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 can 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 flat

lines. Does not move at all. Still about

200 microns 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

>> Two test 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.

>> I don't think I'm bending spaceime.

Maybe.

>> 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 maniac.

>> 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 refilling 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 beall 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.

>> Towns and Brown.

>> Townsen Brown.

>> Towns and Brown.

>> Towns and Brown.

>> There's a guy named Towns and Brown.

>> Okay. Okay. Towns and 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.

Towns and Brown discovered 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

electrogravidics. 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 Shatskin,

you start to piece together a very

different picture. One in which Townsen

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 into some interesting territory.

People like notorious Air Force Chief of

Staff Curtis Lame, who courted Brown

constantly. People like Edward Teller,

the father of the hydrogen bomb. Bill

Lear, the founder of the first private

jet, and Agnu 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 Bertrandius

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 Jacqu Cornon, who

witnessed Brown's successful experiments

in a vacuum chamber in 1956 in Paris,

explicitly stating he witnessed a

positive result.

>> So that was a positive result.

>> This is to go along with an 12 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 towns and

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 Buer has been running

the same gravity altering tests as

Thomas Townsen Brown. When we see about

0.1 g that corresponds to about 1 mill

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 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, Beller isn't just

replicating Towns and Brown's work. He's

validating it, scaling it, showing

literal weight loss on scales due to

upward thrust. Again, Pewer 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 electrostatic

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 Bfield 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 electronamics 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 Beller'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 Buer.

>> Ignition sequence.

>> How is this possible?

>> Nothing too unusual about that.

>> Their existence cannot 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

its most efficient fuel source. Instead

of pushing your system, it actually

feeds it. In fact, your body

indogenously 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

neutropic under the sun. So, it was a

pretty good signal to me that they

decided to start a company around

ketones. I use Ketone IQ 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

ketoneq at target stores nationwide and

get your first shot free. Seriously,

this stuff works. Thanks so much to

Ketone IQ 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. Coo salmon,

Pacific halibit, and my favorite, the

sckeye salmon. Not all fish are the

same. Get seafood you can trust. Go to

wild alaskan.com/jesse

for $35 off your first box of premium

wildcaugh seafood. That's

wildaskan.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 Beller who uh this

is a holy grail interview for me. I'm

like a kid on Christmas because it's

been like the search for Beller. Uh ever

since uh you know we connected a couple

years ago cuz I made this Towns and

Brown documentary and as you know and my

audience knows I'm obsessed with this

mid-century inventor Thomas Towns and

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, bunch of people hit me up and

they're like, you got to talk to Charles

Beller. He's the lead electrostatic

scientist at NASA and he's been doing

this experiment, but his own kind of

version of it, his updated, better

version of it, uh, 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. Um, it's just a total

honor. Um, 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 you don't say

you know I think I know enough about

electrostatics to say that but we're all

we're always still learning. What's your

current job title? So I am the lead

scientist of NASA's electrostatics and

surface physics laboratory at part of

swamp works at Kennedy Space Center. So

before I go on, I have to diverse to to

make everyone aware that this is not,

you know, affiliated with NASA. Any of

this work that we're doing

>> not sanctioned by NASA and it's we are

not given any um credence to NASA in

this

>> disclaimer accepted. I think maybe it's

a little bizarre that NASA wouldn't want

to immediately kind of jump on,

>> but they're probably going to be a

customer later on. They're not um we're

not working this technology at NASA.

It's not in my laboratory. We're 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, uh again, if uh 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. Um it was

founded about 26 years ago by Dr. Carlos

Gier, a physicist who uh spent a summer

working at Kennedy Space Center. Came

back the following year and started the

lab. Um we do electrostatics at NASA uh

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 uh 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 from electrostatics. So Dr.

