NASA Veteran’s Propellantless Propulsion Drive That Physics Says Shouldn’t Work Just Produced Enough Thrust to Overcome Earth’s Gravity


He apparently has one relevant patent and two related pending applications:


This is a 5 hour video. Is there a timestamp, or written summary to narrow the content down? Who has independently verified this?


I am increasingly coming to the point of view that videos are an extremely inefficient way to convey information. Who has the time for a 5 hour video?

However, there is a rather diffident English academic who has been supported by NASA for his work on “Quantized Inertia”, a Professor Mike McCulloch. He has talked about modified inertia from a Hubble-scale Casimir effect – which explains the motion of stars around galaxies, eliminating the need for the dubious hypothesis that most of the matter in the Universe is “Dark Matter”. The same effect also could provide the kind of thrust hypothesized by the UFO community.

I freely admit that I do not understand Prof. McCulloch’s hypothesis or how it could provide thrust – but the Casimir effect is undoubtedly real.


I routinely listen to / watch multi-hour videos, but that’s based on past good experiences with the host, interview, etc. The EM drive got extensive review, but has yet to produce clear evidence of results.

The problem with a video like this is that anyone can produce a video that shows any result. Claims can be made and not challenged, like the nonsense flat-earther videos.

The Casimir Effect is real, but no energy can be extracted from it. It is evidence of virtual particles at extreme small scales. I’ve read some of the QI stuff, but I haven’t found it convincing.


I have never seen a nonsense flat-earther video … but I have seen lots of nonsense Anthropogenic Global Warming videos and nonsense Covid-19 videos. So, yes, people do make nonsense videos.

Something I have noticed over the years, and many other people have mentioned the same phenomenon – our internal nonsense beliefs.

On several occasions, I have formulated a hypothesis about something, talked to people and won at least their grudging support – but when I finally started to write down the hypothesis and lay out the logic & supporting information, I found that the hypothesis was much less convincing than I had thought … or even plain wrong. Videos have their (limited) place, but for serious topics, the discipline of laying out the issue in writing is much more effective and more efficient (for the audience). Of course, others may think differently.


In fact, the following claimsets have a great deal of similarity, but are all nonsense:

  • Earth is flat
  • Covid-19 vaccine is safe and effective
  • Moon landings were a hoax
  • Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming

All of them:

  1. Make claims that are logically inconsistent
  2. Make predictions that are proven false, yet the belief is unshaken
  3. Claim that anyone who disagrees is funded by a cabal
  4. Claim that anyone who disagrees is “not a real scientist”

However, at least QI and the EM drive make claims that can be tested. If you want to address any of the others, I’d be happy to (though would prefer a separate discussion to this one). My questions about this video are: 1) does it make claims that can be tested, and 2) has anyone who is not promoting the idea tested them.


I’ve noticed that several otherwise reasonable and intelligent thinkers have been “turned” into believing nonsense after watching videos. So there’s a real phenomenon here: the persuasive effect of a speaker can have a disproportionate effect.


What does the phrase “electrostatic pressure force” mean?

Looking at the drawings, it seems that they’re somehow supposed to be taking advantage of the fact that electrostatic charge distribution on closed shells is highest on areas where the curvature is greatest. This, then, is supposed to create an imbalanced “electrostatic pressure” that creates a greater pressure*area=force on one surface than over the opposing surface.

So, ok, now we have to ask what is “electrostatic pressure”? Well, if you have charges right next to each other, they repel each other along a tangent to the surface. At static equilibrium these forces (per infinitesimally thin shell’s cross sectional areas) are balanced and are totally contained within the surface so there is no “pressure” external to the shell.

But then I suppose there is the “pressure” that would, at appropriately high voltages, cause an arc breakdown from the high concentration of charge at the highest curvature – spewing electrons (assuming the potential is negative) into the surrounding space. But, where does the charge go?

In all, this is highly reminiscent of:

In particular:


Smoking gun associated with McMinnville:


The Original Post about a “NASA veteran”, gets weirder with this 2004 patent application by mystery man, the late "John Quincy St. Clair II" which is clearly prior art.

Mr. St. Clair died 3 months after the publication of this Youtube on his patents:

That video does not mention that he was born in South Africa.

Descending further into the rabbit hole, then there is this court case against the NSA by one “John St. Clair Akwei” (Akwei is an African surname) (and further background at this link):