The IVO Quantum Drive's Orbital Test & Quantised Inertia Physics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOp_KRZSzQc

In March 2025, a SpaceX Falcon 9 carried Rogue Space Systems’ OTP-2 satellite into orbit with an unusually consequential passenger: IVO Ltd.’s Quantum Drive, a compact electrical propulsion device designed to generate thrust without expelling onboard propellant. Physicist Mike McCulloch, whose Quantised Inertia theory inspired the drive, described the mission as, as far as he knew, the first orbital test of a reactionless propulsion system and “a bit of a watershed.” The experiment didn’t deliver the dramatic orbit-raising maneuver its developers had hoped for. A problem involving the testing hardware and command-and-control system limited drive operation to less than about a minute. Yet the test wasn’t empty. The team reported apparent movement during a July activation, and McCulloch later found that the spacecraft lost approximately 600 meters less altitude than a comparison satellite over three months. That difference was close to the rough scale he calculated for intermittent drive operation—but it could also have resulted from atmospheric drag, spacecraft attitude, electromagnetic forces, another propulsion payload, or the limitations of public orbital data. The result sits in the most scientifically uncomfortable and productive category: intriguing, potentially important, and nowhere near conclusive.

From a Question About Inertia to a Spacecraft Payload

McCulloch’s route into unconventional propulsion began far from rocket laboratories. He earned a physics degree from the University of York in 1991 and a doctorate in ocean physics from the University of Liverpool in 1995. From 1998 to 2008, he worked as an ocean and wave-model scientist at the UK Met Office, later joining the University of Plymouth as a lecturer in geomatics—the mathematics of positioning and measurement in space. He’s now a Visiting Specialist at Plymouth. Over roughly two decades, McCulloch says he has produced 28 papers and four books on Quantised Inertia, along with a multiyear DARPA-supported effort to investigate whether the theory could produce measurable thrust.

The question driving that work sounds almost elementary: what physically causes inertia? Newtonian mechanics describes inertial behavior with extraordinary accuracy. Objects continue moving unless a force changes their motion, and their resistance to acceleration is proportional to inertial mass. But to McCulloch, that’s a description rather than a mechanism. While modeling waves at the Met Office, he imagined a speedboat accelerating across water. The boat encounters more waves in front than behind, producing a pressure imbalance that resists its acceleration. Far enough behind the accelerating boat lies a horizon beyond which waves can never catch up. McCulloch began asking whether an analogous process involving quantum fields and relativistic horizons could generate inertia itself.

The path from that theoretical question to IVO began in May 2019, when company CEO Richard Mansell contacted McCulloch. IVO had already experimented with high-voltage lifters, capacitors, and a wireless-power system known as Capacitive Based Aerial Transmission, or CBAT. The system treated a transmitter and remote receiver like the opposing sides of an enormous capacitor, with the surrounding air acting as a dielectric. Mansell found McCulloch’s Physics From the Edge blog while investigating unconventional gravitational and capacitor effects. McCulloch then connected IVO with engineer Frank Becker and collaborator A. Bhatt, who had reported force measurements from high-voltage capacitors and compared them with Quantised Inertia calculations.

IVO didn’t simply reproduce the earlier apparatus. Becker and Bhatt had placed capacitors on a digital balance, leaving the experiment potentially vulnerable to cable tension, electrostatic effects, vibration, heat, and electronic interference. IVO used a pendulum to reduce those problems. It replaced the Kapton plastic dielectric used in earlier work with naturally oxidized aluminium, allowing the metal to serve as the conductor while its oxide layer acted as a thin dielectric. The company also arranged multiple capacitors in a proprietary stack. McCulloch advised that the elements couldn’t be packed too closely because, within his model, their relevant Rindler horizons could interfere with one another. IVO later tested stacked hardware in vacuum below (10^{-5}) Torr at E-Labs in Fredericksburg, Virginia. Those company-reported results encouraged the team to attempt the much harder experiment: operating the device aboard a spacecraft.

Two Flights, Two Very Different Setbacks

The first IVO hardware reached orbit aboard Rogue Space Systems’ BARRY-1 satellite, launched on SpaceX’s Transporter-9 rideshare mission on November 11, 2023. BARRY-1 was Rogue’s first orbital platform and carried the Quantum Drive as a hosted payload alongside Rogue’s own computing technology. The plan was to commission the spacecraft, establish a stable orbital baseline, and then activate the IVO hardware to look for a measurable change in the satellite’s trajectory.

That test never happened. Rogue reported persistent spacecraft-bus power problems during the Launch and Early Orbit Phase. Although the company completed some testing of its Scalable Compute Platform, it lost communications with BARRY-1 after approximately two months and suspended active operations in February 2024. Rogue stated unambiguously that it “never had the opportunity to test the IVO drive.” BARRY-1 therefore wasn’t a negative propulsion result. The spacecraft entered orbit with IVO hardware aboard, but no controlled Quantum Drive campaign was completed. At most, the mission demonstrated partial flight heritage: the payload survived integration, launch, deployment, and some time in orbit.

Rogue offered IVO another flight, this time aboard the larger OTP-2 platform. SpaceX launched OTP-2 at 11:43 p.m. Pacific time on March 14, 2025—March 15 in UTC—from Vandenberg Space Force Base on Transporter-13. Rogue now lists the 8U spacecraft as active in sun-synchronous orbit. OTP-2 hosts Rogue’s second-generation onboard computing platform as well as several customer payloads, including IVO’s Quantum Drive and a separate water-based ion thruster. That multi-payload architecture expanded what could be tested, but it also created additional variables that would later complicate any attempt to attribute a small orbital change to one device.

The hoped-for IVO demonstration was not subtle. The team wanted to operate the drive long enough to produce an orbital rise approaching 100 kilometers—an effect far beyond ordinary tracking uncertainty or minor changes in drag. Instead, the activation campaign was curtailed. McCulloch said, “Movement was seen and it caused some excitement,” but the drive could operate for less than approximately one minute before a technical problem interrupted the test. In a statement relayed through McCulloch, Mansell attributed the difficulty to the surrounding test system: “It isn’t the Drives themselves that were acting up, but something with the command & control mechanism.” That distinction may be correct, but it doesn’t establish that the movement came from the drive. It means only that the planned decisive experiment was interrupted before it could produce a decisive answer.

