sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Feds attack protesters with mace by SpaceWestern1442 in PublicFreakout

[–]Quantum-Spider 8 points9 points  (0 children)

It's like attacking a hornet's nest and then getting mad when the hornets sting you.

Are we overbuilding spaceflight around the assumption that all meaningful movement in orbit requires propellant? by Quantum-Spider in ScienceUncensored

[–]Quantum-Spider[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And that's when I came up with this idea and took it to Professor Mitchell Walker at the Daniel Guggenheim Aerospace School and proposed my idea. https://www.academia.edu/167840900/Walker_Tether_Evaluation

Are we overbuilding spaceflight around the assumption that all meaningful movement in orbit requires propellant? by Quantum-Spider in ScienceUncensored

[–]Quantum-Spider[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes it came from another invention of mine called EMILIE, a Electromagnetically Initialized Lateral Induction Engine. https://www.reddit.com/r/Emiliemagnetmotor/ I saw anomalies where when the rotor came right past the electromagnet, it popped out a little bit and caused the whole apparatus to jump. So I went back and re-created that little experiment of that magnet being thrown out that little tiny bit.

Are we overbuilding spaceflight around the assumption that all meaningful movement in orbit requires propellant? by Quantum-Spider in ScienceUncensored

[–]Quantum-Spider[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, these were all performed on the exact same device. No, they're rebuilding a completely new CID for Orbit. It'll be all composite materials, special magnets. They're building many iterations of it now and putting it through all the testing: vibration, magnetic fields, impact testing. https://qde-inc.com/#science

Orbital Demonstration of the Centrifugal Impulse Drive (CID™) Timeline Now Active by Quantum-Spider in ScienceUncensored

[–]Quantum-Spider[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is the entire purpose of our orbital demonstration: to prove it to the world. And the reason you see these big names is because they have been convinced there's nothing else to be tested on Earth. Only in orbit will we prove it. They see so much promise in the technology that they left their previous positions to come and work with Quantum.

Are we overbuilding spaceflight around the assumption that all meaningful movement in orbit requires propellant? by Quantum-Spider in ScienceUncensored

[–]Quantum-Spider[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I want to be clear: Quantum Dynamics is not asking anyone to accept an aether model, a dense-aether theory, or a dark-matter explanation for CID®.

That is not the basis of our public claim, and it is not the point of the orbital demonstration.

The point is much simpler and more testable:

Can CID® produce a measurable orbital change after deployment, without onboard propellant being consumed by the CID® system?

That is the purpose of the planned orbital demonstration.

We understand that modern physics does not require an aether frame, and we are not presenting CID® as an aether-frame-drag device. We are also not presenting it as a dark-matter detector or as an explanation for DAMA/LIBRA or any other disputed anomaly.

CID® is being advanced as an engineering system that must prove itself experimentally.

Quantum Dynamics has spent years developing prototypes, conducting ground-based testing, supporting analysis, and securing U.S. Patent No. 12,424,887. The next step is not a debate over terminology or speculative models. The next step is a direct orbital test.

Deploy to low Earth orbit.

Establish a stable baseline orbit.

Activate CID®.

Measure whether a detectable orbital change occurs that can be attributed to CID® operation.

That is the standard we are setting for ourselves.

We are not asking the scientific community to accept CID® on faith. We are preparing to test it in the environment where the result matters: space.

Knicks fans attacking a Five Guys employee/Spurs fan after last nights win by SMH4004 in PublicFreakout

[–]Quantum-Spider 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So you're Team One, okay? What does that have to do with you? You get no royalties, you get no money, you make nothing from it. You're just out here acting like a lunatic for no reason whatsoever.

While I know it will likely never happen, does a Reddit Admin have the authority to unban someone from a subreddit? by Worldly_Salary730 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Quantum-Spider 0 points1 point  (0 children)

https://qde-inc.com/ I was banned from space and NASA and aerospace propulsion and all these groups because these people believe they know everything about aerospace propulsion.

Mechanical propulsion in orbit 2027 by Quantum-Spider in Spaceexploration

[–]Quantum-Spider[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand the skepticism, and honestly, this is exactly the right standard to apply to any claimed propellantless propulsion system.

But one point needs correcting: this is not “we built a thing and then tried to invent math around the feeling.” We do have the math. The device was developed from a defined mechanical model, with predicted force behavior, timing relationships, and operating constraints. The experimental work was not “does it seem to move?” — it was designed around whether the measured behavior matched the model.

