Quote from: Chet K on 2026.08.21, 16:18:25
It is my understanding (regarding these experiments) that this spider core
Topology is really not a common or well understood realm of experimentation...

I think it is well understood since it relies on the good ol' Lorentz force, but indeed this field configuration does not occur very often in experimentation because it is conflated with a bipolar rotating magnetic field of a polyphase AC induction motor, which has been beaten to death already (experimentally) ...especially at low frequencies.

Quote from: Chet K on 2026.08.21, 16:18:25
I did attach a few comments earlier with possibly similar configurations ( Stephens' MAGVID, Alfred Hubbard's, André Coutier's and Paul Brown's devices have been mentioned over the last year,...

Yes, there are similarities to these devices because they all create a unipolar rotating magnetic field with a central pole. Perhaps the Lockridge's device does this, too.
The rotating fields in these devices have the same effect on free electric charges as the blades of two counter-rotating fans have on air molecules:


The spider core is a simplification of that principle as it creates the effect of only one "fan".
Simpler things are usually easier to experiment with.

Quote from: Chet K on 2026.08.21, 16:18:25
The big attraction with almost all the members who followed the Spider core experiments, was the opportunity to experiment in a configuration which brought several unusual ( to most members) elements together. Magnetism, low-pressure plasma (a not so aggressive vacuum...

Low pressure plasma is a picturesque source of free charge carriers (gas ions) that can depict their acceleration in real time.
But plasma in a fishbowl is not the only way to see what is happening inside.  Charged dust or Lycopodium spores can be used for visualization, too.

Quote from: Chet K on 2026.08.21, 16:18:25
One key point being all manner of elements and experiments ( from atmosphere to ....Materials that Deliver small charges or emissions In our environment .

These materials are convenient sources of free charged particles that do not require high voltages.
All freely moving charged particles are similarly affected by the Lorentz "fans".  There are differences, though, depending on their mass to charge ratios and signs.

Quote from: Chet K on 2026.08.21, 16:18:25
... and the plausibility of creating an electron trap ..? To change the environment into

Trapping these accelerated charge carriers in orbits by a static magnetic field is an additional (and optional) mechanism that is explicitly stipulated only by the MAGVID.
When the charges are not allowed to loop and return, theoretically this can lead to permanent charge depletion and hyperionized state of matter.
The consequences of such state is another can of worms.  I would rather discuss it after we get there.

Quote from: Chet K on 2026.08.21, 16:18:25
Have I properly explained the Experiment parameters and plausible expectations?

Moreless.  I still have this impression that many people conflate the unipolar rotating magnetic field with the bipolar one and this creates disinterest because bipolar rotating magnetic fields are so ubiquitous in polyphase AC induction motors.

   Bipolar rotating magnetic field.

The rotating magnetic field above is almost the same as the field in the air-gap of a permanent magnet rotating like this:

  (Click on the animations to magnify them )

Notice that despite the field's rotation being always counterclockwise, the linear direction of the magnetic flux measured at any stationary point, reverses every 180º of that rotation.  This earns it the "bipolar" qualifier and is the "show stopper" for net acceleration of free charges.

Quote from: Verpies on 2026.08.21, 07:22:53
Yes, although the loss of CMD5005 ferrite increases an order of magnitude between 10kHz and 1MHz it is good enough.
If a comparable ferrite material comes up that has the same (or greater) initial permeability with lower decrease / losses at higher frequencies then it will be an added bonus.

Verpies
Thanks for reply.. and further explanation.
  It is my understanding (regarding these experiments) that this spider core
Topology is really not a common or well understood realm of experimentation...

I did attach a few comments earlier with possibly similar configurations ( Stephens' MAGVID, Alfred Hubbard's, André Coutier's and Paul Brown's devices have been mentioned over the last year, ( I also understand no such claims are being made...

The big attraction with almost all the members who followed the Spider core experiments, was the opportunity to experiment in a configuration which brought several unusual ( to most members) elements together. Magnetism, low-pressure plasma (a not so aggressive vacuum... and the plausibility of creating an electron trap ..? To change the environment into

One key point being all manner of elements and experiments ( from atmosphere to ....Materials that Deliver small charges or emissions In our environment .

This IMO is an enormous learning tool for the FE community...
And most (all) I have spoken with completely agree .

Verpies
Have I properly explained the Experiment parameters and plausible expectations?

Respectfully submitted
Chet

Quote from: Chet K on 2026.08.19, 18:10:45

For clarity only the specs will be submitted not the mentioned vendor or part numbers .

At low frequency, a ferrite's permeability is a simple real number - that's the "initial permeability" (µᵢ) quoted as a single spec (2100 for CMD5005). But as frequency rises, the domain-wall motion and spin-precession mechanisms that produce that permeability can't keep up instantaneously with the applied AC field. The material's response develops a phase lag behind the drive field, so permeability has to be treated as a complex quantity:
µ = µ' − jµ"

• µ' (the real part) describes the in-phase component — the part that stores magnetic energy and gives you inductance. At low frequency µ' is essentially flat and equal to the DC/low-frequency initial permeability.  On this plot the curve is labeled µᵢ instead of the cutomary µ' (it is µᵢ, extended out over frequency).
• µ" (the imaginary part) describes the out-of-phase, lossy component - energy dissipated as heat (hysteresis, eddy current, and resonance losses) rather than stored. At low frequency µ" is small; it rises and typically peaks as µ' begins to roll off with increasing frequency.
  