The 600-Meter Clue

Without access to all of IVO’s internal telemetry, McCulloch began monitoring publicly available tracking data. He followed OTP-2 under NORAD catalog number 63235 and compared it with object 63220, another satellite deployed by the same Falcon 9 into a broadly similar orbit. His reasoning was straightforward: if two spacecraft began at comparable altitudes and experienced the same broad atmospheric and solar conditions, their relative rates of orbital decay might reveal an additional force acting on one of them.

Between September 30 and December 30, 2025, object 63235—the IVO spacecraft—fell from approximately 506.30 kilometers to 501.42 kilometers, a loss of 4.88 kilometers. Over the same period, object 63220 fell from roughly 504.98 kilometers to 499.50 kilometers, a loss of 5.48 kilometers. The difference was approximately 600 meters over 90 days, or about 6.6 meters per day. McCulloch published the comparison under the title “A Tale of Two Satellites” and argued that the smaller decline of the IVO spacecraft was at least compatible with intermittent thrust.

His back-of-the-envelope calculation used a proposed force of 1.75 millinewtons and a spacecraft mass of 20 kilograms, producing an acceleration of (8.75 \times 10^{-5}) meters per second squared. A 60-second activation would add approximately 0.00525 meters per second to the spacecraft’s velocity. Under his simplified orbital calculation, one such activation would increase orbital height by about 9.5 meters. If the drive operated for one minute every other day, the average effect would be roughly 4.75 meters per day—close in scale to the observed 6.6-meter daily difference. That numerical resemblance is why McCulloch considers the result encouraging.

But almost every important input remains uncertain. The assumed firing schedule wasn’t a publicly released command log. McCulloch used 20 kilograms in his calculation, while describing the spacecraft in the interview as approximately 11 kilograms. The comparison satellite was lower in the atmosphere, which could increase drag, while the IVO spacecraft reportedly had a larger cross-sectional area—about 0.05 square meters versus 0.04—which could increase its drag instead. Their attitudes, tumbling rates, thermal behavior, ballistic coefficients, and operational histories weren’t demonstrated to be identical. Public orbital elements are fitted estimates rather than precision onboard navigation records. Atmospheric density changes with solar activity, electrical currents can interact with Earth’s magnetic field, and OTP-2 carried another propulsion experiment. The 600-meter difference is therefore a clue worth investigating, not a measurement that uniquely identifies Quantum Drive thrust.

The careful conclusion is that the orbital campaign produced an interesting but statistically weak anomaly. It may be consistent with IVO’s expected force, but consistency isn’t causation. It doesn’t yet establish that a non-drag force acted on the spacecraft, that the IVO device produced that force, or that Quantised Inertia explains it. McCulloch himself acknowledged the ambiguity, noting that IVO had considered a Lorentz-force explanation for at least part of the apparent movement. He estimated that the Lorentz force was too small, but he didn’t have the detailed circuit geometry and current data required to settle the issue. The mission gave researchers a reason to run a better experiment—not permission to skip one.

What Quantised Inertia Is Trying to Explain

Quantised Inertia begins with McCulloch’s claim that inertial mass isn’t an intrinsic label permanently attached to matter. Instead, he proposes that inertia emerges from an object’s acceleration and its relationship with the surrounding quantum field. In the speedboat analogy, waves pile up unevenly around an accelerating vessel. In the quantum version, an accelerating object experiences Unruh radiation, while a Rindler horizon forms behind it. McCulloch argues that the horizon suppresses some available quantum modes, leaving more radiation pressure in front of the object than behind it. The resulting imbalance resists acceleration and appears macroscopically as inertia.

Several ingredients in that picture belong to established theoretical physics. Rindler horizons arise in the description of accelerating observers. The Unruh effect predicts that an accelerating observer perceives a thermal field where an inertial observer sees a vacuum. The Casimir effect demonstrates that physical boundaries can alter the allowed modes of a quantum field. Quantised Inertia adds the controversial steps: that Unruh radiation is the physical cause of inertial resistance, that horizons can function like mode-restricting boundaries, and that engineered cavities can manipulate those restrictions to generate net force. Acceleration-induced thermality has been investigated experimentally, but direct detection and interpretation of the Unruh effect remain debated.

A commonly presented Quantised Inertia relation takes the form

[
m' = m\left(1-\frac{2c^2}{a\Theta}\right),
]

where (m') is the modified inertial mass, (m) is conventional mass, (c) is the speed of light, (a) is acceleration, and (\Theta) is a cosmic-scale horizon dimension. At ordinary accelerations, the correction is negligible and familiar Newtonian behavior emerges. At extremely low accelerations, the correction becomes significant and inertial mass is predicted to decline. McCulloch applies that limit to stars at the edges of galaxies. Instead of adding unseen dark matter to keep fast-moving stars gravitationally bound, he argues that their centrifugal response is weaker because their inertial mass is lower. He says the model reproduces galaxy rotation using visible matter, the speed of light, and a cosmic horizon scale, without adjustable dark-matter halos.

The proposed drive mechanism applies the same concept at a radically smaller scale. Inside a capacitor, electrons undergo Fowler–Nordheim tunneling through a strong electric-field barrier. McCulloch argues that their effective acceleration can reach approximately (10^{22}) meters per second squared, making their associated Unruh wavelengths short enough to interact with micrometer-scale plate spacing. The conducting plates suppress modes inside the capacitor more strongly than outside it, reversing the ordinary radiation gradient. In his model, the electron receives an extra impulse toward the anode and transfers that momentum to the structure. That’s why “propellantless” is the cleaner term for the IVO concept. “Reactionless” implies no momentum exchange at all, while Quantised Inertia proposes an open-system interaction with horizons and quantum fields—even though that mechanism remains unconfirmed.

The Long Experimental Trail

The modern capacitor experiments began with Becker and Bhatt, who reported tests using small high-voltage capacitors with plate separations from roughly 10 to 60 micrometers and diameters around 2.5 centimeters. They observed forces reaching approximately 6 millinewtons as the plate separation decreased. McCulloch calculated a Quantised Inertia prediction for the force-versus-separation trend and said it matched the reported values without tunable parameters. That agreement helped redirect his DARPA-supported work toward capacitors, but the original balance-based setup remained susceptible to cable forces, electrostatic coupling, thermal drift, vibration, and electronic artifacts.

