Going to take a reorg swing at this/rebuild for GAN
Hey all, now that Field propulsion and Spacecraft electric propulsion are largely sorted, that leaves this and (to do) Propellantless propulsion as the last big pieces of this set of articles. I will treat this one like those but will do it here instead of a sandbox.
If you glance here: User:Very Polite Person/draft/Field propulsion#2 original Other concepts
I've got a breakout of what between this page and that seems to be all the relevant topics. If I'm missing any, please let me know. I'll start digging into new sources soon. This one will be more like the history sections on FP and SEP overall, as there's not much in the way of hard science on this side. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:43, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Charles Buhler, Exodus Propulsion Technologies, their patented propellantless thrust
For introductory info please see: Talk:Biefeld–Brown effect#Charles Buhler, co-founder of NASA's Electrostatics and Surface Physics Laboratory. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- Please provide independent sources to give us some indication of the significance of this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- Any good outside/independent coverage that could be integrated? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 14:32, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- See the media tab here:
- https://www.exoduspropulsion.space
- From the "About" tab is this interesting tidbit: "After being released from a 2-year national security hold, the first patent describing the Exodus Effect(TM) has finally been issued by the USPTO."
- The DeBrief has an article:
- https://thedebrief.org/nasa-scientist-says-patented-exodus-effect-propellantless-propulsion-drive-that-defies-physics-is-ready-to-go-to-space
- It's mentioned in this article:
- Beyond the rocket: A minireview of propellantless propulsion technologies and concepts.
- There are a lot of articles:
- https://www.google.com/search?q=Exodus+Propulsion+Technologies+review+articles
- As to their quality....
- --Timeshifter (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- I asked for independent sources. 1st source: not independent. 2nd: 'NASA scientist says...' so not independent. 3rd. Brief (sceptical) mention in passing. 4. Google search results aren't sources. If this is the best you can do, I'd forget about it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- 1st source (the media tab) listed other sources (such as Popular Mechanics). So you gave a knee-jerk response. You obviously did not look at the list.
- 'NASA scientist says...' So what's your point? You expect people to say in the narrative voice that this propellant propulsion exists and works. This is Wikipedia 101 stuff.
- 3rd source "Brief (sceptical) mention in passing". All sources covering this field have to be skeptical. It's cutting edge stuff. So that's to be expected. Article mentions it (as should Wikipedia) as part of minireview of propellantless propulsion technologies and concepts.
- Google search shows other articles for those who are interested. Feel free to forget about it all. That is your right.
- My point is that there are many sources showing that Charles Buhler and Exodus Propulsion Technologies have put out a patented propellantless propulsion, and so it should be added to this article. As to whether it really works that is another story. Time will tell.
- To not at least mention this propellantless propulsion in the article would be wrong.
- Another article: From Indian Defence Review:
- https://indiandefencereview.com/ex-nasa-scientist-finding-way-defy-earths-gravity
- Article is mistaken in saying he is a former NASA scientist. He is currently a NASA scientist as pointed out in this long Youtube interview of him posted 10 days ago.
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOWwdIuyaQA
- --Timeshifter (talk) 19:53, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- This is just another 'Electrogravitics' device. We already cover the concept in this article and I see no reason to mention this particular company, particularly not based on the very weak sourcing on display here. If and when one of these devices pans out it will be big news and we will have dozens of very high quality sources. That it is only being covered in minor or excessively credulous publications like Popular Mechanics or the debrief tells us it is not there yet. MrOllie (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- I asked for independent sources. 1st source: not independent. 2nd: 'NASA scientist says...' so not independent. 3rd. Brief (sceptical) mention in passing. 4. Google search results aren't sources. If this is the best you can do, I'd forget about it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
The current Wikipedia article covers many untested or partially tested proposals. Please see my previous replies. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- Your previous replies have failed to provide the necessary sourcing to indicate that this particular device is of any significance. Of the few sources which might pass WP:RS, none amount to anything beyond repeating Bhuler's claims. As our article notes, NASA has been receiving claims regarding 'reactionless drives' daily. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- Ones with patents are a little more credible, even though the patent office does not test them. And propellantless propulsion devices with Charles Buhler's credentials are even more credible. That is why there are so many articles covering it.
- Wikipedia doesn't need final proof that it works in order to discuss it. The articles and patent are plenty credible as primary and secondary sources that this exists. And the topic is very significant, since propellantless propulsion would be a major scientific breakthrough when proven beyond the thousands of tests he has already done. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- The US Patent Office issues over 350,000 patents a year. The existence of a patent is no evidence whatsoever of any particular significance. And Wikipedia doesn't base its content on what you can see in your crystal ball. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:15, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- No crystal ball involved as your dismissive insulting comment stated. It is a fact that propellantless propulsion is very significant. And that Charles Buhler is significant as the lead research scientist and co-founder of NASA's Electrostatics and Surface Physics Laboratory.
- --Timeshifter (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- Describing your personal opinion as 'fact' doesn't make it so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- The US Patent Office issues over 350,000 patents a year. The existence of a patent is no evidence whatsoever of any particular significance. And Wikipedia doesn't base its content on what you can see in your crystal ball. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:15, 9 April 2026 (UTC)