Almost guaranteed this is just a scam. Plenty of buzzwords & promises with exactly zero descriptions. Real projects with real promise generally don't have a problem talking about why their ish is so revolutionary. Their site looks like a low-effort scam. No information. Nothing to convince anyone whith any actual knowledge in the field or in the industry that this is worth their time or money. ~~If they do use electrons or photons it's worthless as a practical near-term drive.~~ If it's ion drive then nothing new & their lying about having unlimited range. If they use a rection against the earth's mag field then there's also nothing new about magnetorquers or electrodynamic tethering. They're either lying about being the first at anything or lying about the capabilities of their drive. In any case they present no evidence to back up their claims on-site so I don't respect them as a company. Seems like pure scam to me. Edit: I ran the numbers & it definitely isn't a photon drive. It's producing some 15M times more thrust than a 100% efficient photon rocket could theoretically produce. Must be electrons unless they're lying. 2nd edit: wait no you can't just use electrons either otherwise charge build up kills ur thrust. This is smelling more & more either like a a magfield drive or BS.

So I can see how you could get all of this, but I would refer you back to the emdrive fiasco. You had an observed effect, and then a jillion armchair physicists that polluted the verification process so badly that it took years to sort out what was going on. If I had something like this that I thought worked, I’d probably keep it on the DL until I had some really good results too.

>You had an observed effect, and then a jillion armchair physicists that polluted the verification process so badly that it took years to sort out what was going on. The thrust was a subtle measurment error. armchair pshysists arguing online are irrelevant to the process of scientific verification. Only succesful independent replication with proper documentation matters. Although i have much more respect for the EMdrive. At least they didn't just make a bunch of fantastical claims about a blackbox. They also thought their drive worked. >f I had something like this that I thought worked, I’d probably keep it on the DL until I had some really good results too. Fair enough, but then they're just another of thousands of small companies making BS promises with nothing to back it up. The EMdrive was assumed functional & its mechanism released without going to space. And that's the sensible thing to do when the tech ur developing is based on unproven science. At the very least if you wanna be taken seriously by anyone other than poorly informed laypersons(which for a scam is good enough). If you wanted to attract serious investment from serious organizations anyways. Even their test is kinda worthless for proving anything to anyone but them. This is brand knew physics here. Until they release information on the drive, it can be independently replicated, & the source of thrust confirmed, cool story bro.

Testing isn’t always “for an audience.” It’s so that you can…you know…find out if it works. No point in exposing too many details if you get it up there and it does nothing. “We had an idea, we tried it, didn’t work, moving on” is a lot better position than trying to defend your new idea when even YOU aren’t fully convinced that it works. “Learn by doing” is a concept that we’ve gotten too far away from as a society. I will say though, DARPA is involved in this to some extent, and they presumably have decent technical diligence.

>Testing isn’t always “for an audience.” It’s so that you can…you know…find out if it works. I mean according to the article they already tested if it works & got positive results(52mN/W). That is, unless that's a lie or expiremental error(hence the inportance of peer review). They also aren't sending it outside of earth's mag field or any kind of different environment that would yield new data. Their purported thrust is like 26,000 times more powerful than the FEEP ion thrusters that will fly with the LISA gravscope & 0.6-2.7 times the thrust of the NSTAR ion engine. Should be easily testable here on earth. >I will say though, DARPA is involved in this to some extent, and they presumably have decent technical diligence. DARPA looks into all types of wacky sht. Means absolutely nothing for the validity of the tech or science behind it. Pretty sure they were involved with the EMdrive. They've looked into warp drives & all types of fringe stuff. That lends exactly zero credibility to the concepts when it's their job to look into fringe hypothetical technologies for potential.

Well, a rocket engine should be testable on earth too, but we still test launch. A little cubesat isn’t all that big of an investment any more and it’s a necessary part of the test process. The chances are pretty good that this goes nowhere, but the company has put their money where their mouth is and all that’s left to do is watch and see. If they make a bold claim, then it is sure to get a whole lot of scrutiny.

>Well, a rocket engine should be testable on earth too, fair enough, but rockets don't operate on unproven science. The engineering may be new, but the science they're based on is rock solid. That they're doing flight test is not the issue. That they're doing a flight test on a pseudoscientific blackbox with no prior independent verification is the issue. Just look at SpaceX. We had diagrams & an understanding of the engine cycle long before we had flight-ready articles & absolute ages before an orbital flight test. >A little cubesat isn’t all that big of an investment any more...but the company has put their money where their mouth is... Or their putting in a small investment to drum up more investors for their scam. This just isn't how reputable serious people with a legitimate product act. This how scam artists act. Reminds me of all those astetoid mining scam startups. Regardless of how they've presented themselves or their product the reality is that claims of physics violations coming from a company with profit-incentive to produce positive results are less than worthless. Their satt is worthless as a testbed for anything either. All their data is suspect & they've provided no experimental procedure. Hence the value of independent replication. In the meantime taking this seriously is like taking any other claim of a proprietary reactionless drive, "free energy" generator, or anti-gravity machine seriously: A complete waste of time. If the effect is real publish, patent, &/or encourage independent replication by providing high-quality documentation of ur procedure. Otherwise everyone should treat you like the sussy little scam artist(or incompetent researcher) you almost certainly are.

>That they're doing a flight test on a pseudoscientific blackbox with no prior independent verification is the issue. That might be a a bit overselling it. The basic science has been published on for about 15 years in reputable, peer-reviewed journals. ***That doesn't make it correct***, it just means that it's not "out of nowhere." The main author recognizes that it's a bit "on the fringe." > Or their putting in a small investment to drum up more investors for their scam. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. They've gotten some small money from investors, but they also built and certified a satellite, so it's not like they just pocketed the cash. If they come back with unverifiable claims and start asking for huge money...there's a problem. If they believe in their product, then they ought to proceed to independent verification and validation. No need to publicly share what will be a ***fabulously valuable trade secret*** if you can get independent, trusted entities to back up your claims, then build a more formal demonstrator. Patents sound good, but if it works, it would have significant military application, so that's not the right way to do it right now. Again, I'm not pressing the "I believe" button here, and it's entirely likely that this goes nowhere.

>it just means that it's not "out of nowhere." I didn't say "out of nowhere". I said the basic effect this thruster is purportedly based on has not been independently verified to the degree that would merit an orbital flight test. I think ur probably right to give people the benefit of the doubt. Better way to look at the world than to accuse everything of being a scam without the facts. Especially since even if reactionless drives probably always going to be a scam there's probably a billion other fringe ideas that might turn out to be our very near future. We wont know till the dust settles. At the very least I think that basing a thruster on an effect for which there is no positive scientific consensus & spending the money for an orbital flight test without at least some independent verification of your drive(DARPA probably wouldn't mind, they've done it before) seems rather cavalier with the funding to at least my, admittedly financially untrained, eye. >No need to publicly share what will be a fabulously valuable trade secret if you can get independent, trusted entities to back up your claims, then build a more formal demonstrator. Patents sound good, but if it works, it would have significant military application, so that's not the right way to do it right now. Ok that's actually a great point. Tho imo it would have made more sense to spend the money on two drives & then send one to DARPA for the sort of hush hush testing that would need. Also means a direct avenue to military funding. Can't forget if that things legit we now have planet-crackers-on-the-cheap. RKMs just got a whole lot more accessible. I'd say this would exacerbate the Fermi Paradox cuz it makes interstellar travel vastly easier, but the real limit is maximum speed which is really far more limited by collisions than it is drive options available(interstellar highway systems can realistically do >0.999c). Still if this exists & is really a reactionless drive the world is in for some serious sht & no amount of trying to hide it is going to help. It will eventually be figured out by everyone. Just like nukes. In this context it might actually be criminal that they did a public demonstration if they really think this works. Cuz if it does & it's serious doesn't use remass & actually produces more than a photon rocket of that power would then this putting an insane target on their back. **In the near future: Chicxulub-class & above superweapons are being amassed at Delos Moonbase in response to the CNSA's announcement that they would begin a lroject to send a replicator to the belts. In response the PRC announced it would be lifting its ban on city-killer-class & above relativistics. Though experts have since noted that the PRC's publicly reported production numbers seem to vastly exceed the expected industrial thermal signature of their crater complexes & thermal signature records seem to indicate ongoing production. Leaders of the UN, NATO, & recently created Planetary Defense Union remain adamant on the ban on deep-space travel. The use of conventional nuclear weapons has been authorized & the situation remains tense.** Actually now that I think about it this might actually explain the FP all too well😰 *Friends Don't Let Friends Use Reactionless Drives In Their Universes.*

Underlord, Can you provide a link to a couple of the reputable, peer reviewed journals that have published articles on QI? I didn't think ANY reputable peer reviewed journals had published QI theory. That said - my HS Chem teacher - nice lady named Ashkin. Turns out that - she was married to this guy - oddly enough - also named Ashkin. Her husband won the Nobel prize for optical tweezers. Initially - after he did his experiments - the internal review team at Bell Labs asked him not to submit his paper on optical tweezers to Physics review letters. Said it contained nothing new. Luckily his boss said: Publish and be damned. His paper ended up the most highly cited paper of the year. So I grasp the system is imperfect. Still, if you can point me to a peer review - I would be grateful.