Carlos Kai filmed or filmed he formed a

research arm of that test um about 26

years ago when aren't there also issues

with uh lunar dust you know getting

attracted to the lunar lander and

electrostatics uh sort of allowing 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 on

my pedestal, I always talk about the

safety and need 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 uh

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 into the

helmet into the into the joints and it

just prevented uh further you know EVAs

extra vehicle activities. So the dust

mitigation is a serious one. It'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 electronamic 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 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 EDS's on there. Uh so

there were six EDS's used to get dust

onto us so we can use our EDS to get

show that we can get it off.

>> So we tested a thermal radiator EDS and

we tested uh a glass EDS on the moon and

a camera EDS. So we tested the

technology on the lunar surface

successful.

That's amazing.

>> So you worked 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 uh fruit

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 uh 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. So, it's 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 vat

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 the 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 um maybe electrostatic

beneficiation. That's where you separate

materials. We do that a lot of times

when we separate plastics. When you

recycle them, you can chop them up and

you can tell the high density from the

low density polyethylene by tribbo

charging them together and to find

particles splitting 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 tribbo

charged electrostatically

charged materials um for industry.

That's one case. Obviously explains

lightning, cloud, ground lightning,

volcanoes and things of that nature. So

there's a lot of interest in in our

community on the tribal electrification

of materials especially for the moon

Mars programs. Um, how does because

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. H

what's the how what's your journey

there? How did how did you get hooked up

with NASA, you know? Uh, yeah, that's a

long one.

Well, essentially I've always had a

fascination

um with space as a kid. I've always have

u 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 Field Lab. And um

after that, you know, the grad students,

we went different directions. Some

stayed in academia, somewhat went, you

know, got jobs, you know, in in industry

or whatnot. And I decided to go to NASA

and there was an opening for a posttock

and the electrostatics lab under Dr.

Carlos Kay. He's trying to start that

laboratory back in Florida. I was living

in Tennessee at the time. I said, "Oh,

it's a chance to get into NASA, see what

it's about. You know what? What was

there to learn on electrostatics?

Everything's known. It's Maxwell's

equations. There 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 like it solve problems.

>> That's what electrostatics does. It

solves problems.

>> And it's in involved in just about every

industry

>> whether it's um you know making the dust

masks for the uh those are made by 3M

those N95 masks fighting COVID. Those

are electric filters. So you actually

make those using electrostatics and they

actually work for eight or nine hours

because they can trap those nanometer

particles.

>> You don't know these things. You

microphones are all electrostatics

properties. That's an elect. 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 uh

technologies that come out of that

field. It was originally discovered by,

you know, founded by the um the

scientists at Xerox

>> back in the 70s.

>> So it has a very rich deep history in in

America in that north uh New York area

with Cornell and or 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 uh they share that

technology with people.

>> It's fascinating. Yeah. I always found

it interesting that Towns and 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 uh 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 did it start. I've

always believed it. 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 because I just didn't

know it. But but electricity and

magnetism seem to have

uh a nice appeal because, you know, it's

19th century. There had to be a 19th

century equivalent to it. Momentum

conservation had to be. M

>> so I spent I don't know two decades

looking at the conversion from um 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 know, Starship, it's

mostly fuel uh in the rocket itself.

That's that's most of the um 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

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

and then you're done with it. So then

you're just out 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 it's

going to take to get to Mars, how many

starships it's going to take that have

to be fueled just to get to Mars. It's

just astounding. Just 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 low Earth orbit. Then it does

buttto 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, 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 would 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

there's still, you know, uh,

modifications and updates they need to

make. So, you know, not pouring cold

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

started studying science that there has

to be another way. So, even even as a

young kid,

>> Totally.

>> just it doesn't make sense.

>> Yeah, I agree. It

>> just doesn't make sense. So it's like so

I kind of just tailored my my career

just just understanding science what we

knew about it everything that I could.

>> So clearly you had this kind of

imagination and uh 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 a 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 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 we saw

the laser move. Like, that's pretty

cool. It's supposed to do that, I

thought. And uh my colleague, Dr.

Clemens Sid stopped what he was doing,

went over to Nathan. Okay, you've done

this, you've done this. Okay, now we

gota do he just completely immersed in

that experiment after that.