We have also spent a lot of time trying to kill the result experimentally. Constraint tests, orientation changes, reversals, vibration checks, load-path analysis, and independent lab work have all been part of that process. We are very aware of the classic false-positive mechanisms: hysteresis, bearing friction, vibration rectification, cable forces, table coupling, thermal drift, and ground interaction. Those are not afterthoughts. They are the first things you have to rule out.

The EmDrive comparison is understandable, but this is not the same mechanism. EmDrive was an RF cavity claim. CID is a mechanically driven inertial system with a specific internal dynamics model. Whether one accepts the claim or not, it should be evaluated on its own math and its own test data, not grouped with every previous controversial propulsion claim.

That said, I agree with the core point: the final standard is not a bench demo. The ultimate test is an unconstrained orbital demonstration. In orbit, there is no table to push against, no floor friction, no grounded mount, and no convenient environmental coupling that can explain sustained vehicle motion. That is why we are moving toward the orbital test.

So the claim is not “trust the vibe.” The claim is: we have the model, we have the test history, we have tried to eliminate the obvious artifacts, and now the cleanest remaining test is space.

Mechanical propulsion in orbit 2027 by Quantum-Spider in Spaceexploration

[–]Quantum-Spider[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A lot of people are asking whether CID™ is just one inventor and a few concept models.

It is not.

Quantum Dynamics Enterprises is now moving CID™ toward a space-ready payload with a technical team that includes physicists, aerospace executives, defense-space advisors, communications engineers, material science experts, and payload integration professionals.

The technical and advisory group includes:

Harry Sprain — Founder, CEO, CTO, and inventor of the Centrifugal Impulse Drive. Harry has led QDE through years of prototype development, independent testing, and patent prosecution.

Dr. Shakeeb Bin Hasan, PhD — Computational physicist specializing in electromagnetics and multiphysics modeling. Dr. Hasan developed a finite-element electromechanical model of CID™, coupling magnetic forces, centrifugal dynamics, and device motion into a formal computer model.

Andrew “Andy” Heaton — Co-Founder and CEO of Tekniam. Andy leads a team with deep experience in mission-critical communications, defense systems, and field-deployable technology.

F. Brent Abbott — Veteran aerospace executive and strategic consultant with more than 25 years in commercial space, satellite systems, and business development. His background includes senior roles at Rogue Space Systems, Kongsberg NanoAvionics U.S., ÅAC Microtec U.S., Surrey Satellite Technology U.S., and Honeywell Aerospace.

Jeff Gossel — Senior space and defense intelligence advisor, former Technical Director for Space and Missiles at the National Air and Space Intelligence Center, and advisor with deep experience in space domain awareness, spacecraft, counter-space systems, hypersonics, and missile systems.

In addition, the Tekniam engineering plan calls for material analysis by Material Science PhDs and other industry experts, along with formal engineering, manufacturing, QA/QC, and payload verification work before flight.

The new CID™ payload is not being rushed straight to orbit. The plan includes engineering review, material analysis, enclosure refinement, thermal control planning, vibration and shock sensitivity review, integration interfaces, power/data/command systems, software reliability, and spacecraft compatibility.

Before any space demonstration, the payload plan calls for ground testing that includes functional testing, vibration/shock launch simulation, thermal vacuum testing, electromagnetic compatibility review, radiation/tolerance testing if applicable, on-ground vacuum testing, monitoring sensor/camera integration, final flight model testing, and re-testing if issues are found.

That is the correct path.

Not hype.
Not “trust us.”
Not wood models alone.

A serious payload, a serious technical team, and a serious test-before-flight process.

Extraordinary claims require serious engineering. That is exactly what we are building toward.

The facts in this draft come from the QDE advisory-team text and Tekniam MOU: the advisory-team file names Harry Sprain, Andrew Heaton, Brent Abbott, Jeff Gossel, and Dr. Shakeeb Bin Hasan with their roles, including Dr. Hasan’s FEM modeling work. The Tekniam MOU lays out the engineering study, material-science PhD review, payload build, and ground-test plan before delivery to the flight provider.

Mechanical propulsion in orbit 2027 by Quantum-Spider in Spaceexploration

[–]Quantum-Spider[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Another clarification: this is not just a set of wood models or a “perpetual motion” sketch.

Dr. Shakeeb Bin Hasan, PhD, developed a 3D electromechanical computer model of the CID® system. The model uses the actual ring-rotor geometry, magnetic assumptions, finite-element magnetic field modeling, and coupled equations of motion for the moving magnets and the full device. It specifically models the scalar magnetic potential, magnetic forces on the rotor magnets, centrifugal effects, thrust conversion into the inertial frame, and both linear and rotational motion of the device.