McCulloch and engineer Richard Arundal later built a more systematic apparatus at Plymouth University’s Mayflower Labs. Their test stand placed a foil capacitor on an ADAM LPB 223i digital balance with 0.1-milligram sensitivity and a 120-gram capacity. A calibrated Vitrek V71 high-voltage tester charged the device through a Galinstan liquid-metal connection intended to isolate mechanical cable forces, while a surrounding shield cage reduced electrical and environmental interference. The team spent approximately 16 months developing the stand and conducted at least 182 numbered test runs while refining shielding, capacitor fabrication, and data collection.

The Plymouth team reported anodeward weight changes as large as 25 milligrams, equivalent to about 0.25 millinewtons. Successful signals appeared when capacitors were heated above 50 degrees Celsius—sometimes to 64 degrees—and operated within approximately 5 to 10 percent of dielectric breakdown. Turning a capacitor over reportedly reversed the direction of the measured force. Their working prediction was

[
F=\frac{0.00014IA}{d^2},
]

where (I) is leakage current, (A) is plate area, and (d) is plate separation. Because force varies inversely with the square of separation, halving the dielectric thickness should produce four times the force. Selected tests were reported to follow that prediction. Yet about half the runs produced no measurable mass change, and those null events weren’t included in the predicted-versus-observed plot. Reliability therefore remains one of the central unsolved problems.

IVO’s program added a pendulum, oxidized-aluminium dielectrics, proprietary stacking, and thermal-vacuum operation. McCulloch’s presentation describes one first stacked test using a 0.4-kilogram device, a 15-by-15-centimeter active area, a 17.8-micrometer separation, and an observed force around 0.9 millinewtons. A separate summary in the same presentation lists an IVO vacuum result near (6 \pm 2) millinewtons compared with a predicted 5.25 millinewtons, apparently representing a different configuration or campaign. McCulloch says several groups have reported forces in the range predicted by QI, but much of that record remains unpublished, presented at conferences, awaiting formal publication, or dependent on incomplete technical information. The body of evidence is broader than a single experiment, but it’s not yet the kind of independent, repeatable literature required for a new propulsion technology.

The Experiment That Could Settle It

A decisive orbital test would need to be designed around attribution. The cleanest mission would use a dedicated spacecraft with no second propulsion payload, precision GNSS orbit determination, calibrated onboard accelerometers, continuous attitude data, magnetometers, temperature sensors, electric-field monitoring, and complete current and voltage telemetry. An active drive should be paired with a dummy device drawing the same electrical power but designed not to produce thrust. The spacecraft should execute randomized forward, reverse, and off sequences, with the command schedule hidden from at least one independent analysis team until data processing is complete.

The result would need to be synchronized and reversible. Acceleration should begin when the drive is energized, stop when it’s switched off, and reverse when its polarity or orientation is reversed. The signal should follow a numerical prediction made before the data are examined. A matched dummy load should produce no acceleration. Long activation periods should create a velocity change far larger than the uncertainties from drag, tracking, thermal recoil, radiation pressure, magnetic interaction, outgassing, attitude control, and orbital fitting. Raw telemetry and the analysis protocol should be released so independent researchers can reproduce the result.

McCulloch also proposes a laboratory discriminator that he believes would be specific to Quantised Inertia: resonance. If electron acceleration and cavity dimensions are tuned so that particular Unruh wavelengths fit—or are excluded—between the capacitor boundaries, the measured force should rise to a predicted peak and then fall as the system moves away from resonance. He argues that conventional thermal, electrostatic, or magnetic artifacts wouldn’t naturally produce a peak at the geometry specified by QI. He has applied for funding for an unambiguous test associated with the UK’s National Physical Laboratory, while pursuing numerical optimization, new papers, another textbook, and a possible future American space collaboration.

The practical reward, if repeatable thrust were confirmed, would begin with satellites rather than starships. Spacecraft often reach the end of their useful lives because they exhaust station-keeping propellant even while their electronics and solar arrays remain functional. A compact electric drive with no propellant tank could maintain orbits, reposition satellites, reduce launch mass, and operate without an exhaust plume. McCulloch contrasts the concept with the Dawn spacecraft’s ion propulsion, which generated roughly 90 millinewtons but required substantial xenon propellant and about 2,100 watts of power. The proposed IVO unit produced far less force—about 1.75 millinewtons—but its advocates argue that eliminating hundreds of kilograms of spacecraft and propellant changes the acceleration equation. As McCulloch summarized it, “Finally, we can travel light.”

Beyond that lie possibilities that remain speculative even if the basic effect proves real. McCulloch estimates that a very small continuously accelerating probe could reach the predicted inner region of the Oort Cloud, roughly 3,000 astronomical units away, in about a year. He has also calculated a 10-to-15-year journey to Proxima Centauri by accelerating to a substantial fraction of light speed, reversing the drive, and decelerating into the destination system. He discusses nanoscale “quantum launch,” levitating materials, and possible energy-generation concepts as longer-range consequences of the same physics. None is an engineering forecast, and none follows automatically from a millinewton-scale anomaly. But that’s why the IVO mission matters despite its inconclusive outcome. It carried Quantised Inertia out of papers and laboratory balances, placed a physical device in orbit, exposed the weaknesses of the existing experiment, and showed exactly how much better the next one must be.

References

Podcast and Background

• The IVO Drive & Quantised Inertia | Dr. Mike McCulloch
• Dr. Mike McCulloch — University of Plymouth
• University Research Inspires New Commercial Advances in Satellite Propulsion

IVO Quantum Drive and the Orbital Missions

• IVO Unveils the Quantum Drive at SATELLITE 2022
• IVO Quantum Drive to Fly on SpaceX Transporter 8
• Transporter-9 Mission
• Suspension of BARRY-1 Operations — Rogue Space Systems
• OTP-2 — On-Orbit Test Platform
• Transporter-13 Mission
• Breaking: Satellite Failure Scuttles First-of-Its-Kind In-Space Test of Physics-Defying Quantum Drive
• A Tale of Two Satellites — Mike McCulloch’s Orbital Analysis

Quantised Inertia: Foundational Papers

• Modelling the Pioneer Anomaly as Modified Inertia
• Inertia from an Asymmetric Casimir Effect
• Quantised Inertia from Relativity and the Uncertainty Principle
• Galaxy Rotations from Quantised Inertia and Visible Matter Only
• Propellant-less Propulsion from Quantized Inertia