The two curves together tell you the useful frequency range of the ferrite:

Below the "knee" (where µ' is still flat [500kHz] and µ" is low), the ferrite behaves as a good, low-loss inductive/transformer core - this is the region where CMD5005 is recommended for broadband transformers.
As frequency increases toward and past where µ' starts dropping, µ" rises and eventually exceeds µ' - the material is now dissipative rather than inductive. This is the regime where the same ferrite becomes useful as an EMI suppression bead/absorber instead of as an inductor core.

Quote from: Chet K on 2026.08.19, 18:10:45
Is this all relevant information for submittal ?
For clarity only the specs will be submitted not the mentioned vendor or part numbers .

Yes, although the loss of CMD5005 ferrite increases an order of magnitude between 10kHz and 1MHz it is good enough.
If a comparable ferrite material comes up that has the same (or greater) initial permeability with lower decrease / losses at higher frequencies then it will be an added bonus.

grok summary of patent.

Patent family and core claim

Priority: US provisional 62/769,415 (19 Nov 2018).
Main grant: US11511891B2 (filed 19 Nov 2019 as US16/688,619).
Continuations / related: US20230121805A1 (CIP filed ~2022), US20240011469A1 (filed 2023), WO2020159603.
Inventors: Andrew Neil Aurigema, Charles Raymond Buhler IV (Exodus Propulsion Technologies / ept.space).
Core idea: Voltage difference applied to conductive surfaces produces an electric field and electrostatic pressure. Geometric asymmetry (proximal vs distal surfaces, blade-like features vs flat ground) yields a non-zero vector sum of pressure forces → net force on the object without mass expulsion. Magnitude depends on geometry, applied voltage, and dielectric in the gap. Nanoscale versions via carbon nanotubes contemplated. Propellantless thruster use-case highlighted.⁠Patents.google

Standard electrostatic pressure is $  P = \frac12\epsilon_0 E^2  $ (or $  \frac12\epsilon E^2  $ with dielectric). Net force arises from imbalance of the integrated pressure vectors.
Quantitative details extracted from the patent
Example multi-blade test article (FIG. 21 / related description):

9 blades.
Blade height 0.25 in, spacing 0.25 in, length 4 in, thickness 0.05 in.
Gap between certain surfaces ~0.25 in.
Blades + back-plane coated with conductive paint; wire connection secured with epoxy.
Initial ground: copper tape 4″ × 2″ = 8 in²; later expanded to 3″ × 5″ = 15 in².
Dielectric fill: high-voltage epoxy (also references to polyimide, PTFE, styrofoam, RTV, HV putty).
Transparent variant: ITO on PET.
CNT electrodes discussed for nanoscale (CVD growth on Si, transfer to Al₂O₃ with silver paste).

Voltages / fields:

Tested up to +40 kVDC; concrete runs at +25 kV (and plots covering 10–35 kV, smoothed higher values).
Example E-field magnitudes in figures reach several ×10⁶ V/m.

Force data (patent examples / figures):

At +25 kV, net average force ~237 µN on the described article.
Larger ground area (15 in²) raised average to ~421 µN (factor ~1.77–1..
Other figure values span tens to hundreds of µN / low mN range (e.g., 0.1–90 mN scale annotations, 118.7 mN in one plot, COMSOL gap-sweep results up to ~0.2 N class under idealized conditions).
Force scales roughly as V²; increases as gap decreases (COMSOL three-blade example) until breakdown.
Geometry optimization (triangular protrusions on ground, FEMM + MATLAB loop) claimed up to ~6× force improvement relative to flat before Faraday shielding dominates.
Test resolution cited ~0.1 mN; pendulum / string-to-force-meter setups; plastic-bag enclosure to suppress ion wind.

Equations / relations (from patent text):

Time-dependent momentum form $  P(t)\propto\int E^2\,dt  $.
Force $  F(t)=\frac{d}{dt}\bigl(\epsilon_0\int E^2\,dt\bigr)  $ (includes conservative + possible radiative contributions for time-varying fields).
Sinusoidal drive $  E(t)=E_0\sin(\omega t+\phi)  $ yields phase-dependent average force (constructive near 90° phase, enhancement factor ~3× cited in example). Force still scales as $  E_0^2  $; no strong frequency dependence in steady state.