>> Yeah. Wow.

>> It was 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 it's the

first time we all seen it and I happened

to be a world-class scientist there to

to help us, you know, it was actually

like wow what happened here.

>> So you kind of you converted him almost

at least into thinking it was worthy of

inquiry.

>> Didn't 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 Clemens.

>> Dr. Sid Clemens. Okay. So,

>> yeah, 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?

We designed many experiments after that.

Um, it led us down many different paths.

>> And you know, that'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. 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. But

>> so he was playing dumb.

>> He was playing dumb.

>> He knew about this force and he was just

like, "Let's see how far they get."

>> He He knew Andrew was working on it. He

knew I was working on it. He just wanted

to see who was who would win the race.

>> Oh Jesus. That's like this like

Machavelian level.

>> It's like 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 super excited that we were not

doing this at NASA. It's like well this

has a chance because once you get into

NASA and get in bureaucracy and get in

government there's a lot of 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. was a

I was a consultant for Exxon Mobile.

But um

so we worked together cuz Andrew needed

an electrostatics guy. Andrew was knew

he was getting into the realm of

electrostatics.

>> So

>> what was Andrew's background?

>> Andrew.

>> Yeah.

>> Andrew Arjima. 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

electrovitics.

>> Oh, interesting. So, this is the Thomas

Townsen Brown.

>> So, 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

gravitics part.

>> We'll we'll we'll we'll meet in the

middle. We'll figure it out.

>> Yeah. To me, it was a little bit

pretentious. It's like, 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 it 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, four or

five hours looking at his setup, looking

what he's doing. Um

and um and I gave him a lot of pointers.

He 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 and a and a teflon casing.

Um

I said, you know, that's pretty

interesting. Um

if he's getting forces with that, that's

kind of interesting. I don't know how

you 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 manifest it

differently."

>> 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 her 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 give, 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 get 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 her.

>> Um but uh no, she she was clear. She's

like, "No, you you should look at this

your force that you're trying to do with

his setup. See if you're working on the

same thing, just a different

>> twist." Mhm.

>> I said, "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 put a there's videos of this

on our website. You put a a tube over

the end of the needle and you put scotch

tape on the tube. So, there's no way on

wind getting out and you shove the

needle in that tube. You encase the darn

tube. Then I cranked up my power supply

and that thing moved 3 4 feet in the

air. And I sent a video to Drew. 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?

>> Additive somewhere to 5 to 10 million

range.

>> Okay. And so for people listening, if

you were to apply that to like a

satellite in space in a microgravity or

zeroravity 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.

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 uh when we say um when do we

hit unity? Well, we've hitten unity for

space, unity for moon, Mars, all of

these places. So, we can make flying

cars and the moon and Mars and all of

that. Um

>> so, it's a very exciting place to be

right now. Y

>> 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.

Sure.

>> 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 there. They're like, you

know, they do like kickstages where you

would move, you know, between orbits

where maybe you'd go up on SpaceX ride

share with 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, if we get Earth unity, we won't

need rockets, right?

>> That's true. have to think about things

a little differently.

>> Um,

>> but could could the 10 millons 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

>> that is our our main goal to try to do

that, you know, that's where we the self

launcher 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 millions

of thrust? Like,

>> okay.

>> So, you have a sense of the levers to

get more thrust.

>> There are levers and there are several.

>> Uhhuh.

>> And we're trying to optimize those.

>> And what are the primary levers? There's

like we've talked about voltage the

materials properties breakdown strength

of materials um the type of signals we

send

the physical limits on the materials

>> there's so many

>> what are the ideal materials for this

sort of experiment

>> well we're dealing with high voltage so

we need materials with high dialectric

breakdown strength but we also have

permitivity issues we have to contend

with uh geometry issues we have to

contend with static dissipation issues

we to contend with. There are a lot of

other issues and that's just the DC.

