The Gap Between Simulation and Reality Costs Money
I need to be straight about where this project actually is.
The simulation works. The physics is verified. The interactive model shows a measurable directional force bias from pulsed offset rotation, and it vanishes when you remove the pulse — exactly as the theory predicts.
None of that matters yet.
What Simulation Can and Can't Do
A simulation can prove the maths is correct. It can show that time-asymmetric centripetal forcing produces a directional bias on a housing. It can let you tune parameters and watch how offset, RPM, and pulse strength interact.
What it can't do is tell you whether a steel ball rolls smoothly through an offset channel at 2000 RPM. Whether the vibration at that speed destroys the track or the bearings. Whether the real-world friction profile matches the Coulomb model. Whether the housing resonates at a frequency that corrupts the measurement.
Those questions can only be answered by building the thing.
What Building Costs
I've broken the project into seven phases, each designed to answer a specific question before spending money on the next one. The total is £39,100 across all seven phases — but the whole point of the phased approach is that you stop if the answer is no.
Phase 1 — £4,500. A Bambu Lab X1 Carbon 3D printer and materials for the first race track parts. The question: does the ball roll through the channel?
Phase 2 — £3,800. Precision CNC machined steel race tracks. ESP32 motor controller. Instrumented single-pair prototype. The question: does the physical device produce measurable directional force?
Phase 3 — £5,200. Full six-assembly counter-rotating prototype. Load cells. Data acquisition. The question: does the force scale as the simulation predicts?
Phase 4 — £6,100. Refined housing, environmental testing, vacuum chamber runs. The question: does it work under conditions closer to the target environment?
Phase 5 — £8,500. Independent university lab verification. Witnessed measurement at an accredited testing facility. The question: can someone else reproduce the result?
Phase 6 — £5,500. Documentation, technical paper, conference presentation. The question: does the work stand up to peer scrutiny?
Phase 7 — £5,500. Living costs during the intensive build phases. Because I can't do this work if I can't keep the lights on.
Every result gets published — positive or negative. If Phase 1 shows the ball doesn't roll cleanly, that gets published too. No hiding negative results.
Where I Actually Am
I'm a solo researcher. Single parent. Working from a desk in my living room. Universal Credit covers the basics. The simulation was built with Claude Code on a machine I already own.
The research is real. The simulation data is honest. The funding routes exist — UK Space Agency Accelerator, Innovate UK Smart Grants, ESA BIC UK. I'm pursuing all of them.
But grant applications take months. The physical prototype could start tomorrow if the money was there.
Right now, the gap between "the simulation shows a clear result" and "here's a physical device you can test" is exactly £4,500. That's Phase 1. A printer and some filament.
Everything after that depends on the answer.
The Ask
The funding page is live. Stripe checkout. You can contribute any amount toward any phase.
I'm not asking anyone to believe the device works. I'm asking for the chance to find out whether it does. And I'll publish the answer either way.
If you've tried the simulator and you think the question is worth answering, the funding page is how you help answer it.
Built with Claude Code. Published at indigo-nx.com.