Harry Sprain announced on APEC this weekend on open Mic, that they will be launching his inertial propulsion device into space for testing in a zero gravity enviroment. Congratulations to Harry and the QED team on their success!

So I have a question for everyone. Have you experimented with the inertia of different shapes, with the same mass and moving straight lines (not curved)? Did you see a significant difference? Someone once said flat was better than square or spherical, can anyone shed some first hand knowledge light on that? I'd really like to hear your thoughts or hear about your experiences with shaped masses.

Some of us are here to learn. Some are here to teach. All of us are here to collaborate. I want Builders Workshop to be both a place to grow and a place to work together safely on meaningful projects. Not a social club — a working lab. I’m exploring the idea of adding a protected collaboration space where members can share serious work without fear, and where those who want their ideas to outlive them have a path to preserve that legacy. We’ve got highly intelligent people here doing real experimental work, and some are ready to collaborate on individual builds. I’d like to give that energy a structure that helps it move forward. Let me know your thoughts. Comment here or DM me directly if you’d rather talk privately. (Meetings will be via video calls.)

Hey everyone, thanks for the feedback I am getting so far! I wanted to do a series to break down the primary components of "Gyroscopic Inertial Propulsion" which I have started doing here: https://www.skool.com/inertial-propulsion-workshop-9027/classroom/eea658b5?md=d294f22685924a83a8a9180159a4a9d4 I want to make sure this is relevant to YOU, so a quick question for everyone... Question: Do you think this info and/or this approach is helpful? Please take a moment and answer below and feel free to add suggestions and/or comments.

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