Capacitor-Thrust Experiments and Theory

• Electrostatic Accelerated Electrons Within Symmetric Capacitors During Field-Emission Events Exert Bidirectional Propellant-less Thrust
• Thrust from Symmetric Capacitors Using Quantised Inertia

General Explanation and Further Reading

• Physics with an Edge — Mike McCulloch’s Quantised Inertia Blog
• An Introduction to MiHsC / Quantised Inertia
• Quantised Accelerations: From Anomalies to New Physics

by Tim Ventura

The UnLab's Coherent Matter Wave Beam & Vacuum-Fluctuation Propulsion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rwSdg3bY18

Charles Chase spent more than three decades at Lockheed Martin, including over 25 years inside Skunk Works, learning that serious innovation often means watching nine ideas fail so that one can change the world. Today, as co-founder, director and CTO of UnLAB, he’s carrying that tolerance for risk into a realm where the line between visionary engineering and experimental artifact may be measured in piconewtons: a patented system intended to make massive particles behave coherently like laser light, Casimir structures that might turn differences in quantum noise into electricity, and nanoscale devices designed to test whether asymmetric vacuum fluctuations can generate thrust. In a new interview with Tim Ventura, Chase offered a rare combination of enormous ambition and laboratory candor, describing not only a theoretical propulsion system that would require no conventional propellant, but also the moment an apparent positive result disappeared after his team discovered that the measuring device itself had been distorted during fabrication.

The Skunk Works Rule: Ten Percent Is Success

Chase’s résumé gives him an unusual position in the world of frontier physics. He spent more than 32 years at Lockheed Martin in aerospace research and development, including work involving advanced materials, vehicle systems, multispectral stealth and high-risk technology programs. He eventually became a Senior Tech Fellow, a distinction his professional biography describes as being reserved for the top 0.1 percent of the corporation’s technical workforce. He also helped establish and lead Revolutionary Technology Programs at Skunk Works, where multidisciplinary teams were tasked with transforming unconventional scientific ideas into systems that could be built, tested and potentially moved into operational use.

That experience taught Chase to treat failure differently from most conventional research organizations. He told Ventura that he has always wanted to work “at the edge,” but only when an idea has enough scientific grounding to justify a serious engineering effort. His Skunk Works group considered itself successful when approximately 10 percent of its projects came to fruition. The other 90 percent might fail technically, prove uneconomical, encounter an insurmountable manufacturing barrier or simply arrive before the surrounding technology was ready. To Chase, that didn’t mean the program was poorly run. It meant the team was attempting things difficult enough to matter.

UnLAB extends that philosophy outside the structure of a major aerospace corporation. The nonprofit says its mission is to turn breakthrough science into technologies that benefit people, the planet and the biome, while also increasing human understanding. Rather than maintaining a single large laboratory, UnLAB assembles distributed teams around particular problems. Chase has participated in projects funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Office of Naval Research, the National Science Foundation and the Limitless Space Institute, while collaborating with researchers associated with Stanford, Princeton, UCLA, Technion and national laboratories.

Chase’s management philosophy is as unconventional as some of the physics. He wants research teams to operate in an atmosphere of what he calls “joy and ease,” where creative people are given room to think, collaborate and take intelligent risks without pretending that every experiment will succeed. That culture connects projects separated by radically different technological horizons. UnLAB may investigate whether microscopic semiconductor structures can interact asymmetrically with the quantum vacuum, but it’s also developing simpler systems for refrigeration, water collection and air purification. Chase judges both kinds of work by the same question: Can it eventually help people?

A Laser Made of Matter

A conventional laser creates an organized beam of light in which photons maintain well-defined relationships in frequency and phase. Chase and his former Lockheed Martin colleague Moe J. Arman proposed creating something analogous with massive particles. Their patent, US9502202B2, “Systems and Methods for Generating Coherent Matterwave Beams,” was filed in 2011, granted in 2016 and assigned to Lockheed Martin. It describes an array of microscopic beam-generating units that produce streams of charged particles, guide them through interconnected channels and combine them into a coherent matterwave output.

The central challenge is that massive particles don’t behave exactly like photons. Changing a particle’s energy changes its momentum and de Broglie wavelength, potentially making synchronization harder rather than easier. Chase and Arman therefore proposed controlling phase without directly exchanging energy with the particles. Their concept uses the Aharonov–Bohm effect, in which an electromagnetic vector potential can alter the quantum phase of a charged particle even when the particle travels through a region without a conventional magnetic field acting on it. The current UnLAB version also invokes synchronization among coupled oscillators and resonant cavities. Chase calls the vector-potential phase shift the system’s “secret sauce.”

The most dramatic possibility would be a streaming beam of coherent matter with far greater mass and momentum density than a beam composed only of light. Chase has described such a beam as potentially being a million times more powerful than a laser, although that comparison remains a theoretical claim and depends on exactly which measure of intensity is being compared. The nearer-term objective is less cinematic but perhaps more technologically plausible: using phase-controlled particles over a very short working distance to manipulate how atoms and molecules combine. UnLAB says its calculations indicate possible feature sizes around 0.2 nanometers, approaching the dimensions of individual atoms and chemical bonds.

That could create a new route to maskless, wafer-scale atomic manufacturing. Instead of merely depositing material and etching away what isn’t wanted, a phase-controlled matter system might help guide atomic assembly, construct new material structures or encourage chemical combinations that are difficult to produce with existing tools. The concept combines established phenomena—the wave nature of matter and the Aharonov–Bohm phase shift—with a proposed synchronization architecture that hasn’t yet been demonstrated as an operating beam generator. UnLAB is seeking funding to build a prototype. Until that hardware produces a measurable interference signature or another unambiguous marker of coherence, the system remains an inventive patent and engineering proposal rather than a demonstrated matter laser.

The Casimir Effect and the Reality of the Vacuum

The Casimir effect provides a foundation for much of the vacuum-engineering research discussed by Chase. In its classic form, two closely spaced conductive plates change the electromagnetic modes permitted in the space between them. Fewer modes fit within the narrow cavity than exist in the surrounding region, creating a measurable attractive force between the plates. The effect is well established experimentally and matters in nanotechnology, where Casimir and related van der Waals forces can influence microscopic structures.

What the Casimir effect proves about the underlying vacuum is more subtle. It’s commonly described as direct evidence that empty space contains fluctuating electromagnetic fields, but Chase emphasized that the measurable force can also be calculated using formulations based on interactions between charges and radiation reaction without treating vacuum fluctuations as a literal reservoir pushing on the plates. Quantum electrodynamics requires a ground-state structure to remain mathematically consistent, and the theory produces extraordinarily accurate predictions. Whether the fluctuating vacuum should be regarded as an engineerable physical medium, however, remains partly a question of interpretation.