When you get to, you know, other

frequencies or you get to other exotic

types, you know, charge injection,

electrits, 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 something it's

very, very interesting for now. It's

just to see if it goes anywhere. It

could lead to nowhere. Yeah.

>> But, um, we're just looking at it.

>> Cool. You know, there's other things out

there.

>> In the Towns and Brown context, barerium

titanate and bismouth often come up. Are

either of those relevant to your

experience as well?

>> We have some some uh experiments with

barryium titanate a couple years ago.

It's a good high uh permitivity powder.

>> Mhm.

>> Um

I don't know what the results of those

were. There weren't uh

>> particularly interesting. What was the

other one you said?

>> Uh bismouth.

>> Oh, bismouth.

Yeah, I've seen bismouth a lot. Bismouth

looks like fun.

>> I would love to test with some Bismouth.

Um there's some cool things that they

found the arts parts materials.

>> Y

>> um which is kind of neat because they

had some weird geometries in there which

I would project that we would have

needed.

>> Mhm.

>> But to see that in real life already

made, oh that's kind of cool.

>> Can't wait to go test those exotics. But

that's down the road for us.

>> Y

>> 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." Because I always

bring up the Towns and Brown experiment.

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

industrialgrade 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?

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,

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

you know I learned about all this stuff

through Thomas Towns and Brown and he

used to do these experiments. So Thomas

Towns and Browns 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

Skunkworks was formed in 1942 or three.

Um there's 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

electro-hydrodnamics work, you know,

this electric fields to manipulate

airflow work ended up in the B2 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 electrogravidics 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

Jacqu Cornon who's a technical

consultant for Sud west which is uh you

know an aerospace corporation there. And

you know they say there is a a force

that is not only measurable in a vacuum

at 10 the -6 to but um the force exceeds

what you would ever see outside of a

vacuum. And then he does the same

experiment at the Bonson 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 Lame and the Rand Corporation,

all these super high up people,

>> and then 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 this is very long-winded, but

you mentioned ion wind. The way people

write off any of these experiments,

including Thomas Towns and Browns, 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 in

another way. Is that right?

>> Well, you kind of have to. Yeah.

Otherwise, you'll see the ion wind

thrust. So you can 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 uh one of the things that's

different about the force that we're

talking about in the iron 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 eye and wind

because of the stigma from it because a

lot of scientists have tried to do these

things and they've seen the eye and wind

and

>> it's not a real force in the sense it's

not a uh propellantless force. There's

propellant there. 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 I put on a

scale.

>> Yeah.

>> And you watch the weight and you turn it

on, the thing lifts up and the weight

flat lines. Does not move at all.

>> Wow.

>> So Drew was like, "Man, I've never seen

that video before." That's conservation

momentum right there. That's what ion

wind is doing.

>> Yeah. So that's exactly like the all the

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

electrogravidic force or what you are

calling you know this this uh 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

electrohydrodnamic 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

>> 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 two years trying to package it.

Now, there's one thing to put 100,000

volts 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

two years to get the sucker packaged up

in in a way so it can actually be

transportable and confined.

Um so that was the initial pull to to go

into to get into a system where we can

actually enclose everything. Coolant

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 floors ceilings 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, checks and balances. You

know, do we have it inside of a Faraday

cage? Is it all completely housed? Is it

feels 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 field

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.

>> Because 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 uh have charges

leaking around the side. It 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's Townsen Brown

also said you'd get more thrust.

>> You get more thrust because the field

limit is not 10 to the 6th anymore. It's

10 to the eth.

>> Right. So that's because it goes the

forces are related to pressure. They go

up by field squared.

>> So instead of 10 6^ squar is 10 12th 10

the 8th squar is 10 to the 16. So now

you have a much you have four orders of

magnitude potential higher thrust just

on the

>> on the exterior part of your of your uh

thrusters.

>> Yeah.

>> 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 makes sure that what you're seeing

is real. Then you got to take turn that

suck around so that you're not being

attracted to the wall through the fair

gauge. 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 in a box. So, it'll be a

Faraday cage. A lot of ways to make

Faraday cages. Uh, ground it really,

really well.