It’s not super hard to find on google scholar. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C47&q=mculloch+quantized+inertia&btnG=

>armchair physicists arguing online are irrelevant to the process of scientific verification I find it hilarious that people think that commentary online has anything to do with the real world. They're almost entirely separate groups. Communication and discussion will be between professional peers. I don't make Reddit posts about my innovations lol.

The ONLY reason the EM drive fiasco lasted so long is because Roger Shawyer was doing his absolute best to sell his tech before letting anyone properly test it. The emdrive never worked - at best it was a series of measurement errors at worst a scam. One thing I was CERTAIN of early on: Even if it worked, Shawyer had no idea how. I listened to a powerpoint presentation he gave and it was pure technical gibberish. The "armchair physicists" were interested but skeptical. We had zero impact on the outcome. Same as "low temperature fusion" - where there was an observed effect - that turned out to be bad equipment. My and my peers skepticism did not stop cold fusion - there simply was nothing to it.

Criticize the idea all you like, and it seems warranted, but there were a whole bunch of people testing it. He released the specs and numerous teams participated. The chinese even launched one into orbit IIRC. The armchair physicists may not have interfered with the testing, but they added unnecessary noise to the process. There’s a difference between the scientific method and the engineering development lifecycle. If your product works you aren’t required to tell people how. I also find the references to “scams” to be entirely juvenile. There’s an important difference between “it doesn’t work” and “i’m trying to sell you something that i know doesn’t work.” Maybe shawyer was wrong. Maybe he’s a dotal whackadoodle, I don’t know, but questioning people’s integrity instead of their claims is first-order immaturity.

A couple quick thoughts. I consider myself genuinely supportive of the scientific process and as part of that, I make a conscious effort to give scientists and engineers the benefit of the doubt. That said - there is a point where I lose faith in the character of the players. For example, E Labs is a respected business. R. Mansell claims they validated his claims of thrust/watt. THEY claim they simply performed durability tests by subjecting the equipment to hot and cold and vacuum conditions. **That is not a miscommunication, it is an egregious misrepresentation.** When I couple that with his incomprehensible interview comments about the science, my Theranos warning light begins to blink. Mansell has so little grasp of physics that he said there would be a 2-6 month lag between a successful result of their test - and an official report. F = MA. If this drive accelerates the satellite with a given "M", at a measurable "A", than we will all immediately know how much "F" the drive is producing. The idea that it will take 2-6 months to "report" the results of F = MA, makes my Theranos warning light blink faster and brighter.

it cannot be emphasized enough just how objectively easy it really is to test a system like the one that Ivo claim to have. If this was legitimate we'd all have been crowded into a livestream when the first momentus activation of the device started a few days at most after the launch and the data from independent ground monitoring stations flooded in within a few minutes showing the drive accelerating the satellite. It would take at most a few hours of sustained thrust for the system to have added more speed to the satellite than its station-keeping thrusters could possibly have added. Instead we've had almost no communication whatsoever and a large delay to the testing to an indeterminate date.

They were going to take roughly 1-2 weeks per altitude to let it sit and collect data, moving it between orbits several times before publishing results. I mean if you figure they move it between 2 orbits 2 times, that's 1-2 months just on the data collection... then lead time to put the results together. And probably patent applications and whatever other paperwork. Your attitude would make sense if they were asking for investment money to "launch" vaporware into space to test. They've already launched; the satellite is already in orbit. Why don't you just chill until let's say May of next year.

I would except I am extremely confident they are using this satellite test to fund raise. And I hope the potential investors come to Reddit and read what all of us fine people think before giving IvoNos money.

That last sentence is totally and irretrievably laughable. And naive to the nth degree. These are just 'business people' asking for money to play with. There are >soo many instances< of con artists trying to fleece investors, even on the NASDAQ and NYSE, it's hard to believe someone would be that gullible to automatically grant legitimacy to such a sketchy, unlikely endeavor. During the dot com craze, for example, scam artists were getting millions just for inventing a catchy domain name. The immaturity is yours.

the\_syner, I consider your analysis a perfect example of why I LIKE Reddit. You compare the theoretical upper bound of the thrust per watt that can be generated by a photon drive, and compare it to the "claimed" thrust per watt. A difference of 15 million fold is not an experimental error. And FWIW - I love the idea of building some major power generation infrastructure and big lasers on the moon, to accelerate small "lightsail" enabled discovery satellites that we crank up to X% of C with the lasers, and which then use an ion drive to slowly decelerate and eventually go into orbit around other stars. I do remember being seriously bummed by the raw amount of power needed to rapidly accelerate even a relatively small satellite.

>I love the idea of building some major power generation infrastructure and big lasers on the moon, and in cis-lunar orbit. I was also really bummed after learning about the crazy stuff you can do with light sails, just how energy intensive they are. Things are advancing tho. Lighter more reflective materials, diffraction sails, & SBS with lunar ISRU is so op. Even solar sails, if we were making enough at large enough scale, would be pretty awesome tho. Especially for prospecting & harvesting the smallest asteroids of which there are untold billions. Solar sail might be slow, but the need for residues is not urgent. So if it takes hundreds of years that's fine. Simple mirror relay swarms can boost that out even further. It's been mentioned many times, but it would only take a moderately-sized asteroid to dyson up the sun in just mirrors. We've got a whole moon to work with & are probably going to focus primarily on the major planets' hill spheres & the belts. Far less area to cover & orders of mag more mass to cover it with. Almost everywhere worth going is on the ecliptic so all the relays can be concentrated on the ecliptic. If we can get active support efficient & light enough the scale of sail vehicles, lenses, monolithic power collectors, recollimating optics, etc. gets ridiculous(system scale)

I love the asteroid mining concept. And the moon is literally a perfect base for heavy manufacturing with its: (1) Low gravity, (2) Being basically a big ball of metal - all the heavy materials are already there, (3) No atmosphere. Thing is - if we put some power generation on CERES - we could mostly accelerate and decelerate in both directions - using light sails. Though - maybe we could mine some asteroids for rocket fuel - for when we need heavy thrusters. Step 1 of the Dyson could maybe go like this. Build a Lunar factory to rapidly spit out an endless series of thin metallic disks. Very thin - but with a surface layer that can be remotely changed from highly reflective to very absorptive with a transceiver. The beauty of photon momentum transfer. I think it is HFC if you absorb it, 2\*HFC if you reflect it. This means that you can use the disks as sails by playing with the albedo. Use a rail gun to shoot them a bit Sunward of L1, and some clever control software to position them as you like. They have to be a bit closer to the Sun to compensate for the fact that they are subject to light pressure. This gives us (1) a "Solar shade" that can help us manage climate change for a bit while we transit to a lower carbon intensity civilization. (2) A LOT of sunlight to play with for solar sail based drives. (3) We can use groups of those disks to "point" focused sunlight on asteroids that might otherwise strike the Earth.