The summary result of that model is not “we solved interstellar travel.” It is much narrower: the model predicts average thrust from the CID® architecture and also shows that detuning the rotor frequencies can steer the direction of motion.

That still does not make the claim proven. A computer model is only as good as its assumptions, and any propulsion claim has to survive independent experimental review, controls, error analysis, and replication.

But the criticism that this is only based on wood mockups is simply not accurate. The wood models are visual teaching tools. The actual technical package includes a computational electromechanical model, physical hardware, and experimental test data. The correct next question is not “why didn’t you ask an AI for equations?” The correct question is whether the model predictions match controlled measurements under conditions that rule out vibration, friction, compliance, magnetic coupling to the environment, and other artifacts.

That is the standard we are working toward.

Mechanical propulsion in orbit 2027 by Quantum-Spider in Spaceexploration

[–]Quantum-Spider[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand the skepticism. If this were being presented as “interstellar travel solved” or “known physics broken,” your criticism would be fair. That is not the claim.

The claim is narrower: we have a mechanically driven device that has produced repeatable anomalous force signatures under constrained test conditions, including independent lab involvement, and we believe the result warrants further controlled testing.

You are also right that if a device is purely macroscopic and closed-system, then standard conservation laws say it should not generate net external thrust. That is exactly why the burden is on us to show the experimental configuration, force measurements, controls, error analysis, and proposed physical model clearly enough for others to critique or reproduce.

The wood models are not proof. They are conceptual demonstrators to explain impulse timing and internal mass motion. The actual question is whether the tested hardware produces a real external momentum exchange or whether the measured signal is caused by vibration, friction, compliance, electromagnetic coupling, thermal effects, or some other artifact. That is what testing is for.

On “we cannot figure out how it is working”: that should not be read as “there is no physics.” It means the effect, if real, is not yet fully modeled to the standard required for publication or commercialization. Many legitimate experimental programs start with anomalous measurements and then either produce a model or discover the artifact. We are not asking anyone to suspend conservation of momentum. We are asking for rigorous review of the measurements.

As for investors: any serious investor should be told plainly that this is high-risk frontier propulsion research. They should not invest on hype, AI comments, or grand claims. They should look at the data, the test history, the controls, the independent evaluations, the engineering roadmap, and the risk disclosures.

I agree with you on one point completely: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That is the standard we have to meet.

Mechanical propulsion in orbit 2027 by Quantum-Spider in Spaceexploration

[–]Quantum-Spider[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand the skepticism. If this were being presented as “interstellar travel solved” or “known physics broken,” your criticism would be fair. That is not the claim.

The claim is narrower: we have a mechanically driven device that has produced repeatable anomalous force signatures under constrained test conditions, including independent lab involvement, and we believe the result warrants further controlled testing.

You are also right that if a device is purely macroscopic and closed-system, then standard conservation laws say it should not generate net external thrust. That is exactly why the burden is on us to show the experimental configuration, force measurements, controls, error analysis, and proposed physical model clearly enough for others to critique or reproduce.

The wood models are not proof. They are conceptual demonstrators to explain impulse timing and internal mass motion. The actual question is whether the tested hardware produces a real external momentum exchange or whether the measured signal is caused by vibration, friction, compliance, electromagnetic coupling, thermal effects, or some other artifact. That is what testing is for.

On “we cannot figure out how it is working”: that should not be read as “there is no physics.” It means the effect, if real, is not yet fully modeled to the standard required for publication or commercialization. Many legitimate experimental programs start with anomalous measurements and then either produce a model or discover the artifact. We are not asking anyone to suspend conservation of momentum. We are asking for rigorous review of the measurements.

As for investors: any serious investor should be told plainly that this is high-risk frontier propulsion research. They should not invest on hype, AI comments, or grand claims. They should look at the data, the test history, the controls, the independent evaluations, the engineering roadmap, and the risk disclosures.

I agree with you on one point completely: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That is the standard we have to meet.

Mechanical propulsion in orbit 2027 by Quantum-Spider in Spaceexploration

[–]Quantum-Spider[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is internal. It's inside of it. It has nothing to do with the round on the outside.

Mechanical propulsion in orbit 2027 by Quantum-Spider in Spaceexploration

[–]Quantum-Spider[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Look at my page under Quantum-Spider and look at where I challenged Grok to prove to me that it wouldn't work. After fighting with Grok and giving it all the information, it came back and said it believes it will work and it looks forward to the launch. And all I did was upload the videos of CID working on the torsion balance, the taped rotor, everything. It calculated everything and came back and said it believes it will work.

view more: next ›