The uncertainty becomes even more striking at cosmological scales. The effective dark-energy density inferred from the accelerating expansion of the universe is extremely small, while a naive quantum-field calculation using a Planck-scale cutoff produces a vacuum-energy density larger by roughly 120 orders of magnitude. That staggering mismatch is known as the cosmological-constant problem. Chase sees the discrepancy as evidence that physicists don’t yet understand the vacuum’s structure or its relationship to gravity, matter and spacetime, rather than as evidence that vacuum effects don’t exist.

There are still firm restrictions on what ordinary equilibrium systems can do. A symmetric device in thermal equilibrium shouldn’t generate sustained net force, torque or electrical power. A useful effect therefore requires breaking symmetry, creating a nonequilibrium condition or using a material whose response depends on direction. In a 2021 Physical Review B paper, Chase joined researchers from Stanford, UCLA and Princeton in predicting that a particle near a nonreciprocal material could experience a lateral force and torque when the particle and its environment were held at different temperatures. That is a peer-reviewed example of fluctuation-driven motion, but the energy comes from the temperature difference. It isn’t evidence that an isolated spacecraft can draw unlimited momentum from an otherwise uniform vacuum.

Fluctuation Flow Propulsion—and the Signal That Disappeared

UnLAB’s most direct attempt to convert vacuum asymmetry into propulsion received a $275,000 National Science Foundation Phase I SBIR award in 2024. The project, Award 2432831, “Fluctuation Flow Propulsion,” proposes a compact propulsion system whose first application could be spacecraft attitude and reaction control. Because a satellite using conventional thrusters eventually exhausts its stored propellant, even a small force that could operate for years without expelling reaction mass could allow far more extensive changes in orientation, altitude and orbital inclination.

Chase’s proposed device is based on resonant tunneling structures. A resonant tunneling diode contains extremely thin semiconductor barriers surrounding a quantum well, which Chase described as being on the order of two nanometers in one design. Electrons that don’t have enough classical energy to cross the barriers can still tunnel through them quantum mechanically. When an applied voltage creates an asymmetric potential across the structure, Chase predicts that fluctuations coupling to the tunneling current will develop a preferred direction and transfer net momentum to the device.

The theoretical performance is extraordinary. Chase estimates that a sufficiently dense array could generate approximately nine newtons of force per kilogram of active device. Because the device wouldn’t consume propellant in the conventional sense, its formal specific impulse would be infinite, while its total operating impulse would be limited by electrical power, heat rejection, material degradation and device lifetime. Chase compares the goal to combining the endurance of a solar sail with thrust approaching that of chemical propulsion. No experiment has yet demonstrated that level of performance, and there is not yet a publicly established thrust-to-power value for a complete practical system.

The first tests revealed how treacherous the path from calculation to measurement can be. Chase’s team fabricated asymmetric structures on the tips of micron-scale cantilevers and used white-light interferometry to measure tiny deflections. The controls bent downward under gravity as expected, while some cantilevers carrying asymmetric devices appeared to move in the opposite direction. Chase recalled the team’s immediate reaction: “shit, it’s working!” Further analysis showed that mechanical stress introduced while depositing the structures had warped the cantilevers and contaminated the result. The experiment couldn’t support a propulsion claim. Chase said new structures were being fabricated with Sandia National Laboratories for another round of testing—an example of frontier research becoming more credible, not less, when an exciting result is discarded because the controls aren’t good enough.

Three Routes to Vacuum Power

Garret Moddel, an emeritus professor at the University of Colorado Boulder, is pursuing a related idea through electrical devices rather than propulsion. His patent US11258379B2, “Quantum Noise Power Devices,” describes circuits intended to exploit a difference between the quantum-noise environment near a Casimir structure and the environment in free space. The proposed architecture combines electrical components exposed to different fluctuation densities so that the imbalance can drive a current through a circuit.

Moddel and his collaborators reported experimental results in a 2021 paper in Physical Review Research. Metal-insulator-metal devices connected to Casimir cavities showed changes in differential conductance that increased as the cavities became thinner, along with anomalous voltage and current offsets. The authors interpreted the measurements in terms of an imbalance in hot-carrier injection associated with suppressed vacuum modes. Those findings are intriguing, but they don’t by themselves establish a continuously operating source of useful net power. Conductance changes, voltage offsets and extractable energy delivered through a complete cycle are different evidentiary thresholds.

Chase regards Moddel’s work seriously while emphasizing how easily tiny solid-state currents can mislead an experimenter. Contact potentials, trapped charge, thermoelectric gradients, dielectric relaxation and slow electrochemical reactions can behave like microscopic batteries and produce signals for long periods. A result becomes persuasive only when those conventional mechanisms are measured and excluded. Chase’s position is deliberately cautious: the data may be showing something important, but the interpretation isn’t settled merely because the signal appears correlated with cavity geometry.

Harold “Sonny” White is taking another route through US12302769B2, “Casimir Power Cell,” assigned to the Limitless Space Institute. The patent describes conductive cavity walls with a conductive antenna positioned between them, intended to detect and harvest a proposed polarization field within the cavity. White’s earlier worldline-numerics research modeled a custom Casimir geometry whose calculated negative-energy distribution qualitatively resembled a two-dimensional cross-section of the energy distribution associated with an Alcubierre warp metric. That was a theoretical and numerical result, not a demonstration of a warp field. Chase sees his resonant-tunneling device, Moddel’s quantum-noise circuits and White’s Casimir cell as variations on one broad strategy: create an asymmetric fluctuation environment and attempt to convert the difference into work. As Chase put it, “proof is always in the pudding.”

Why Replication Is the Real Frontier

The history of advanced propulsion is crowded with devices that have generated exciting signals without producing broad scientific agreement. Electromagnetic cavity thrusters, asymmetric capacitors, Mach-effect devices, Quantised Inertia experiments, gravitational coupling proposals and other systems have all produced reported anomalies. Independent teams have also reported null results or identified thermal, electromagnetic and mechanical artifacts capable of imitating thrust. Chase offered a concise assessment of the field: “lots of ideas, nothing really proven yet.”

