecdotal evidence, cuz I know you’ve you’ve kind of systematically surveyed a lot of these like weird fringe experiments and exotic propulsion, free energy, all sorts of things like that. And to me you know, with the without the any sort of physics background I think you almost have to be dogmatic to say that there isn’t some sort of there there specifically around the lineage of the type of stuff that that Charles is discussing. I don’t know what what you would say there. Um yeah, what what do you think? Because clearly that is a way often that science moves forward. You know, if you look at you know, Thomas Kuhn and the you know, uh structure of scientific revolutions, it’s this like anomaly build up and then that sort of breaks the dam and then the theory often is playing catch up on the anomaly. Yeah, definitely it can go both ways as well, but I mean certainly out of all of these weird phenomena that seem to not fit into conventional theory, I mean, I would say your experimental results are you know, got to be in the top 10 in in terms of most convincing things I’ve seen. I mean, there’s other groups where they do one experiment and they’re measuring pico Newton forces, right? We’ve all heard these stories and then people get into debates, oh, is it some experimental error? Obviously, as you point out, you’re not 100% sure. There could be some prosaic explanation, but the fact that you’ve done so many different things and you’re seeing the self-consistency, I mean, even as a scientist, I have to say that is encouraging and we should explore this further. It’s not something we should just sweep under the rug and forget about. What would be your best way, you know, obviously you haven’t like rigorously kind of studied the experiment itself. You haven’t been like on site with them. But what would you have any way of explaining it away? Like if he is controlling for and eliminating this ion wind effect and actually showing that in a vacuum chamber you get more thrust, you know, that to me that feels like pretty pretty convincing and then obviously this is being done in a Faraday cage, you know, so there’s no electric field interference. Is there any way that you could kind of poke at it or kind of straw man it from afar?
🎙️ Honestly, no. And I I’ve interacted with Drew multiple times on Apex with Tim Ventura. I’ve had private communications with him. I’ve interacted with him publicly. I’ve seen these I’ve seen him his iteration rate, first of all, is phenomenal, right? He’s just always testing new things, trying different stacks with different materials and different geometries, and he’s really dialing it in. It’s it’s really impressive the the innovation rate that he’s he’s going at and your whole team. And so, I mean, if if you’ve checked all these things that you say you’ve checked, right? I I obviously I haven’t been in the lab with you, but it is I can’t think of anything, to be honest. I I I can’t think of any prosaic explanation. I mean, if you know, you’re right, there’s not much magnetic stuff going on. A lot of electrostatics, right? Not much charge moving. I mean, it’s just so mind-blowing, though. It’s I mean, the idea that the claim is you power it up and then you unplug it from the wall and then the thrust continues in indefinitely. Well, you know, obviously you haven’t tested it for an infinite amount of time. Drew would sometimes act as if it would last forever. I mean, my skeptical brain is saying, “Well, eventually wouldn’t that capacitor discharge?” But still, even if it lasts a day, you know, it seems like it lasts longer than a day from what you guys have done, as far as I can tell. In terms of the claims, it’s it’s it’s hard to imagine how how could that be continued? Like, the fact that it’s not getting drained, you would think, “Okay, well, wouldn’t it require energy to get that thrust? Wouldn’t that quickly drain the capacitor?” It doesn’t seem to be what you’re claiming. You’ve tested it in so many different ways that it’s it’s it’s a tough challenge for anyone to try to describe what’s going on there. It’s very mysterious. You’re also friends with and um looked at the experiments done by Falcon Space in this sort of area, in this sort of electrogravitic or maybe, you know, new electrostatic force area and they basically tried to pull off the Biefeld-Brown effect. What was your take on that experiment? Yeah, so it was actually interesting. It was curious. So, it was not scientifically conclusive. We Not all of the experimental errors were ruled out, but there was something interesting that was seen where they did the tests at not too low pressure and they noticed it spinning in one direction and then eventually they kept pumping down further and further and eventually it started spinning in the other direction. Which it’s, you know, qualitative. We don’t know how strong the force is. I don’t know what the friction was. The I mean, they had a a nice mechanism to hold it up so it minimized the friction using magnets, which introduces additional potential errors, but I’m not too worried about the magnets, but if you’re going to do a demonstration for others that are skeptical, you should probably maybe think to do another way. So, it was I think it was interesting and it was worth further study. It’s suggestive, but not conclusive, I would say. Where more work is needed.