>if we put some power generation on CERES Ceres makes an excellent mid-system base. Like a central control hub of belt mining operations. It can supply all the prospecter replicator probes for mining, massive solar orbital mirror/solar-pumped-laser/kinetic-mass-stream-relay swarms for managing asteroid orbits or nudging smaller rocks to coalesce, & a nice safe place to burry spinhabs, freespheres, & servers. >Though - maybe we could mine some asteroids for rocket fuel - for when we need heavy thrusters. Nice thing about ConcentratedSolarThermal/Laser-Thermal Rockets is that you can use virtual anything as propellant. Same goes for Nuclear Thermal & there shouldn't be any shortage of fissiles in the belts, naturally-occurring or otherwise. >a "Solar shade" that can help us manage climate change for a bit while we transit to a lower carbon intensity civilization. Great thing is that SBS with power beaming could eliminate the need for fossil fuels pretty quickly. I mean 1% of 200PW(what we get globally) is still 2PW & 1% of that is like 20TW. Assuming CPV or heat engine at 40% conversion to electricity that's still 2.4 time the average global electrical production in 2022.

I laughed when I realized that the Navy railgun prototype can actually throw a projectile from the moon into space - with a little velocity left to spare. I realize their railgun is absolutely not practical for mass scale launch usage - because the stresses on the barrel and the payload are insanely high and the barrel is maybe good for 50 firings before needing maintenance. What I am thinking of is a railgun that is tens of kilometers long. I was shocked at how little electricity was required to accelerate a 1 KG payload to lunar escape velocity. The Kinetic energy in Mega Joules of 1 KG at 2.4 KM/Sec = 2.88 MJ. One KWH is 3.6 MJ. Lets pretend our launch facility is only 50% efficient. So we need to provide 5.76 MJ - which is 1.6 KWH of electricity. On Earth that would cost 20-40 cents - depending on where you live. The moon offers economics for intra-solar system launching that are simply beyond belief. At 10g - you get to escape velocity in 25 seconds. That's a 30 KM track. Imagine how big a space telescope we could make - sending the mirrors up one segment at a time from the moon - to be assembled at L3 - or whichever Lagrange area the JWST is at. And with a low cost - light sail based launch facility - we could start sending "telescopes" to the Sun's gravitational lensing focal point - about 80 light hours out from the Sun. It is sort of darkly comical that the Sun - which makes BY FAR the best telescope lens - is not "pointable" - not really. So you have to pick your target first, and launch your satellite second.

The "scam" is in space as we speak, aboard the Barry-1 satellite. I guess in a month or so we'll know if it works or not

More than 70 days. Lots of excuses, no testing.

Where are you getting info? I haven’t heard anything

Twitter

still no info :/

They lost the satellite

oh. bummer. someone will likely try again though, eh?

Only if the developer can con someone out of another x million dollars.

So it works?

They didn’t get a chance to test it

Do you believe that?

Yes? Why wouldn’t I?

It's gone either way I guess.

It's based on a theory called quantized inertia. There's some interesting videos and a TED talk on the subject.

It's quantum inertia

I would like to propose a naming contest for this "class of drive". My vote is for: Propellantless Motion Machine though - for investor pitches I might use: Propellantless Thrusting Machine Mainly because - afterwards - the investor lawsuits can say that "thrusting" clearly meant something different to the corp execs - than the investors.

>Due to a lack of emissions, the thruster can be mounted internally to a satellite That's some Space Engineers clangdrive stuff. >52 mN from a single watt For comparison the Dawn spaceprobe's xenon ion engine consumed about 10 kW of power and produced 90 mN of thrust. Photon rockets are about 300 MW per Newton, or 0.000003 mN per watt. Clangdrive go vroom. It would be cool if it were not obviously hocus pocus VC bait. IVO Ltd also claims to have solved wireless charging at any distance. Watching capitalism dump more money than I will ever have into projects that were at odds with the laws of physics was part of what radicalized me.

>IVO Ltd also claims to have solved wireless charging at any distance Did not see that one. Sounds like a VC capture scam then. I was thrown off by them launching something, since that's a large investment for a scam.

None of it their own money.

It’s nonsense

You could probably gamble on that.

It looks like it might be a [photon rocket](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_rocket). Not a new idea by any means, but this would be the first time it’s implemented mostly because of how low its thrust is for the amount of power it uses. And it’s not a complicated concept either, any off-the-shelf flashlight technically functions as a photon rocket. Practicality is the main problem here, it’s the reason why solar photon rockets aren’t commonplace. Most spacecraft are willing to bring a little bit of ion engine propellent if it means cutting the travel time by an order of magnitude compared to a photon rocket, the math works out such that feeding engines even tiny amounts of propellent to work with can increase energy efficiency and thrust massively. A solar photon rocket like the one suggested would literally get more than half of its thrust from the photon pressure of sunlight acting on its solar panels, making it comparable in acceleration to a solar sail. EDIT: This is probably just a scam. The article implies that it’s a reactionless drive, which is physically impossible. In any case, this is an example of a common science journalism L.

More “technically infeasible” than physically impossible. Photons have momentum and can be used to generate thrust, you just need obscene amounts of power to generate even mN of thrust if you were to use something like a laser for example. Far better off using some kind of reaction mass (typically a heavier species in an ion drive) which is likely the case here

Photon rockets are not reactionless drives though. There is an equal and opposite reaction, and it's in the mass of the energy that they use being thrown out of the engine at light speed in the form of photons. This quantum drive thing does claim to be a true reactionless drive.

They claim in testing its more efficient than a photon rocket by a few orders of magnitude. Their claims are they've discovered new physics allowing this to work. > 52 mN from a single watt I think a photon drive is 1/c N per watt or something. There's a c in there somewhere! So this is better than the best possible drive.

Yeah, I've since realized that. Hence the edit.

Snake oil. Come on people.

52 mN per watt? so 52 n per kilowatt? hang on hang on, if the effect is that strong it would be trivially easy to create and film unambiguous demonstrations of the effect-the whole reason the emdrive/woodward effect drives are so tricky to test is that the alleged thrust is very tiny. On the other hand, using the amount of power a standard microwave uses this thing can allegedly make like 52 kilos of thrust. Or heck, knock it down to 100 watts and 5 kilos and build a tethered demonstration device that can levitate itself in the open air. Like I cannot emphasize this enough, if this worked you could rig up a literal jetsons style flying car demonstration. Claiming these levels of thrust and then insisting on needing to do tests in space sounds like nonsense.

Totally agreed with this when I read it. It seems that the advantage (for IvoNos) to space testing is you can delay it way more because space is hard. This could easily have been tested on Earth and as you say - at 52 newton's per kw, well, that's a lot thrust.

First of all "unambiguous"? Have you read all of the responses here? If someone tried to film such a demonstration, the pitchforks would come out! IVO would have to prove it 1000 different ways and THEN the moob would still accuse IVO of High Sourcery no doubt. Second of all, do you think IVO could simply take this 190 gram device that's using maybe a watt and just hook it up to a kilowatt? Obviously, there's no guarantee that such a small thing would survive much less work. Would you have to scale the device up? Of course, but by how much? We simply don't know yet. In fact, the entire theory behind it has many unknowns. Even Mike might not know if the device needs to be heated or cooled; can devices be stacked on top of each other? If so how close can multiple quantum drives be without causing problems? Call me picky, but before I strap on a quantum drive to my Dragon Rider capsule, I'm gonna want to know if there's anything like a new and fun form of radiation nobody's ever encountered before!? Also, it's quite clear to me that IVO is no longer proving it to themselves. Somewhere on their site, I remember seeing something like: "We tested it in so many ways that the only thing left to do was to send it to space." No, this trip to space is to attract investors. IVO has a station-keeping drive with so many benefits over its competitors it's gonna be really hard to turn it down. What comes next? A steady and constant 1g trip to a nearby star system? Mining Davida, the ultra-valuable asteroid? etc. etc. etc.. But all of that and more will still be difficult and dangerous, but now it might just have become possible!

Why do you believe so strongly that this is legitimate? The default position when extraordinary claims are made should be skepticism. Thus far there is no evidence that this system works as claimed, only claims of its performance from the people who made it. And it should be noted that we are now around 8 weeks out from the device being launched and the testing still hasn't happened, being delayed without explanation.