>> Um, if you do have voltage come 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 coolum 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, and 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 on the

scale, see if it works. Do the pendulum,

do the rotator, do the spinner, do

everything to make sure it's real

because 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 Buer 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.

>> If you look to the bottom right of the

screen, you'll 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

- 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.1 g.

>> We see about 0.1 g. That corresponds to

about 1 mill 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 mill range. Let it sit

for a few seconds. So what we're showing

is that you can actually turn this force

on and off.

>> They then 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 it's

very very far away.

>> Finally, they take full precautions to

make sure nothing else is affecting the

measurement. So, we flip the thruster,

we deionize it. Basically, we ionize the

gases. We neutralize any charge that

escapes. And then we retar the scale.

It's typical. That's 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 volts 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

volts 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 it

about 14 mm which corresponds to roughly

about 2.5 mtons 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 Koolom

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

uh surrounded with an indium tin oxide

sheathing and the 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.

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.

>> So, you can get all kinds of weird stuff

happening when you have magnetics going

on, Earth's magnetic field or whatnot.

>> And DC is direct current. If you had,

are you saying if you had alternating

current, you'd have weird magnetic field

effects.

>> So, you'd have to account for any uh

fake readings with that. Yes. If you

have AC, sure.

>> Interesting.

>> AC eliminates 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. Like 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 can say, "Well, this

might be fake because of this."

>> I say, "Okay, we'll put it over here."

Oh, well, now it's maybe fake because of

this. Okay, we'll put it over here. So,

show me a rock. What about this? Okay,

now do this. Do that. So,

>> is there anything left is what I'm

trying to ask you. Like, 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 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 I can't

really think of anyone.

>> Granted, there's not that been that many

people have seen it. You know, couple of

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 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. You put

your hands on it." Usually that's the

kind of the routine. He's, "Oh, I don't

need to do that." What do you mean? I

already built one in my garage.

I got a 1 mill. You showed us how to do

it, so I just did it.

>> Wow.

>> So, it's been the opposite. 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

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 we

haven't seen any that have said it

negative, but we haven't seen it hasn't

been exposed to the entire 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 the 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 electrostatic

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 this

>> there in June? Can I come and film?

>> You can.

>> Oh, that'd be amazing. Let's go. I'm so

excited.

>> The Electrostatic Society of America is

just a the happy It's called the

Friendly Society.

>> Cool. You know, and um and this is an

electrostatic phenomena. So, you 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 dstigmatized.

>> I know. 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.

It's going to take 20 years. So, I'm

starting that.

>> I don't know if it'll take 20 years.

>> Maybe 30.

>> What?

>> It just will. It just will. It's too

different. It's it's

>> oh because of the antibodies that

>> 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 Sunny White?

>> Sure. So, you know, he's

>> I haven't met him, but

>> he's another NASA guy, NASA Eagle Works,

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 little microchip based on the Casemir

effect. Yeah. And the Casemir 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 beatric voral 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 uh 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 inuse 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 uh mirrorike and uh seem to

exist somewhere probably in

geostationary orbit. So kind of like

outer, you know, Earth orbit. And these

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 passed 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

overestimate and I hear you. I mean the

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 review in a paper, the

physics people are going 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 ahead and make them.

>> Yeah.

>> If you don't believe me, go ahead and

make them in the garage.

>> Yeah. Yeah.

>> This has been very helpful. People have

done this.

>> So, you'll do this like you have like

these DIY videos where it's like go do

this at home.

>> Yeah.

>> Whoa. And where are these videos?

>> They're on our website.

>> Oh, wow. And where where is that? Is

that exoduspace.com

or what? Or

>> exoduspulsion.space.

>> Exoduspropulsion.space.

Okay. Check that out. And you've shown

your experiments with all of the

configurations that would

>> not all of them.

>> 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

gravity. Okay.

>> We're measuring the forces of these