🎙️ of the the magnets or what what would be the
🎙️ so there there was this other thing where the way the high voltage was delivered to the thrusters on one end, it used the spiraling around the chamber. I mean, that’s something you could point at and say, “Ah, let’s just say it’s that.” Honestly, I doubt it would be causing what was seen, but, you know, it’s something to consider. Really, to get a confirmed thing, it’s best to do multiple tests, right? Not just one and do it in different ways. But, really, another issue potentially was the fact that there were these discharges that were observed. And Tim Ventura was actually one of the first to kind of get a little skeptical to some degree because he had worked with those ion lifters back in the day with the triangular ones in the tin foil. And so he had worked with high voltage and he was aware cuz it took me time to realize this. You would think naively, well, okay, there’s this all this ion wind stuff and that’s because you’re ionizing the air, so you just remove the air and do it in vacuum and I’m good, right? No ion wind to worry about. But what if there’s ions or electrons literally flying off the thruster itself? Or what if the wires connecting them we we could see different discharges that were occurring. So what if you’re you’re you’re spraying out these ions? What if that’s causing the force? So it’s it’s something that it’s it’s also amazing to look into it. It’s First of all, it’s a challenge enough just to work with high vacuum systems, then it’s another challenge. I mean, you’re you’re well aware of this stuff to work with high voltage.
🎙️ Sure. But then to combine the two, it’s it’s remarkable.
🎙️ you Yeah, you definitely want to enclose everything with the can. I When I saw Mark’s video, I I was worried about the coil because that would be, you know, dubious. Why do you have a ground there? But it’s not a ground. I guess it’s a high voltage wire. But um it’s interesting that it went one way, like you would expect if it was a corona wind and then you pump it down, it goes the other way. That would be That’s cool to see.
🎙️ Yeah. So
🎙️ But you don’t Like you said, you don’t want the discharges. You don’t want the current coming off even in a high vacuum. You’ll get field emission, it’s called. Yeah. From From materials. So you want to kind of make sure you encapsulate everything. So that would be the only thing that might be a hiccup is the is the possibility of field emission. But I have not seen the experiment, so But that’s easy to prevent. You can corona dope it. You can do all kinds of things to kind of prevent that. Get it encapsulated. But yeah. Yeah, so I found it encouraging, but you got to keep studying further, I I think, you know, to really get to the bottom of it. Well, on that note, I know we we went deep into all sorts of, you know, out there out there theories. Um but this was super super helpful. And if if you were to give Charles any advice as far as kind of flushing out his theory or, you know, um places to look, what what what would it be? Well, I would say yeah. So, if you if you’re doing it you could consider two different types of bird perturbation theory at the same time. So, you can do the time independent one and you can do the H bar quantum corrections as well. So, you could keep track of both of those. It’s a little more complicated. You might not even need the time independent assumption, but since you’re working with electrostatics, I also see why you’re doing that. So, it could make sense to do that approximation because it would simplify things, but then you just got to be Yeah, I mean, if it’s truly DC, yeah, you it probably would be a good approximation to Um yeah, so I think that would be one thing to do. Just um Yeah, look into renormalization and self energy. Uh those per per perturbative corrections can affect the electron self energy. Also, this is a puzzling thing. If you look at the Dirac spinner, which is used for electron in quantum electrodynamics, the spinner field those equations of mo- you can still have classical equations of motion for a quantum field and those equations might have E or H bar C. So, you can get alpha in thing in classical equations, but it’s subtle because it’s a quantum field theory, but, you know, there’s a classical limit there. So, yeah, I would say I honestly just try to learn as much as you can. Keep trying to you know, we can we can correspond via email and try to talk more about quantum electrodynamics and we’ll see. I You know, maybe something more is needed, but I think it’s a good effort to at least see where does quantum electrodynamics take you. But also, just recognize it is a possibility that the results you’re finding can’t be described by quantum electrodynamics. Just keep that in mind. Yeah. You know, the reason why we like to use the QED We haven’t mentioned it much, but um cuz of the alpha that shows up experimentally. You know, that’s that’s really cool. Some of the fine structures, you know, showing up in terms of the forces and fine structure constant squared. So, it’s always some kind of function of alpha keep showing up experimentally. There’s not too many experiments you can do in your garage So, that to get you an alpha. And that points towards quantum electrodynamics to you.
🎙️ to quantum. Quantum in general. Quantum theory. No one knows where alpha comes from. I don’t think anyone has a clue, but it’s there. Why does the fact that a fine structure constant is showing up point towards uh quantum mechanical effect? That’s a good question. So,
🎙️ It’s the coupling between fields and charge is what alpha is. So, it’s not too surprising. So, it’s like a it’s like a primitive in quantum mechanics, and that keeps showing up. in physics in general. It shows up all over the place. Yeah, yeah, yeah. There’s also another way to look at it where you can kind of look at it from a natural units perspective and just kind of set h-bar c to 1. I know a lot of people might not like that, but
🎙️ Sorry. I don’t like that.