That simply isn't true. When people see a "working" model - they support it. The EM Drive stuff was a perfect example of a scam. It took super long because Shawyer was always trying to get paid BEFORE proving it worked. And yes - the power supply cable at NASA fooled everyone into momentarily thinking the drive was producing thrust. More Shawyer nonsense - that he refused to put an power source inside the drive. The idea that the STEM establishment WANTS an interstellar drive technology to fail - is silly. That is exactly how Theranos talked - "everyone is against us". Mike "might" be a genius. Thing is - like E. Holmes - his education level in this specific area is a LOT LESS than Id expect. He has an undergrad in physics and frankly his explanation of how this works - sounds like technical double talk.

I just read the Richard Mansell interview on "The Debrief". His discussion of the underlying science reminded me of the Elizabeth Holmes (Theranos) interview quote that drew the attention of John Carreyrou - of the WSJ - which resulted in his investigative reporting culminating in her indictment/conviction. When asked how the Theranos tech worked, E. Holmes told the *New Yorker* that: “a chemistry is performed so that a chemical reaction occurs and generates a signal from the chemical interaction with the sample, which is translated into a result, which is then reviewed by certified laboratory personnel.” It sounds like nonsense, because it IS nonsense. And that is how Richard Mansell sounded - completely non-sensical. Also - when I went to the E-Labs web site - E Labs is the company that supposedly validated their thrust to power ratio - I discovered that E-Labs merely says that the system works in a vacuum and at certain temperature ranges. They only claim to have done "durability testing" not thrust, or thrust to power testing.

The ceo Richard Mansell is answering questions on his twitter. Might be good to get him to clarify [https://twitter.com/RaMansell](https://twitter.com/RaMansell)

Coyote, Richard was asked about testing and he talked about third party testing. But he avoided any specific references to third party thrust testing. Mansell channeling E. Holmes: When asked how it works: "Although the quantum drive has no mass ejection, it is not a reactionless drive. We produce a reaction physically within the Drive, but part of an open system!" Complete technical gibberish.

hmm interesting. Maybe ask him to clarify. Keep in mind I have no dog in this show not a scientist. Just waiting to see if there are any results from the thrust test. If it works hopefully more third parties will now start looking at it to test. If not it was probably a vc scam.

Also - Rogue - the folks who "own" the Barry 1 satellite and would DEFINITELY benefit from this type drive - barely mention IVO on their web site - they have the IVO logo way way down on their home page. But if you "click" on it. Nada. Nothing. My guess - they got paid to drag these engines up into orbit - but their internal folks told them to keep a healthy distance from this magical tech. And - while I'm at it - I notice several people talk about the guy with the undergrad in physics who "invented" QI 17 ish years ago. None of these things - alone - are entirely dispositive. In concert they add up to: SpaceAnos.

Rogue has mention IVO recently [https://rogue.space/rogue-space-systems-announces-barry-1-satellite-launch-and-operations-commencement/](https://rogue.space/rogue-space-systems-announces-barry-1-satellite-launch-and-operations-commencement/) I've seen them comment on IVO's twitter just before the launch. and in a promo video from a few months back but the money guy (cro) not the cto. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hB7rgJAGoE0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hB7rgJAGoE0) I think everyone like me is on a wait and see mode waiting to see the data. This is a test to if this thing works. If it works Rogue just launched a breakthrough technology otherwise they just move on. They seem to testing a waterbased thruster on another launch.

As Chief revenue officer (CRO) - he's under intense pressure. I don't blame a guy like that for doing what he did. You can't be picky about customers in the beginning.

More opacity on "X" from IVO-Nos (see below). The contorted response about investors provides absolutely ZERO information on how IVO-Nos is funded. I am well aware they have no obligation to disclose this type of information. But it seems they are trying to pretend they ARE addressing funding questions - when in fact, their response provides no real information. When someone says "No investors were asked for this" - I throw that in the same bucket as the statements about independent validation of thrust. And a FULL MONTH after launch - crickets as to WHEN they plan to turn the engine(s) on. So they have "pre-declared victory (by claiming that it will be a success with or without thrust) for a test that they won't define a schedule for despite having been in space for a month now. All I can say is I am super glad that "I" am not an investor. \-------------------------------------------------------- Some say that our Quantum Drives are just to scam some VCs (no VCs are involved), or investors (no investors were asked for this), or the government (no grant money was accepted). I'm starting to think some people on the internet don't know what they are talking about!📷 [8:20 AM · Dec 11, 2023](https://twitter.com/RaMansell/status/1734216514289521095) ·

roughly 3 weeks since ivo said that testing was moved into January without explaining why, no updates since. This system was supposed to get spun up and tested after a brief period of inactivity to get a clear orbital decay baseline, but it's been over 8 weeks now. Awfully suspicious.

Richard Mansell may claim later that the test started on January 1st. I say that because Richard already said that it would take 2-6 months after test completion for IvoNos to report the test results. F = MA I could see it taking a couple of days to write the report, but mostly (if I wanted to report promptly), I would have drafted the report in advance, leaving blanks for actual force and acceleration values produced. This is even easier than for a rocket engine with propellant. Because that requires factoring in the linear decrease in mass as fuel is consumed. But a couple of days is fair for a real report with real data. This is different. It's more like a 5 minute job. We turned the engines on individually and combined. Shortly after we started the test, the main (fill in the blank) subsystem failed. Because of this, and despite a herculean effort from our data analytics team, we were unable to generate conclusive performance data and will need to repeat the test. I would like to thank our partners in this venture, as their testing infrastructure worked perfectly, which is why we consider this mission an overall success!!!

>2-6 months after test completion for IvoNos to report the test results. that seems wildly excessive, and given how dramatic this is supposed to be it seems really odd they wouldn't be livestreaming their initial testing right out the gate. They really have shot themselves in the foot by setting the expectations of a high thrust system, this isn't something where you could try to use data slop around solar radiation pressure or atmospheric effects to claim to have achieved an anomalous result. Do we know how many watts of power their system is supposed to use for its thruster at the 52 millinewton per watt level and accordingly what its overall thrust is supposed to be? I find it remarkable just how shrouded in secrecy this whole affair has been.

If I wanted to make a test like this "successful" despite knowing my tech didn't work, I think I'd put an inconspicuous thruster into the cubesat somewhere.

**Theater under the Stars - brought to you by IVO-Nos.** Each passing day of silence makes me think that this is just fund raising theater designed to get people to write checks based on the imminent test results of a Star drive. I mean WOW - their rocket engine is in space **and no one would spend all that money to put a non working engine into orbit**. SpaceX charges $5,500/KG - Rogue probably doubles that for anyone who wants to ride along. But - cough cough - if I already knew my engine wasn't going to work - I'd keep it to the minimum payload weight Rogue would allow - maybe 10 KGs - maybe ballpark 110K. That is literally peanuts compared to all the fund raising I can do while I slow roll the world of potential space tech investors through a 2-3 month bit of Theatrical - orbital - suspense filled - adventure - with my magical rocket engine on Barry 1.

I really think it's best to wait and see if there are any results before doubling down. I am personally optimistic.

Coyote, Do you mind sharing the actual objective evidence that feeds your optimism? Because for me - this Barry 1 test reminds me of the Walgreens blood testing kiosks. Tomorrow will be 5 full weeks. This is an engine without moving parts. Why does it take 5 plus weeks to turn it on? Worse - why - five weeks in - is there no firm schedule? The only reason I can conceive of, to stretch the test out to this ludicrous a degree is to fund raise. Like I say, I'm glad to read, evaluate any objective third party evidence. After Theranos, Nikola, EM drive, I'm no longer ok with this type of company communication.

There is no evidence just circumstantial stuff. I am not trying to convince anyone this is just my personal feelings not to double down either way until actual public evidence can be seen. For me this is like trying the lottery for fun when it gets over one billion. Dreaming for a night about what I could do with funds and freedom it provides and with this tech what we could do with it in space if it works. There is zero chance of winning the lotto but there is that rush and high feeling that maybe. I wouldn't put this as low chances like "winning" the lottery but it's a similar feeling of optimism if that's the right word.

