Exodus Propulsion Tecnologies fuelless propulsion electrostatics.

[JimBoot]

TL;DR They are claiming OU in that they can lift 1.2 it's own weight. Reach Mars in 3 days. No current - just charge the plates.
Geometry of their cell and how they charge the plates seems to be their breakthrough. All forces accounted for - no laws broken.

https://youtu.be/B65mFXwqJYA?si=2CcWrb3iIX1Lo6S_

Exodus vacuum chamber test (Andrew Aurigema): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzCrhtVqXZw
Build / overview of the Exodus propellantless drive: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUudT5CqlG4
Popular Mechanics article on the claimed "New Force" (Buhler / Exodus): https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a73405686/engineer-said-he-can-overcome-earths-gravity/
Build your own here
https://ept.space/showcase/

[JimBoot]

did you read the bit where it's OU and its not breaking the laws of conservation of momentum? Seems a pretty big deal.

[Frederik2k1]

Impressive Video of their device: Slightly rotating. Video is from the showcase link above:

https://ept.space/assets/video/t-blade-rotation-2019.mp4

[F6FLT]

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.

[JimBoot]

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.

[JimBoot]

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.

[JimBoot]

Working with my Heres agent on this.

Understood. I'll stop treating ion wind, stray EMF, and basic electrostatic controls as the central research question. We can preserve the evidence, but we do not need to relitigate it every time.

What Buhler appears to mean
The phrase is third-order perturbation, not a "third perturbation" or a third photon.

In plain English:

Second-order perturbation produces the familiar Coulomb interaction. Two charges exchange momentum through the quantized electromagnetic field. In the virtual-photon picture, one charge emits and the other absorbs. Momentum balances inside that pair.

Buhler extends the calculation to third order. This introduces three interaction factors, twelve terms in his calculation, and charge products that can look like q₁²q₂ and q₁q₂², rather than only the symmetric q₁q₂ Coulomb term.

Some third-order terms appear asymmetric in the two-charge subsystem. In his diagrammatic interpretation, some terms look emission-only or absorption-only instead of a neat emit-and-absorb pair.

The apparatus is not the complete momentum system. Buhler's hypothesis is that the apparatus exchanges momentum with the quantized electromagnetic field or vacuum sector. The material receives recoil, while the field carries the equal and opposite momentum.

The "scalar virtual photon" is not ordinary light. It is an internal mathematical field mode used in the QED calculation. Buhler himself says it should be thought of more like the electric field attached to charge than a real photon flying out of the apparatus.

The unfinished part is turning the third-order energy correction into a complete, gauge-independent force law that predicts the observed dependence on charge, distance, geometry and material. That is the useful theory problem. We do not need to solve all of QED before performing useful optimisation, but we do need to keep the algebraic hypothesis separate from its physical interpretation.

The practical optimisation insight
The T-blade geometry is not simply trying to create the highest possible field.

Aurigema explicitly describes the engineering quantity as approximately:

(see attachment)
The important interaction is field squared, surface area, direction, and charge distribution.

That creates a non-obvious tradeoff:

A very narrow tip produces an intense field.
But its force-facing area becomes extremely small.
A broader opposing surface has a lower field over much more area.
Therefore, the sharpest possible blade is not automatically the best blade.
The optimum should balance field concentration against effective surface area and breakdown margin.
The electret observations add another major lever: trapped charge distribution. The best dielectric may not have the highest permittivity. It may be the material that accepts and retains the largest useful asymmetric charge distribution without leakage, breakdown, deformation, or vacuum outgassing.

Work completed
I created two working research documents:

research/third-order-hypothesis-primer.md
research/geometry-materials-program.md
The first explains:

second-order versus third-order perturbation;
what virtual and scalar photons mean here;
Buhler's proposed momentum accounting;
the relationship between the QED hypothesis, pressure geometry and trapped charge;
the exact theoretical questions still needing answers.
The second defines an optimisation programme covering:

blade-tip area and width;
blade count and pitch;
blade height;
plate area;
electrode gap;
stage count and spacing;
dielectric thickness;
charge retention;
conductor surface condition;
electret materials;
voltage and stored-charge scaling;
finite-element simulation;
controlled geometry and material comparisons;
normalised performance metrics.

[Kator01]

Hello,

please FYI


https://www.theinteldrop.org/2025/01/26/was-the-universe-solved-and-super-classified/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Dornberger


Mike(ger)

[Hakasays]

https://www.theinteldrop.org/2025/01/26/was-the-universe-solved-and-super-classified/

That's awesome, thanks for sharing!

Stefan Marinov's writings seem to overlap a lot with gravity (and impedance of free space) as well, being a function of atomic electron orbital distance+ratios.
https://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/underground/BBSes/KEELYNET/ENERGY/altsci1.asc
(note: paper is a LARP written by Stefan but the scientific content and principles described seem valid and consistent)

(2) Permeability and permittivity are directly proportional. to distance of
       electrons from nuclei, thus allowing external magnetic and electric
       fields to more easily distort excited orbitals and store energy in the
       atom.  But according to Maxwell's Wave Equation speed of light is
       determined by one over squareroot of permeability times permittivity in
       ANY spatial region.  So excitation must affect speed of light just as
       relativistic gravity speeds light.  This EM refract method.

Now an excited atom.  Its electrons are farther from nuclei, under less
electric force, and incoming quanta of same E=hv  quantum energy or frequency
now cause greater transitions than in unexcited atoms.  So person in an
excited field perceive incoming waves as higher frequency, and several waves,
boosted in bandwidth or information content as well.

This reduces the problem to finding the one magnetic or
electrical property intrinsic to all mass, because gravity acts on all mass.
Diamagnetism is that universally intrinsic property, but even that is related
to distance of electrons from nuclei by formula for magnetic moment M=IA, or
moment equals current times loop area.  This does not tell whether proximity to
or distance from nuclei is antigravity, but directly suggests that
correspondence exists.

[Verpies]

Stefan Marinov's writings seem to overlap a lot with gravity (and impedance of free space) as well, being a function of atomic electron orbital distance+ratios

The quotes you have posted are by Stephens - not Marinov.

[Hakasays]

The quotes you have posted are by Stephens - not Marinov.

I read one rumor/paper saying Stefan may have used it as a pseudonym, but I could be wrong. At any rate it seems to be consistent with the other paper and might help bridge the gap between the theory and engineering.

Found one more paper talking about it:
https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/18233406/the-magnetic-vortex-hyper-ionization-device-magvid-as-

[F6FLT]

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.

Creating a perfect vacuum on Earth is impossible. So, as with any experiment, the question is one of measurement: how do we determine whether a value is negligible or not? Specificatlly, what was the pressure? Was it a high vacuum (10^-1 Pa) or an extreme vacuum (10^-10)? A few mPa may be sufficient to generate a significant ionic wind of a few tenths of a mN.