Measuring extremely small forces is brutally difficult. Heating can expand a component and shift the center of mass. Current flowing through wires can create magnetic forces. Residual gas can produce radiometric effects. Electric fields can interact with grounded chamber walls. Patch potentials can arise on imperfect metal surfaces. Outgassing can create a tiny jet. Vibration can travel through a building, vacuum pump or support table. Even the tension in a power cable can be larger than the effect being sought. Chase’s warped cantilevers provide a nearly perfect case study: the fabrication process altered the sensor before the proposed force was ever applied.

A convincing vacuum-propulsion experiment would therefore need much more than an apparent deflection. It would require symmetric control devices, inert dummy loads, reversal of the proposed asymmetry, operation at multiple voltages and temperatures, continuous monitoring of magnetic and electric fields, and enough thermal diagnostics to model every relevant expansion and gradient. The force should change sign when the device is physically reversed, vanish when the asymmetry is removed and follow a quantitative scaling law predicted in advance. Ideally, the protocol would be preregistered and the data independently analyzed before anyone knew which runs contained active devices.

Chase also argues that accepted models can become “mode-closing” when researchers use conservation laws and symmetry assumptions to dismiss unfamiliar mechanisms before conducting an experiment. There is a provocative truth in that warning: every theory is a representation of observed nature, not nature itself. But conservation of energy and momentum aren’t arbitrary academic preferences; they’re supported by enormous bodies of successful measurement. A new propulsion effect wouldn’t make careful accounting irrelevant. It would require identifying the previously unknown field, reservoir or interaction that completes the accounting. Chase’s willingness to tolerate failure matters most when it is paired with an equally strong willingness to let a cherished hypothesis die.

Unlimited Abundance Begins at Home

When Ventura asked Chase which current project excited him most, the answer wasn’t quantum propulsion, Casimir energy or a coherent beam of matter. It was household resilience. Chase is exploring comparatively straightforward technologies that could help families cope with hurricanes, extended electrical outages, interruptions in municipal water and future climate-related disruptions. The objective is to begin with one home, expand to a neighborhood and ultimately strengthen the surrounding community.

One concept would connect a dedicated solar panel more directly to a refrigerator or freezer, reducing the conversion equipment required to keep food cold during an outage. Chase recalled power failures lasting roughly two weeks in Savannah, Georgia—long enough for an ordinary household to lose refrigerated food and basic independence. UnLAB is also investigating compact systems for gathering water from atmospheric moisture and a quiet plasma-vortex filtration device intended to remove airborne contaminants while functioning as an attractive household object rather than a noisy industrial appliance.

These projects may sound almost mundane beside a propellantless spacecraft, but they reveal the moral center of Chase’s work. “UnLAB” refers partly to an organization without a single central laboratory, but Chase also uses it as shorthand for “unlimited abundance.” He believes scarcity isn’t always an unavoidable physical fact; it can also be the result of limited imagination, poor distribution, inefficient systems and a failure to collaborate. Abundant clean energy would transform civilization, but so would a modest device that keeps medicine cold, produces safe water or reduces respiratory disease in a vulnerable community.

Chase’s portfolio spans an almost absurd range of scale: angstrom-level manufacturing, microscopic Casimir cavities, spacecraft propulsion, refrigerators, clean water and the social conditions that allow unusual ideas to survive long enough to be tested. What connects them is the Skunk Works habit of identifying a consequential problem, assembling people from different disciplines and building the smallest experiment capable of producing a meaningful answer. Quantum propulsion may fail. Casimir power may turn out to be a subtle solid-state artifact. A coherent matter beam may encounter insurmountable decoherence. But Chase’s argument is that civilization can’t discover the transformative 10 percent without giving serious people permission to explore the other 90—and insisting that, when the data arrives, they tell the truth about what it says.

References

Interview and Background

• From Skunk Works to Quantum Propulsion: The UnLAB’s Frontier Physics | Charles Chase
• UnLAB Homepage
• The UnLAB YouTube Channel
• Charles Chase — Google Scholar
• Charles Chase — LinkedIn
• Charles Chase — Advanced Propulsion & Energy Presentation, January 20, 2022
• UnLAB Advanced Propulsion and Energy IV — 2022 Archive

Coherent Matter Waves

• Coherent Matter Wave / Phase-Controlled Matter Beam — UnLAB
• Systems and Methods for Generating Coherent Matterwave Beams — US9502202B2

Fluctuation Flow Propulsion

• UnLAB LLC — Fluctuation Flow Propulsion
• SBIR Phase I: Fluctuation Flow Propulsion — NSF Award 2432831
• Nonequilibrium Lateral Force and Torque by Thermally Excited Nonreciprocal Surface Electromagnetic Waves

Garret Moddel and Quantum-Noise Power

• Quantum Noise Power Devices — US11258379B2
• Casimir-Cavity-Induced Conductance Changes

Harold “Sonny” White and the Casimir Power Cell

• Casimir Power Cell — US12302769B2
• Worldline Numerics Applied to Custom Casimir Geometry Generates Unanticipated Intersection with Alcubierre Warp Metric

by Tim Ventura

Viktor Schauberger’s Repulsine: Exploring a Lost Propulsion Mystery

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXwa9kybxns

Denny Okudinani’s presentation on Viktor Schauberger’s Repulsine offers a unique invitation to look again, build again, and give one of the most mysterious machines in alternative propulsion the patient, hands-on treatment it’s rarely received. With humor, historical curiosity, technical imagination, and sincere respect for Schauberger’s legacy, Okudinani doesn’t simply retell the Repulsine legend. He tries to bring it back to the workbench using 21st century tools and technology.

The Mysterious Origins of Viktor Schauberger’s Repulsine

Denny Okudinani begins his Repulsine presentation in a way that immediately tells the audience what kind of researcher they’re listening to. He’s trained in physics and computer science, but he doesn’t lean on credentials as a shield. Instead, he presents himself as someone drawn to hands-on research — someone who got curious, gathered what he could, opened CAD software, and started trying to understand Viktor Schauberger’s machine from the inside out.

That tone matters. The Repulsine has spent decades surrounded by mystery, speculation, wartime fragments, and arguments over whether it was a real breakthrough or a misunderstood artifact. Okudinani doesn’t flatten that mystery into a simple yes or no. He approaches it as a living problem: part historical investigation, part engineering puzzle, part philosophical dispute over how science should treat ideas that don’t fit comfortably inside accepted categories.