Other geometries: single-stage and multi-stage opposing surfaces; proximal/distal blade configurations; triangular protuberances; stacked asymmetrical capacitors; cylindrical/disk variants; "T-blade" class later emphasized by the team (parallel plates + fins that concentrate field at tips while the flat side carries higher pressure-area product).
Simulation tools used by inventors: COMSOL Multiphysics (force vs gap), FEMM (E-field), MATLAB post-processing / iterative geometry optimization.
ept.space / media and public claims
ept.space describes T-Blade thruster testing, electrostatic-pressure measurements in vacuum, and ongoing laboratory work on the patented "Exodus Effect." Media page itself yields little additional quantitative content. Public statements (APEC presentations, interviews) claim progressive improvement from µN-scale to forces sufficient to counter 1 g on the test article (2023), with ~1 500–2 000 test articles and vacuum-chamber data; highest stacked-system numbers quoted in the ~10 mN class in some reports. Claims include persistence after power removal in some runs. Company emphasizes isolation from ion wind, thermal, cable, vibration, and electrostatic-attraction artifacts.⁠Ept
YouTube / presentation links (representative):

Lab walkthrough / APEC material: https://youtu.be/oL9KfzydVhg and related APEC timestamps.
Aurigema interviews (e.g., "Can The Exodus Effect Produce Propellantless Space Propulsion?").
Additional APEC / American Alchemy style discussions circulating 2024–2026.

Classical electrostatic simulations (FEM / BEM / FDTD / MoM) on patent geometries
Patent already contains COMSOL (FEM) gap sweeps and FEMM + MATLAB geometry optimization. Independent classical electrostatic calculations recover the expected results:

Parallel-plate pressure $  P=\frac12\epsilon_0 E^2  $ is balanced; net force ≈ 0 (neglecting fringing).
Blade / fin + flat-ground asymmetry produces a differential pressure-area product. Net force direction is toward the higher-pressure (usually flatter, larger-area) side.
Force ∝ V² and rises as gap shrinks until dielectric strength is exceeded.
Fringing and corner singularities are well-handled by FEM/BEM; FDTD or MoM can capture time-varying / RF cases.
Simple 2-D analytic or numerical models of a single blade facing a ground plane already show a non-zero integrated force of the same order of magnitude as the patent's early µN–mN laboratory numbers when realistic gaps (mm-scale) and voltages (10–40 kV) are inserted. 3-D multi-blade arrays scale approximately with number of blades and ground area, consistent with the 8 in² → 15 in² experimental increase.

No classical electrostatic calculation produces a continuous center-of-mass force in free space that violates momentum conservation once all field momentum and image charges are accounted for; any residual must be explained by measurement artifact, dielectric polarization gradients, residual gas, or a claimed non-classical contribution. The patent and inventors assert the latter after extensive controls.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.08.19, 20:53:30
The asymmetry could very well charge the surrounding air and produce an ionic current that drives rotation, thus following a conventional principle.

In a vacuum, this would be more convincing, but then there is the problem of electrostatic forces between the container and the environment. Since the forces at play are very weak and the voltages very high, artifacts can easily occur. NASA had conducted an experiment of this kind with great care, and at that time, no net force had been detected. I believe that the thrust here is also of conventional electrostatic origin, or perhaps it's even related to ion leakage in a vacuum that isn't deep enough.

It's not ion wind. These experiments have been done in a vacuum and those that weren't had a plastic bag over the thruster.

The asymmetry could very well charge the surrounding air and produce an ionic current that drives rotation, thus following a conventional principle.

In a vacuum, this would be more convincing, but then there is the problem of electrostatic forces between the container and the environment. Since the forces at play are very weak and the voltages very high, artifacts can easily occur. NASA had conducted an experiment of this kind with great care, and at that time, no net force had been detected. I believe that the thrust here is also of conventional electrostatic origin, or perhaps it's even related to ion leakage in a vacuum that isn't deep enough.

The measurements presented in the datasheet that Chet shows—aside from the complex permeability curve—are taken at 10 kHz, even though the datasheet is titled "High-frequency Ni-Zn ferrite." At Metglass, we sometimes see "1 kHz" cited as the starting point for their "high frequencies". It's very interesting to get a sense of the orders of magnitude of the parameters of commercially available materials, but when it comes to practical applications, the issue of frequency is just as critical as permeability, and that's what will determine the choice, based on the desired loss criteria.

What I was responding to was full of suggestions incompatible with those things that go without saying, as well as basic questions whose answers lie within those things that go without saying, such as "is there a 'delay' in the returning field?". Of course there is, but it is unmeasurable for the reasons I have stated; the superposition of standing waves in the near field masks any propagation-related phenomena.

As for the Poynting vector—another consequence of those things that go without saying—, it is irrelevant here. In a system of standing or quasi-stationary waves, the average Poynting vector is zero. In other words, energy can thus be exchanged locally between the electric and magnetic fields without a net transport of energy in any given direction. The usefulness of the Poynting vector is therefore very limited, unlike in the case of electromagnetic waves where energy is transported away.

If people don't fully grasp the implications of things that go without saying, it's better for someone to articulate them—which is what I did.

Verpies,
Going to start soliciting from Dansie's vendor list,

" https://ferrite.ru/upload/iblock/056/zeeewjiglt6szh3gb20r2tw16tje8a16/New%20Catalog%20of%20Careful.pdf "

Below is the data sheet for ferrite spec submittal .
Also the attached file for the actual dimensions of center core and toroids .

Is this all relevant information for submittal ?
For clarity only the specs will be submitted not the mentioned vendor or part numbers .