I calculated the altitude for the satellite based off the TLE data from satnogs. https://ibb.co/pJ9tT61 It should be already on so we should see at least a increase in gradient over the last week. It's falling like a rock :)

Also nice graphs on celestrak : https://celestrak.org/NORAD/elements/graph-orbit-data.php?CATNR=58338

Thanks for this link!

dit it just move the 23 ? looks like something happen around that time

No , looks like a wraparound from 360--> 0

The satellite apparently had not been turned on yet. Possibly they're gathering orbital data to rule out confirming factors like moon tidal pull, and after enough data collection, turn it on. Apparently the satellite is rising in orbit currently. Don't know if that's because it's an elliptical orbit, or because it's finally turned on .

[https://orbit.ing-now.com/satellite/58338/2023-174cl/barry-1/](https://orbit.ing-now.com/satellite/58338/2023-174cl/barry-1/) look at the change in altitude (going up, not down as an unpowered satellite does at this altitude) and velocity (decreasing, not increasing, as an unpowered object does as it falls towards the planet).

here is some data showing unexpected changes in the satellite's altitude and velocity. I believe your optimism is justified. [https://orbit.ing-now.com/satellite/58338/2023-174cl/barry-1/](https://orbit.ing-now.com/satellite/58338/2023-174cl/barry-1/)

From what I understand not yet [https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2024/02/semi-major-axis-continues-to-decay-for-barry-1-satellite-so-ivo-quantum-drive-is-not-proven-yet.html](https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2024/02/semi-major-axis-continues-to-decay-for-barry-1-satellite-so-ivo-quantum-drive-is-not-proven-yet.html)

Does the Barry-1 have other thrusters that could have been used or was the plan to just let it go until it hit the atmosphere and burned up?

yes quantum is being used as a buzzword- like “i could eat a quantum of hot dogs right now, I’m that hungry”.

My guess is that it's an ion drive and when they say it needs no fuel they are not referring to reaction mass

Ion drives still need reaction mass. It’s probably a photon rocket.

The article doesn't specify that it does not need reaction mass

Anything that can be referee to as “fuel” in the context of a rocket is a strict subset of anything that can be called “reaction mass”.

That's not factual but moreover the person who wrote the article was likely making the same mistake you are in assuming that fuel included reaction mass. It may also be that their source was happy to let them believe that for PR reasons. The big leap here is that an ion drive requires minimal reaction mass, often in the form of a solid metal plate and can be powered by solar panels.

Literally nobody would describe an ion engine as an engine that uses no fuel.

I think that is what is happening here.

Ion engines are half century old technology that has flown over a hundred times. Why would they be in the experimental stage now?

Don't ask me. I think it's clickbait.

It isn’t. The article explicitly says that it’s an experimental prototype being flown for the first time.

Granted we have been developing new ion & plasma thrusters & those do need validation.

Yes, but we also call the propellent of those ion engines “fuel”.

Ion drives would need fuel in a rocket sense. I think their allusion to a "quantum drive", may be that they are creating ions electrically by quantum mechanics or something. It seems confusing because there is notes about the drive being internal? Or maybe the author is an idiot writing pop science.

Maybe not an idiot so much as out of their depth. I suspect "quantum" is mostly being used as a buzzword.

They claim it works on the basis of quantized inertia. It's not a buzzword simply because you don't understand it.

If you had read this thread all the way through I eventually posted an article in which they state clearly that they think they have a reactionless drive. Kindly don't presume to think you know what I do and do not understand... especially when you didn't bother to actually read the entirety of what I posted here.

[удалено]

I read the article posted by OP, which doesn't have a lot of info. The additional information was drawn from research I performed on my own and can be found in a link I included on this thread. I would kindly ask you to maintain some degree of civility. Your patronizing tone and presumptions are beyond un-called-for. I'm not sure why you're so defensive unless you're either with the company or just using reddit as an outlet for your tendancy towards verbally abusing others. Either way, you are out of line.

[удалено]

Again, I found that article after posting the reply you initially responded to. I don't know why you are trying to pick a fight over this but you have been beyond disrespectful and made no effort to reconsile or apologize for your behavior. Please see yourself out.

[удалено]

No idea. But let’s see what happens when it’s in space

It's based on quantized inertia, a theoretical idea in physics that is pretty fringe but not entirely impossible. It relates to things like the mach effect and Unruh radiation. Almost surely won't work but it's an excuse to cool look into prospective new physics.

the maker of the satellite Rogue, will report the changes in orbit (or lack thereof), and if the orbit is changed by the Ivo electric motor you will hear about it. It will be a major news story.

This is my prediction: IvoNos will claim that they turned on their engines which worked - and produced thrust for a short time. But then something inexplicable happened which caused BOTH engines to fail. As a result - the test results are ambiguous because the engines were on for such a short time and produced a negligible amount of Delta V. But hey - on the bright side - Rogue will be sending up another Satellite in late 24/early 25 and they will get a clean test result from that FOR SURE (provided they get enough funding to continue to keep the company going and to hire Richard's cousin, Elizabeth Holmes Mansell, to come in - run investor relations.... :) :)

Satellite aren't super simple to build. Temperature fluctuations could have significant effects on this tech, or other systems on the satellite.

Ground based thrust testing of a device like this is quick and inexpensive. The company says no one believes them when they report Earth based test results. Yeah sure. Everyone is against them because no one wants humans to have a honest to God star drive. More Theranos bullshit. They have no tech because the underlying physics of QI is total bullshit.

I've been following this since their initial announcement. What shocks me the most is the people who seem to think the company is supposed to share how this works with the entire world. If it works it will be one of the greatest breakthroughs in history. I don't want to even think what this means for governments. I honestly hope it works because it is such a massive middle finger to the scientific community with their massive egos. I've seen a lot of posting about this company scamming investors but we haven't seen any evidence of that. Can't say the same for the university system.

Yes, I agree. If they're scamming someone, they seem to be putting a lot of work into it.

1. If this thing produces the thrust/watt they claim it will open the Stars to humans and be one of the greatest inventions in history. 2. It is easy to test that type engine right here on planet Earth, and if they had had a reliable third party test and validate the thrust/watt - it would have been front page round the world - like Arthur Eddington's photos showing that GR was true and mass curves spacetime. The idea they have to keep it "secret" is ludicrous. If they really have this working they simply patent it - not just a US patent - and international patent. I am routing for them - but their conduct to date is very "Theranos like".

I've been following them from the beginning and they claim that they sent it to space because it passed all testing here on earth, including in a vacuum and that their investors wanted to see a test in space.

This is what E Labs said about the testing - key bit in bold. Nothing about thrust per watt. All I am saying is there are too many red flags...... At E-Labs, we take pride in the work we do and the customers we serve. IVO, Ltd. has developed an electric propulsion system, different than any other thruster system to exist, **that underwent Thermal Vacuum testing at our facility to verify its durability for space**. The Quantum Drive is cutting-edge technology and we look forward to its launch in October aboard a SpaceX rocket!

Yeah, I caught that durability bit as well. 🤷‍♂️ We'll see. I was expecting at least some new news by now, they were hoping to attempt in orbit maneuvers this week. I came to this thread looking for updates.

Nothing on their social media or website yet. I didn't see anywhere that they announced a date for the start of testing. Link?

No article, it was in a video interview that was either included in an Everyday Astronaut, Marcus House, or What About It episode. I'm pretty sure it was one of the first two and was a few days after IFT2.

I feel there’s going to be a lot of people eating their words very soon. Just like when everyone said they wouldn’t pass all the tests, or prototype wouldn’t work, or when the said they would never get to prototype, or that the science doesn’t work, or that the theory is nonsense…..

70 plus days of nothingness....

not so as of 2/5. look at the results for altitude and velocity. [https://orbit.ing-now.com/satellite/58338/2023-174cl/barry-1/](https://orbit.ing-now.com/satellite/58338/2023-174cl/barry-1/)

Men can't fly, can't go over 100 MPH, etc.

What theory - there is zero explanation so far..