His central proposal is careful in an important way. He suggests that the photographed Repulsines known today may not have been the machines that actually flew. They may have been prototypes, principle demonstrators, or developmental versions pointing toward something more complete. At the same time, he argues that the historical accounts are too persistent and too technically suggestive to dismiss without serious examination.

That balance gives the talk its heartbeat. Okudinani isn’t merely asking the audience to believe in a famous lost flying machine. He’s asking them to consider that the surviving artifacts, the reported missing components, the glow described in historical accounts, and Schauberger’s broader body of work may belong to a larger technical story that still hasn’t been properly reconstructed.

Science, Speculation, and Stigma

A large part of the opening is devoted to pseudoscience, heresy, and the scientific method. In a colder presentation, that might feel like throat-clearing. Here, it feels more personal. Okudinani knows the Schauberger world has often been dismissed from the outside, and he wants to define the terms before the audience enters the machine.

His definition of pseudoscience is not simply “something strange.” It’s a way of thinking that rejects or sidesteps the scientific method, or treats belief as equal to tested knowledge. That distinction lets him make room for unconventional research without giving up standards. For Okudinani, an idea can be unfashionable, incomplete, or difficult to explain without automatically being pseudoscience.

The “white raven” theme is one of the presentation’s most useful moments. Scientific consensus matters, but one verified exception can force a revision. That’s the spirit he brings to Schauberger. He’s not arguing that every extraordinary claim should be accepted. He’s arguing that claims should be tested with patience, intelligence, and enough humility to admit that the world has surprised experts before.

This is also where the talk connects emotionally with an audience already open to Schauberger’s ideas. Many people who follow implosion research, alternative propulsion, or natural energy systems have seen good questions brushed aside too quickly. Okudinani gives that frustration a constructive outlet. Don’t retreat into belief, he implies. Don’t accept ridicule as proof either. Build, test, compare, revise, and keep going.

Schauberger as Forest Inventor

When Okudinani turns to Viktor Schauberger himself, the presentation warms into a portrait of a man whose ideas grew from observation rather than abstraction. Schauberger appears as a forest warden, naturalist, inventor, environmental thinker, and lifelong student of water, motion, temperature, pressure, and form. The family motto, “Faithful to the silent forest,” becomes more than a biographical detail. It becomes a key to the entire worldview.

Okudinani treats Schauberger’s unusual language with generosity. He compares reading him to reading Carl Jung: dense, symbolic, pictorial, and sometimes difficult for technically trained readers to parse. That’s a fair and helpful frame. Schauberger often described processes in words that don’t map neatly onto modern engineering terminology, but Okudinani’s point is that unusual language doesn’t necessarily mean empty language.

The presentation is especially strong when it shows that Schauberger’s work wasn’t limited to the Repulsine. Okudinani walks through log flumes, meandering flow principles, water-treatment devices, vortex mixing, home-generator ideas, trout-engine concepts, and the later efforts of Walter Schauberger and the Pythagorean-Kepler School. The Repulsine then becomes one expression of a wider pattern rather than a lonely object floating in myth.

This wider context helps readers and listeners understand why Schauberger still matters. Whether one approaches him as inventor, natural philosopher, environmental pioneer, or misunderstood technologist, his core intuition remains powerful: nature moves in curves, spirals, gradients, vortices, and living rhythms. Okudinani’s presentation honors that intuition and asks what might happen if it were translated into a serious modern research program.

Implosion as Operating Myth and Mechanism

At the center of the talk is the contrast between explosion and implosion. Okudinani presents modern technology as largely explosive: outward, hot, expansive, and waste-producing. Schauberger’s world is different. It’s inward, cooling, formative, vortical, and organized around concentration rather than dissipation.

This is where the Repulsine becomes more than a machine. It becomes a symbol of another technological imagination. Instead of forcing nature through heat and pressure in the usual way, Schauberger tried to work with natural forms of motion. The Repulsine, in that reading, is not just an aircraft or turbine. It’s an attempt to embody a different relationship between energy, matter, motion, and medium.

Okudinani connects this to fluid dynamics through solitons, Bernoulli effects, vortex behavior, and Helmholtz-style thinking. He doesn’t turn those ideas into a finished engineering proof, but he uses them to sketch a possible working language. In his view, the Repulsine belongs to a family of implosive systems that retain, redirect, and organize motion rather than simply expelling mass in the familiar explosive manner.

For a sympathetic audience, this is one of the presentation’s most compelling themes. It gives language to something many Schauberger readers already sense: that the Repulsine can’t be understood if it’s judged only as a conventional fan, duct, turbine, or rocket. It may have to be studied as a vortex machine, a pressure transformer, and perhaps a resonant geometry whose effects depend on subtle relationships among flow, form, speed, material, and surrounding medium.

Lore, Missing Parts, and the Upper Chamber

Okudinani labels the historical-account section “Lore,” but he doesn’t use the word dismissively. He treats lore as a clue field: not laboratory proof, not something to swallow whole, but not something to throw away either. The accounts from Callum Coats and Olof Alexandersson become pieces of a puzzle that still asks to be sorted.

The most dramatic reports are familiar to many Schauberger readers: a device rising unexpectedly, damage to a ceiling, a powerful levitational force, American investigators appearing, parts being seized, and a key component allegedly missing or removed. Okudinani doesn’t present these as settled engineering data. He presents them as stories that may preserve technical hints, especially around the question of what the known Repulsines lack.

His missing-component argument is one of the talk’s strongest historical threads. If the surviving photographed machines didn’t fly, and if an operational version did exist, then the crucial difference may have been in the upper assembly: the cowl, cone, impeller-like form, acorn structure, or another part not fully understood from the surviving images. That gives the lore a practical direction. The mystery is no longer just “Did it fly?” It becomes “What configuration would have made flight possible?”

Okudinani also challenges the repeated idea that an emulsifier was the missing key to the Repulsine. In his reading, that association may have drifted in from other Schauberger mixture devices or from later commentary. He argues that the flight accounts themselves don’t require an emulsifier. For researchers trying to untangle decades of Schauberger interpretation, that kind of distinction is valuable. It clears away one possible confusion so attention can return to the machine’s geometry and operating principle.

The Builder’s Contribution

The most persuasive part of the talk is Okudinani’s own reconstruction work. This is where the presentation moves from interpretation to craft. He gathered images, studied historical photographs, counted slots, counted rills or gills, studied diaphragm waves, modeled features in Fusion 360, adapted delicate parts for 3D printing, and produced a physical Repulsine-style object.