🎙️ Yeah, I I can understand why. I I get what you’re saying, but I mean, at the end of the day, alpha is proportional to was it e squared and Yeah. the the interaction term between the electron and the photon introduces a factor of alpha. So, once you you have that Feynman vertex where you have an electron, positron, and a photon, there’s like a factor of alpha there. And so, if you’re going to build these loop order corrections, you’re going to need more vertices. So, you will require more factors of alpha as you go out in the you know, the quantum perturbation theory. However, just remember that even for the Coulomb force, where it’s a tree diagram, no loops, they’re still you could do a unitarity cut on that photon internal line and there’s still two interaction vertices alpha and alpha that get multiplied together even for a classical process. So, certainly tracking powers of alpha is helpful in perturbation theory, but just keep in mind that it comes in at the classical level as well. That’s exciting, yeah? Cuz I’ve been doing the deriving the orders of magnitude and third order I think Yeah, I didn’t go to fourth order, but Yeah, actually fourth order, third order, second order, first order and you can see the perturbations in alpha. Alpha’s nice to use cuz it’s you know, dimensionless. It’s the ratio of the energy of two charges divided by a photon of that same wave wavelength of where those two how far apart those two charges are. So, that’s what alpha is. It’s the ratio of two energies. That’s the best way to to describe the Sommerfeld constant. So, Oh, there was something else I want to mention you, too. You had mentioned the term hidden momentum. So, I believe there is work certainly by the 1980s where if it because in classical electrodynamics the pointing vector is what carries the momentum density and that is proportional to E cross B. And so, there were experiments where people of part of the reason why hidden momentum is found was in statics as well where they had an electric field that was static and a magnetic field that was static and they’re perpendicular so, you get this E cross B and it was puzzling because you would have a pointing vector implying there’s momentum, but I mean, I’m pretty sure if you just take a symmetric capacitor with an electric field going through and then you put it inside a solenoid with a magnetic field perpendicular, nothing’s going to thrust, right? And the hidden momentum is what describes what cancels out so that you don’t get thrust in those experiments. So, that’s just another thing to look into. That’s where I started, right? So, I started looking at uh field momentum being converted into linear angular linear momentum. Uh and the crux was this 1970s hidden momentum, which is a relativistic effect. So, even if you have a magnetic field or current, you can always draw that as a kind of a square. And whenever there’s the Faraday field, it will accelerate charges in one loop and decelerate them in the other loop. So, it’s basically a kind of a change momentum physically of the loop of the electrons hitting the walls. That’s how they describe the hidden hidden momentum. So, whenever time you have a static E cross B, nothing moves. Like, you can’t You have a highly charged electric, you know, electric charge to a bar magnet doesn’t fly across the room because of the hidden momentum. So, that can be scaled down microscopically. So, even the magnetic moments can be pictured as little currents. And they have hidden momentum. Cuz they’re relativistic. So, I first started out for last, I don’t know, I started out in the 2000s to look at maybe the conversion from field momentum to mechanical momentum could happen like it does in the angular case, but for linear momentum, if there’s no hidden momentum. So, what’s the opposite of relativistic charges moving? Electrostatics. Keep the charges static. Do static charges possess hidden momentum? And that’s My My theory was it didn’t. So, that led me down to that path where in 2010 I saw the forces initially. Could have been something else, but that’s where I started. And it wasn’t until after 2 years working with Drew, I said, “Oh, Drew’s got the He’s got the conversion down from you know, field momentum uh to mechanical momentum without static charges.” My wife pointed that out. And uh So, we did the test. So, for 2 years we thought that’s what the case. Wasn’t until 2018 where I I that I didn’t even need the current. So, I don’t not even setting up the E cross B fields anymore. So, this There’s two electric fields and one magnetic field for that all to work. You have the E cross B and then you you kill the B to make a second E field called the Faraday’s law field to convert it into um mechanical momentum. But, if you don’t have hidden momentum, you should see thrust. So, that’s what we thought we were seeing until I realized just before going on a trip that I didn’t even need a B field or a current. So, oh man, I’m in pure electrostatics mode. Whoa. So, I don’t have any field momentum, which was good and bad. Um it led us down this path. So, okay. So, now we’ll have to study that first before going back to that, which is far more complicated. Super fascinating. Well, this has been a really fun discussion, David. Thank you so much for lending your expertise here and for uh you know, talking to Charles uh in a in a way that’s clearly like not dogmatic about the experimental results uh uh and then kind of helping sharpen his his blade on the quantum electrodynamics. So, really appreciate you both. Definitely. Thanks for having us and it’s a pleasure meeting you. It’s a pleasure meeting you, too. Thank you.
🎙️ Woo!