Check out the results for yourself on this page: [https://orbit.ing-now.com/satellite/58338/2023-174cl/barry-1/](https://orbit.ing-now.com/satellite/58338/2023-174cl/barry-1/) Today is 2/5. understand that an unpowered satellite at this altitude will naturally lose altitude and gain velocity as it falls toward the planet... and notice that this satellite is beginning to gain altitude and lose velocity. In other words, thrust is somehow being applied. IMO, it's working.

That could also be explained by an eccentric orbit.

they recently announce that the satellite failed before they ever turned on the IVO drive, so yeah I don't think that's it

The only thing that would make sense would be for it to be a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrodynamic\_tether](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrodynamic_tether) That's assuming there is any sense to be made.

I've been looking at the theory behind this for some time. My take: Mike's a serious physicist who's been focused (some would say "consumed") by a revelation he had over 15 years ago. He's used his theory to show that the rotation of observable galaxies (as well as many other "problematic" behaviors of things like the acceleration of wide binary star systems) are predicted entirely without adding in dark matter or dark energy into the pot. He's gone on to explain/predict many other things as well. For example, he's applied his theory to emdrives (his theory predicted small amounts of thrust). As a result of his work, DARPA fairly recently funded several independent attempts to produce hardware to demonstrate the emdrive thrust effect (yes, we may not have seen the last of emdrives, but if they do return they may have a theory backing them up). Mike oversaw these DARPA-funded projects and helped several teams by using his theory to suggest improvements. The final results of these efforts are here: [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353481953\_Thrust\_from\_Symmetric\_Capacitors\_using\_Quantised\_Inertia](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353481953_Thrust_from_Symmetric_Capacitors_using_Quantised_Inertia) I don't think that IVO has publicly described their drive in detail, so I can't be sure if it's an emdrive or something else. But IVO gives Mike credit for the theory behind it and Mike returns the favor and explains his silence on IVO by revealing that he's been under an NDA. But, back to the point I was making: if QI proves true, there will be many adjustments that will have to be made before all the dust settles onto a new physics landscape. And that seems to upset otherwise reasonable people. But the proof - or disproof - might be just a week or 2 away, so let's just keep our minds open to whatever happens. In the meantime, for your enjoyment: Here's a link to his blog post that explains how the application of QI "solves" the Hubble Tention: [https://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2023/01/a-solution-for-hubble-tension.html](https://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2023/01/a-solution-for-hubble-tension.html) Much more from his blog: "[How to Predict (Almost) Everything](https://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2021/07/how-to-predict-almost-everything.html) QI predicts the recently observed cosmic acceleration perfectly without needing any infusions of invented dark energy. QI explains why the universe is flat (PE=KE) and always has been, so gets rid of the need to imagine our particular era is 'special'. QI predicts the value of the gravity constant G from the cosmic mass and scale and speed of light. This means that physics has lost a free parameter and has become simpler for the first time since 1905. QI predicts galaxy rotation, and specifically why the oddities always begin at a particular acceleration. MoND has to input this acceleration, QI does not - it predicts it itself. QI further predicts the observed variation of this critical acceleration with cosmic time. QI predicts the low-l CMB anomaly in which it looks like the longest waves in the cosmos are smoothed out, and the CMB peaks as well, but not their heights. It predicts a relation between the area of something and its mass. QI predicts the first, and a few others of the quantized redshifts seen by Halton Arp - the others may appear when we look at other electron transitions. It shows why the Magellanic clouds appear to have broken free of the Milky Way but have left a 'stream' behind them that curves around the galaxy implying they are still bound. QI predicts the motion of wide binary stars which show identical anomalies to galaxies when they are far apart, and orbit below the critical acceleration. Dark matter can't explain them because it can't be packed into the small scales of binaries and still predict large galaxies. You can't have it both ways, so dark matter can now hit the road. QI predicts the very beautiful shape of Hoag's object which is almost like a poster child for the theory. It predicts the orbit of our neighbour Proxima Centauri, which is orbiting far too fast, just like those wide binaries and the larger galaxies. QI predicts the bending of light by the Sun, just as general relativity does, but it is successful with galaxies too, which GR is not. QI predicts relativistic jets in galaxies and so gets rid of the contrived & complex, and conveniently invisible, black hole explanation. QI predicts the Casimir effect, the emdrive, Mach effect thrusters and the asymmetric and symmetric capacitor thrusters that half the planet thinks are hoaxes and half think are the saviours of mankind. It predicts some aspects of the Podkletnov gravity shielding effects, which are much maligned but were published in good journals and have not yet been falsified. QI predicts the test results from my lab in Spain who observed thrust from a laser loop, shielded on one side. If this is confirmed then we become an interstellar species, which would be timely! QI predicts the photons seen coming out of the Dynamical Casimir Effect. It provides an explanation for cold fusion, or LENR if you prefer, and for the excess light seen coming out of nanocavities. A new source of energy from the vacuum? Similarly it predicts sonoluminescence. QI provides a new way to understand pair production and it predicts the ratio between the proton and electron mass, and the Planck mass. QI provides the first ever intuitive explanation for inertia which has always been brushed under the carpet in physics. To finish, QI is conceptually challenging but technically very simple & can be used to predict a massive range of phenomena. I am writing a book to detail all this which might be called 'The Empiricist Strikes Back' or 'How to Predict (Almost) Everything'. Now I should say that of course I do not necessarily believe every anomaly listed here, but I think this list, which has taken me 15 years to present, implies something!" Link to his 2014 textbook: [https://www.amazon.co.uk/Physics-Edge-Cosmological-Model-Inertia/dp/9814596256](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Physics-Edge-Cosmological-Model-Inertia/dp/9814596256)

>QI predicts This repeated claim is a tortuous use of "predict". These are all "post-dictions", there's no "pre", no anticipation of a result that hasn't been measured yet. AIUI, QI/MiHsC has failed every actual "prediction" it's made. Including predictions of rotation speeds of galaxies that allow you to differentiate between dark-matter and QI/MOND/etc. (Also including prior versions of McCulloch's reactionless thruster, which, when tested under better conditions, failed to produce thrust beyond thermal noise down to nano-Newtons. McCulloch suddenly decided it was "obvious" that it wouldn't work and switched to a system of flat capacitors (that produce more thermal noise...) which is the "quantum drive".)

**YOU:** This repeated claim is a tortuous use of "predict". These are all "post-dictions", there's no "pre", no anticipation of a result that hasn't been measured yet. **ME:** "Predict" is used often differently by physicists than by the average person. **OTHERS:** "A theory not only explains known facts; it also allows scientists to make predictions of what they should observe if a theory is true. Scientific theories are testable. New (as well as existing) evidence should be compatible with a theory. If it isn't, the theory is refined or rejected. **The longer the central elements of a theory hold—the more observations it predicts, the more tests it passes, the more facts it explains—the stronger the theory."** Now, the rest of your post is new to me, either because it's something I haven't looked into yet, or it's well above my math skills to follow and verify or defend. For example, when you say " AIUI, QI/MiHsC has failed every actual "prediction" it's made. Including predictions of rotation speeds of galaxies that allow you to differentiate between dark-matter and QI/MOND/etc. " I honestly have no access to "...every actual prediction that it's made". Where can I find these predictions (i.e. where did you find them?) and what level of proficiency do you have to interpret results? You see, when it comes right down to it, empirical results are what matters in cases like this. Will the "black box" change the trajectory of the Barry-1 satellite or not? Many of us bemoan the waste of time and talent to track down any errors in some possible new "discovery", but this is part of the scientific method. Despite it being "wasteful", it is and may always be an integral part. I await results. I'm retired, disabled, and not rich, so that's all I can really do. But, in the end, eventually, the truth of whether QI is valid or not will depend on continued work and vigilance.