That matters because the Repulsine has often lived as an image, a rumor, or a diagram. Okudinani brings it back into physical form. Even if the printed version isn’t a working machine, it’s a serious step toward making the discussion concrete. Once geometry becomes buildable, it can be shared, inspected, modified, machined, spun, measured, and improved.

He’s also admirably honest about what his model is and isn’t. He says he didn’t test the 3D-printed version and that it probably wouldn’t be good for testing because it’s weak. That honesty strengthens the whole presentation. He’s not selling the print as proof. He’s offering it as a reconstruction, a reference point, and an open-source starting place for others who may have better tools, materials, or test facilities.

For a community that cares about Schauberger, this may be the presentation’s most important contribution. Okudinani doesn’t merely defend the Repulsine in words. He moves the conversation toward files, forms, tolerances, fabrication, and future experiments. That’s how a mystery becomes a research program.

A Presentation with Too Much in It

Part of the charm of Okudinani’s presentation is that it’s unmistakably his. The slides mix gothic fonts, historical images, AI-enhanced sketches, memes, cats, diagrams, screenshots, CAD models, and speculative propulsion graphics. It’s not a sterile academic deck. It’s a personal map of one researcher’s mind moving through Schauberger’s world.

That style will appeal to many readers who are tired of lifeless technical presentations. Okudinani is funny, candid, occasionally self-deprecating, and willing to show the messy path by which independent research often happens. He talks about being a millennial and Zoomer, about scraping the internet for images, about sneaking time on library 3D printers, and about keeping quiet around people who would’ve mocked the work before understanding it.

At the same time, the presentation does try to carry a lot. It moves from pseudoscience and scientific heresy to Schauberger biography, implosion theory, Mach’s principle, solitons, Bernoulli’s principle, Helmholtz vortex theorems, ionization, lightcraft analogies, historical accounts, Repulsine variants, emulsifier misattribution, and CAD reconstruction. That breadth gives the talk richness, but it also means the most original material arrives after a long runway.

A future version could become even stronger by trusting the Repulsine earlier. The reconstruction work, upper-chamber mystery, and open-source modeling are strong enough to lead the talk. The philosophy of science material still belongs, but it could be tightened so that the audience reaches the machine sooner and spends more time with the evidence, geometry, and next experiments.

What the Talk Proves, and What It Doesn’t

A warmer reading of the presentation doesn’t require pretending every claim has been proven. In fact, Okudinani’s own best instincts point in the opposite direction. He returns again and again to experiment, repeatability, falsifiability, and the need to examine claims rather than simply defend or dismiss them.

The talk doesn’t prove that the Repulsine flew. It doesn’t establish a complete working lift mechanism, and it doesn’t provide measured thrust, power, torque, pressure, airflow, charge, temperature, or vibration data from a functioning build. Those are still the questions ahead. But it does show that the Repulsine can be treated as a serious reconstruction problem rather than only as a legend.

That’s the right path for the Repulsine. The next stage isn’t another argument over whether the story is beautiful or impossible. The next stage is controlled testing: stronger builds, careful machining, measured RPM, input power, torque, pressure, airflow, vibration, temperature, acoustic effects, electrostatic behavior, and any measurable vertical force. The question deserves instruments.

For believers and open-minded readers, that shouldn’t feel like a retreat from the mystery. It should feel like the natural fulfillment of it. If Schauberger was right that nature hides power in inward, vortical, temperature-sensitive motion, then carefully designed tests are the way to reveal it. If the known designs are incomplete, testing can help show what’s missing. If certain geometries produce unusual pressure or charge effects, measurement can separate the real signal from the noise.

The Value of Caring

The Repulsine has always attracted extremes. Some people treat it as a proven lost technology. Others treat it as a fantasy unworthy of a second look. Okudinani’s presentation is refreshing because it lives between those poles. It’s warm toward Schauberger, open to the possibility of something extraordinary, but still oriented toward experiment.

That makes it especially useful for a community that already feels the importance of Schauberger’s work. A presentation like this doesn’t need to convert the converted. It needs to help believers become better researchers, better builders, better documentarians, and better testers. Okudinani does that by showing both reverence and method.

The real gift of the talk is not certainty. It’s momentum. It gathers historical fragments, theoretical possibilities, visual evidence, CAD reconstruction, and personal conviction into a single forward-facing question: what happens if we rebuild this carefully enough to let the machine speak for itself?

That question is worth asking. It’s worth asking because Schauberger’s ideas still stir the imagination, because nature’s forms still exceed our habits of engineering, and because mysteries only become knowledge when someone cares enough to do the work. In this presentation, Denny Okudinani shows that he cares — and he gives others permission to care more rigorously with him.

References

• Denny Okudinani — The Repulsine: A Short Overview (YouTube)
• Denny Okudinani — ResearchGate Profile
• TheMillennialZoomer — YouTube Channel
• TheMillennialZoomer — Thingiverse Designs
• Denny O. — GrabCAD Profile
• Pythagoras Kepler System / Schauberger Family Trust
• PKS — Introduction
• The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume I, Chapter 1: Atoms in Motion
• NASA Glenn Research Center — Bernoulli’s Equation
• NASA Glenn Research Center — Bernoulli and Newton
• MIT OpenCourseWare — Fluid Dynamics Lecture 13: Helmholtz Vortex Theorems
• Caltech Vahala Research Group — Soliton Generation
• NASA Technical Reports Server — Analysis of the Laser Propelled Lightcraft Vehicle
• NASA Technical Reports Server — Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project
• NASA Technical Reports Server — Prospects for Breakthrough Propulsion From Physics
• Olof Alexandersson — Living Water: Viktor Schauberger and the Secrets of Natural Energy
• Callum Coats — Living Energies: An Exposition of Concepts Related to the Theories of Viktor Schauberger
• Viktor Schauberger / Callum Coats — The Water Wizard: The Extraordinary Properties of Natural Water
• Viktor Schauberger / Callum Coats — The Energy Evolution: Harnessing Free Energy From Nature
• Viktor Schauberger / Callum Coats — Nature as Teacher: New Principles in the Working of Nature
• Viktor Schauberger / Callum Coats — The Fertile Earth: Nature’s Energies in Agriculture, Soil Fertilisation and Forestry

by Tim Ventura