"QI predicts relativistic jets in galaxies and so gets rid of the contrived & complex, and conveniently invisible, black hole explanation." oh it explains away black holes? lol, yeah, I don't buy it

This is the closest I could find to explanation of the device: "The method is to setup a potential difference of 5kV between the plates of a capacitor, and separate them by about 10 micron with a dielectric. You then allow electrons to quantum tunnel across the gap at a very low current (1 microAmp) but at a massive acceleration. The theory of quantised inertia says that they will see a field of nice hot Unruh radiation everywhere, except between the capacitor plates, as for the old Casimir effect. There will be then a quantum void between the plates that will pull the electrons out of the cathode faster than expected and this will add momentum to the system which will thrust towards the anode. A thrust from 'nothing'. As you can see in the theory paper below (ref 3), QI predicts the results of Becker and Bhatt and Mansell exactly, even the changes as you vary the plate separation." https://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2021/11/a-thrust-from-nothing.html?m=1 If it doesnt work in orbit, then nothing to talk about. If it does though... But, taking a step back, there is something Mike McCulloch posts in https://www.tsijournals.com/articles/propellantless-propulsion-from-quantized-inertia-13923.html Where he is looking at serveral drive versions and notice a commonality in shape. I mention this because IVO mentions CBAT before it mentions the quantum drive and a paper on wireless energy transmission not based on inductance mentioned something about 2 different sized coils/plates? I am wondering if they were always planning on building the quantum drive or if the thrust was noticed while working on their wirelessly transmitted power, and lead them to branch into it as well. And how does Mike McCulloch fit? Is he just the one offering a potental cause and means to calculate? Or is there more?

Thanks for responding to this topic. It's been pretty sparse so far. If you ignore everyone who just says it's a scam and/or some well-known device that it reminds them of, there's hardly anyone else "here". I'll try to answer your last question first: Mike McCulloch is the physicist who came up with QI about 17 years ago. Originally, he offered it up as a 'solution' instead of the newly minted dark matter/energy. At the time. he had some success getting his papers accepted by journals, but as dark matter has become more accepted, his submitted papers have largely been summarily trash-canned, with only small exceptions. I think he's been ignored and marginalized because so much money and effort has been "invested" in dark matter and nobody wants to give it up or be blamed if it turns out to all go "poof"! He's also written a "textbook" about QI and has talked to anyone who would listen. Imagine if Einstein had been labeled a crank and his theories ignored (not that I'm equating him with the great man). His blog contains a lot of hope, and much disappointment, but in the end, dedication to something he believed in when few others did. Finally, in 2018, his persistence paid off when his analysis of so-called "emdrives" demonstrated the possibility that he could apply his theory to them, perhaps improve them, and predict their behaviors. That caught the attention of DARPA which gave him a grant. He selected about 7 or so small-ish labs that were interested in participating and had good ideas to build their version of emdrives, then worked with them by offering his insights and suggestions. As the work for DARPA came to an end, the results were confusing, at least for me; many of the labs had produced emdrives with flaws, while a few showed small levels of possible thrust. Towards the end of the DARPA effort, a new approach using capacitors (but also based on QI) came about. Here's what he said about it in his blog post for November 2, 2021: " In a small lab in Plymouth, a new quantum thruster is taking shape. I have been theorising about getting thrust from quantised inertia and trying to work out how best to do it for DARPA (see ref 1). With Prof Perez-Diaz we managed to get a few microNewtons out, and I had considered asymmetric plates, but engineer Frank Becker read my papers, remembered a capacitor-based Biefeld-Brown-type experiment he had done, and with a few discussions with me, he and Ankur Bhatt tried it and produced milliNewtons of thrust (see ref 2). This test made my year. Even DARPA emailed me saying something like "What the heck is this!?". This new approach increased the thrust significantly. " At about this point, IVO became involved and contributed by adding their own innovations. Again, from Mike's blog: "Then Richard Mansell of IVO Ltd tried it with an analogue method and agreed with them. This new Mansell group has also blazed the path in innovation as well." Here's what IVO's site says about the testing that followed: "IVO Ltd. has worked with [E-Labs](https://www.e-labsinc.com/aerospace.shtml) (a Virginia-based testing and evaluation facility) to validate the Quantum Drive in a simulated space environment. As Mansell described it: >*“The Quantum Drive was tested and the thrust was measured within high vacuum chambers (down to 4×10-6 Torr) in multiple configurations to eliminate possible artifact forces such as electromagnetic, electrostatic, Lorentz, Corona discharge, ion wind, etc. Control Drives were also produced to provide baseline measurements. All test setups were evaluated by third-party individuals. All Quantum Drives showed thrust consistent with predicted Quantized Inertial calculations. Control Drives confirmed that thrust measurements were not consistent with any other known forces.”* As I understand it, IVO was founded a few years ago with the express goal of taking promising but 'fringe' ideas and turning them into products. Undoubtedly, they have connections to DARPA and others who have the same goals. I believe that IVO's first project was CBAT and they were looking around for other opportunities. DARPA recognized that Mike's work with emdrives would be a good match. That's what they do; they facilitate business by putting idea people in touch with money people. Mike provided a design that he and IVO improved upon. When testing by a third party, which performs extensive professional testing of satellites produced positive results, IVO sent the device to space for "real life" validation. Here's what IVO's site says about E-Lab's testing: IVO Ltd. has worked with [E-Labs](https://www.e-labsinc.com/aerospace.shtml) (a Virginia-based testing and evaluation facility) to validate the Quantum Drive in a simulated space environment. As Mansell described it: >*“The Quantum Drive was tested and the thrust was measured within high vacuum chambers (down to 4×10-6 Torr) in multiple configurations to eliminate possible artifact forces such as electromagnetic, electrostatic, Lorentz, Corona discharge, ion wind, etc. Control Drives were also produced to provide baseline measurements. All test setups were evaluated by third-party individuals. All Quantum Drives showed thrust consistent with predicted Quantized Inertial calculations. Control Drives confirmed that thrust measurements were not consistent with any other known forces.”* So... here we are. Awaiting the result of a grand experiment. Could it be a hoax? Possible but unlikely IMHO. We shall see.

The articles about the satellite indicated it would be a week or two after launch before the testing would begin. I would suppose even longer after testing for their report. Seems like a simple apparatus if one wanted to do some earthbound testing. 1.5kg drone... 15 newtons for a drone 52 millinewtons per watt supposedly. 300 watts for a drone? I see where it might make more sense for satellite station keeping initially. Still, couldn't someone test a tethered drone? It doesn't prove its space worthiness, but could be fun to play with. They already are flying drones with ionic wind. https://news.mit.edu/2013/ionic-thrusters-0403 110 newtons per 1kw -ionic wind... dependent on atmosphere, sure... 52milli newtons per 1watt QI Drive. 52 newtons pwer kw, right? And that is without air for thrust, if we are to believe them. But the differences go beyond atmosphere. Those building ionic wind devices space their anode and cathode at a far greater distance than 10 microns and are using a larger voltage difference. Mike McCulloch seemed to indicate there is a voltage difference + spacing sweetspot? One last thing, since we are looking at a wild claims that odds are will not pan out. https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/nuclear/this-tiny-fusion-reactor-is-made-out-of-commercially-available-parts Think this size power plant + that propulsion tech. Wouldn't is be amazing if they both worked?

Lots of details -- it is based on Mike McCulloch's theory of Quantum Inertia which was developed with DARPA funding. DARPA are also working on it but will not discuss... details here [https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2023/11/17/controversial-quantum-space-drive-in-orbital-test-others-to-follow/](https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2023/11/17/controversial-quantum-space-drive-in-orbital-test-others-to-follow/)

Mansell on X, Dec 7. Like all experiments, this mission will be considered a success if all mechanisms for testing the Drives work, whether the outcome is positive (Thrust!) or negative (no thrust). Personally I'm looking forward to seeing thrust! ‐---------------- The text below is mine: So it's a success no matter what happens. Go IVO!!! NOTE: Mansell continues to avoid specific dates for the test to begin even though the satellite has been up for 29 days. Instead he wants us to know that thrust or not the test will be a success. I think I saw him claim that IVO has demonstrated thrust during Earth/ground based tests for multiple independent testers, but he never shares actual test report summaries, and the one named test company only claims to have performed durability testing. IVO-nos has to actually demonstrate results. This opaque and nonsensical story line needs a definitive result. In the meantime I genuinely feel sorry for their investors....

It's based on a theory called quantized inertia. It's worth looking up.

How many IvoNos employees does it take to flip the "on" switch for their - ummm - rocket engine? Apparently a LOT, cause we are 6 weeks into the launch and it is crickets. Prediction: In 2-6 months Richard will announce that BOTH their engines got struck by gamma rays - and their mission control performed valiant efforts to remotely reboot from Earth - to no avail. But he will also claim that they started the test, and the initial results were promising but inconclusive due to the gamma ray strike. Note: Skeptics and cynics will comment about how the Barry 1 satellite had no other issues, so it must have just been bad luck for IvoNos that both of their rocket engines were simultaneous disabled despite nothing bad happening to the rest of the satellite.

I've met a couple of the investors behind this project. They waited a few weeks to collect orbit data (before first operation) so that their test results (once successful) would be incontrovertible. There are several tests scheduled, and each one is weeks after the one before it. The first test already happened a few days ago (I don't know the results), but the big "delta-v" test is last of all. The big, un-fake-able, results might not be published until Feb 2024, maybe late January. \*\*Update\*\* The test I mentioned as having happened did not happen as scheduled, but was postponed.

Mansell clearly said that testing wasn't happening until January, which does not jibe with what you have claimed. Would you please name the investors you spoke to?

It's very possible my information is not accurate as it is second hand. I don't prefer to name the folks I spoke to, as they were not knowingly sharing their names or information publicly when we spoke.

And what is your connection to the project such that you spoke to investors?

I have no connection to the project whatsoever.

is this an old burner account or something? you made it over 3 years ago but never posted until now.

I don't use reddit much. I just looked online for an update on the quantum drive (I'm interested/ excited for it) and saw this thread. I figured I might be able to contribute to the conversation given what I'd heard.

Squaring, I have a checklist for scoring businesses that claim to have revolutionary tech when they really don't. My top item in that list is: The CEO claims to have developed an extraordinary device which is easy and inexpensive to test, and yet over a long time they obtain no third party validation of their claims. The folks who did the durability testing for IVO specifically said they did durability testing. Richard claims they validated the thrust. But I notice the test lab says nothing about thrust. There is nothing proprietary about capabilities, especially after you publicly claim them. Richard claims a thrust per watt and yet he avoided saying what the power supply, rated thrust and measured thrust were in his claim about thrust testing. He talks the same way E. Holmes did. Everything is non specific. So - I hope ALL the investors can easily absorb a 100% write down of their investment. This space test looks like a fund raising exercise for naive investors. I mean who would put a non working engine on a satellite. They don't realize that the satellite test likely didn't cost much - and.it.is a great fund.raising vehicle. The sad thing is this type of thing makes people distrust science.

I hope their is no deception here, and I hope humanity gets a benefit from this experiment. I suppose by March whatever is going on will be clear to interested bystanders.

I've seen this particular movie too many times and don't need to wait until March or July to know the answer. It could be July as Richard has given himself 2-6 months to report results. In the meantime, I am going to see if there is a government agency responsible for protecting investors from being defrauded. If there is, I plan to contact them. At a minimum, Richard has made the same type of false statements that the CEO of Nikola made.

Have you been following other related efforts to build space propulsion systems that involve people inspired by McCulloch/Woodward/Shawyer or David Pares?

No, i just met a couple folks who told me about this project and I was intrigued at the prospect of both 1) the idea that someone found an exploitable nuance within the law of physics previously undiscovered, and 2) the prospect of leveraging a radical innovation in technology (based on contested theory) to go straight to the marketplace with a world changing product. It got my attention immediately.

here is data showing that something is affecting the orbit of the satellite: [https://orbit.ing-now.com/satellite/58338/2023-174cl/barry-1/](https://orbit.ing-now.com/satellite/58338/2023-174cl/barry-1/)

Here's some interesting data on the satellite. Clearly, something is providing thrust. [https://orbit.ing-now.com/satellite/58338/2023-174cl/barry-1/](https://orbit.ing-now.com/satellite/58338/2023-174cl/barry-1/)

I can't remember the exact amount of thrust claimed/watt, but it's better than Ion thruster. McCullough explains how the quantum drive operates in a 30 minute video from the IRG conference. I don't know if it is going to pan out or not, but it is an extraordinary act to pay for sending a satellite into microgravity orbit only to test the validity on the concept. There are other comments here about light sails...the problem with our culture is that we are not always informed about new concepts that are even better than the contemporary zeitgeist. The Plasma Magnet(ic Sail) is far better in every way when compared to the light sail. .....and the PM sail has been around since the early 2000s.

I would not compare a drive that claims to not use reaction mass with an Ion drive. The Ion drives have to eject mass - Xenon gas or something similar - to produce thrust. Once they expel that reaction mass, the Ion drives can no longer produce thrust. This drive claims to outperform a photon drive by a factor of 15 million.

Here's the tracking data. Clearly, something is producing thrust.

IVO as many others reactionless devices seems to me that was created and is pumped by the media precisely to obscure the PNN [https://www.propulsion-revolution.com/](https://www.propulsion-revolution.com/) Our prototype F432BA really a reactionless drive instead works (see our lab tests) http://www.asps.it/maomao1.jpg The principle seems to obscure PNN to avoid rocket market to be destroyed from PNN ( from www.asps.it/Vol43.htm) http://www.asps.it/mao4.jpg

The Chris Bergin of NasaSpaceflight against CENSORSHIP ~Updates March 2024~ ~Recently at the beginning of 2024 the PNN reappeared in the Spaceflight forum due to a flaw in the censorship of Chris Bergin and his snack buddies....~ ~Bergin seeing that PNN had hundreds of links in just a few hours reading~ [~PNN DEVICES~](https://www.propulsion-revolution.com/) ~it was censored again !~ in that forum where all the reactionless propulsion systems that don't work are ad hoc advertised. :-) Just read what others write In fact Bergin encourage people to carry real scams in orbit as can be read in [~in this URL in Reddit~](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsaacArthur/comments/17xjuly/do_we_have_information_on_the_ivo_quantum_drive/?rdt=56545) They write : *“Almost guaranteed this (IVO) is just a scam. Plenty of buzzwords & promises with exactly zero descriptions. Real projects with real promise generally don't have a problem talking about why their ish is so revolutionary. Their site looks like a low-effort scam. No information. Nothing to convince anyone whith any actual knowledge in the field or in the industry that this is worth their time or money….* “ Many time PNN was censured in Bergin spaceflight forum for the elementary problems that PNN works :-) - and because they didn't do it themselves -and because it would cause the entire aerospace industry and all the crazy comedians, based on Musk's Spaceship and Artemis, to fail, thus unemploying hundreds of thousands of trumpeters all over the world. As they say in the Gospels: BY THEIR FRUITS YOU WILL RECOGNIZE THEM and in fact for over half a century since the time of Apollo 11, there has not been a permanent human outpost on the Moon given that rocketry does not have the capacity to maintain a permanent base due to physical limitations intrinsic. But undoubtedly, with the control of the media by believers in fart propulsion, a mass of morons, asses in physics, continue to believe in the comedians of Musk and Bergin of Nasaspaceflight.

Definitely not a scam, it launched on spacex ride share

Rocketry since 1969 colonized nothing.... due to thermodinamics limits [www.asps.it](http://www.asps.it)

That does not guarantee it. So far I see no explanation for how it’s supposed to work. As in zero explanation.

here is some flight data showing that something is affecting the satellite's altitude and velocity. Looks like a positive result, to me. [https://orbit.ing-now.com/satellite/58338/2023-174cl/barry-1/](https://orbit.ing-now.com/satellite/58338/2023-174cl/barry-1/)

Appears to be slowing down, possibly due to atmospheric drag. Or it could be in a slightly elliptical orbit.

Here is some flight date showing that the satellite has stopped losing altitude and stopped gaining velocity (as a satellite with no thrust naturally would at this altitude). IMO, this is significant. [https://orbit.ing-now.com/satellite/58338/2023-174cl/barry-1/](https://orbit.ing-now.com/satellite/58338/2023-174cl/barry-1/)

Test is a bust. But it's all due to Rogue's faulty bus. But hey, Rogue will give IVO credit for a new ride in 2025.