"The Flying Car - A Black Swan Hiding In Plain Sight", originally posted on AngelList, May 3, 2016.


KGE is developing an optomechanical photonic pump that allows aerospace enterprises to manage gravity with a device which enhances the inherent capability of matter, e.g., hydrogen, to absorb and expel light, causing continuous loss of mass and radiation pressure.

A detailed technical description is provided at breakthrough propulsion physics.

This is called “gravity transparency”, "The Flying Car", or simply and colloquially, antigravity from hydrogen, (slides). Here are a few recent promotional images, anti-gravity technology.

Since the satellite industry currently enjoys far more interest than gravity technology, this should probably be first marketed along the lines of "continuous photonic propulsion -- the light-burner" or "hydrogen light pump-jet". It's also much easier to start on a small scale. Once that effort draws interest, the astounding capabilities and larger applications should become clear. There will be no going back.

1. What is the business problem you are solving?

Everybody wants cheaper transportation, but aerospace companies pay too much to produce what they sell. They are coasting on the inertia of historical technological development. They need reusable, cheaper, renewable, sustainable, more efficient and never-ending reloadable fuel. Their "pain" is that they know something far better must be out there, but have no idea what that might be. KGE relieves that pain with a "black swan" solution five hundred years ahead of its time. We remove a technological barrier by reframing gravity, disrupting the current stagnation, and addressing the problem with an actionable solution. Inspired by nature itself and informed by science, KGE provides a valuable, singular update from current Newtonian-based technology by using relativity theory. This is a major upgrade, removing pain most people don't even know they have, ticking along with pre-Einstein solutions. The true pain here is incalculable, the human problem of being a single planet species. The solution is hiding in plain sight, "unknown public information*”, as it were, and is best actualized through the entrepreneurial system, which is obligated to pursue it. That's you.

2. What is your specific solution and value proposition?

KGE's solution is its device to manage gravity. This is highly valuable to customers due to a first-(and only)-of-a-kind scarcity which provides exponentially superior, i.e., billions and trillions, not mere “10x”, cost efficiency. Of course, this will require a technical explanation to technical people, but simply, recall that only two pounds of plutonium exploding caused Hiroshima. That is the kind of capability in nature we are harnessing, and we do it repeatedly, in the femtosecond range which nature allows. Imagine that kind of efficiency used to smoothly overcome gravity with continuous radiation pressure. This new approach has no competition (other than the current old approaches) and is protected by both a provisional utility patent and trade secret law. No one else is proposing passing light through matter continuously, they're only using Newtonian “one and done” explosions to create “force” and similar concepts. Quantifying the value in customer terms, once understood, this is nothing less than a “must-have”.

3. How big and growing is the total market and your target segment?

The target segment here is the entire transportation sector, except recreational. Predictably, my personal feeling is that trillions of dollars will flow from this concept. But then, I'm putting it out there mainly because I stumbled upon something very useful, not to make money. Once it is understood what is described here, money sort of loses its meaning, even to those of us that still need it. Growth rate predictions are similarly not meaningful. It's probably a paradigm-shifting one-of-a-kind black swan, but possibly just a tin foil hat pipe dream. As someone who made quantified business risk decisions for many years, I wish I could be more helpful. But you'll first have to understand the science, then look at the history of technological development, especially the disruptions, and use your own best judgment. Pick a heuristic, I had to do that too over the years. Eyeball it. Gut feel it. Maybe hear me out, then grill me with questions. Nature and science make the case for themselves.


4. How does your business model make money?

Currently, the seat-of-the-pants plan is to license the technology to aerospace and transportation enterprises, then perhaps take over a few of those. Eventually, through us or others, it will extend to a much broader customer base and the individual consumer. Almost complete market penetration is expected, it's for everybody who moves anything or goes anywhere. KGE's current strengths are in firing the imagination and explaining technical possibilities, not business modeling.

It is recognized that expert help is needed here.

5. Who are your competitors, and how do you win?

The top three competitors are hydrocarbon and chemical combustion or combination, as well as concepts such as the solar sail, EM drive, Cannae or Q-Drive, and others. These are mostly Newtonian, using quaint concepts like thrust and force. Their only advantage is as legacy systems. Each competitor can be compared and contrasted in great detail and they are discussed on the confidential website. That's probably better-suited for a long pitch with Q&A than here. KGE's general advantage is the enlightened use of relativity theory. We have a much clearer picture of gravity, and transcend current engineering informed mostly by Newtonian thought. Goddard and the Wright Brothers didn't know what we do now, and yet we are still using their systems. Who has re-visited all this on a clean sheet of paper? KGE has. We argue that nature and science make this solution inevitable. Its only barriers are that it is nascent, unknown and unvetted, with no traction. Other than that, things are going great, with the future still stuck on the AngelList Blog. But yet another advantage we have is that there is an AngelList Blog, and ideas can be shared quicker than in Goddard's and the Wright Brothers' time. So, the future won't be stuck here for long. As those innovators previously demonstrated, nature's superior solutions simply will not be denied.


6. What are your specific marketing and sales plans?

It might be best to position this as a "strategic acquisition”, a “must have” to be “first to market” and carrying an unfathomably large opportunity cost risk. It seems like a perfect vanity project for tech companies and venture capitalists flush with cash and looking for more headlines, which would later filter into established aerospace concerns**. Then again, that directly contradicts what was said above in 4. So, as you can see, the vision here is about as sophisticated as Bill Gates' dad's personal computer market projections in 1980. For now, it's ad hoc and week-to-week until this attracts some attention. As soon as it's even taken half-seriously, the cache of being even marginally involved with this should attract them like flies. That's just human nature. But this time, the next big thing really is that big.

Further, as a highly speculative potential black swan with a nascent, unvetted technology, first let us say we will never, ever use words like “rollout”, nor will we “drop”. We can try to make our best guess as to strategic partners, and are actively looking for advisors and industry connections. Our unused "potential customers" slide says “Insert Gratuitous Logos Here”, because that sort of unseemliness is usually pure fluff. Specific milestones include “Get Attention ASAP” and the like. I once planned and scheduled the entire Hot Functional Test (HFT) milestone for startup of a nuclear plant and can't make up phony “milestones” here and now for this; it's too soon. It'll be typical product development for hardware, that's the template. For the record, there are primitive prototype pieces sitting in my kitchen, and it may be possible to make a little video once this post is done. Until then, I can easily make do with “antigravity” examples such as levitating water, to wit, clouds, which have the distinct advantage of already existing.

Things like pricing details and sales channels are too far ahead to speculate upon. Although our customized marketing plan – be the first on your block to jump ahead five hundred years – is pretty solid.

So, as you can see, and all kidding aside, this needs your help.

7. How is your team uniquely qualified for this venture?

The team right now is nature as it exists, the science that describes it, and me, Bryan Kelly. Briefly, I inquired, made observations, used intuition, became inspired and put together a technical argument from Google Scholar and the Georgia Tech library. Then I expressed it in patent language. It was all on my own, entirely self-motivated, and not part of any company or institution, about as unique as it gets. I know the energy domain from the standpoint of engineering and construction for electric utilities, mostly nuclear, and later, as a result of this inspiration, intuition and in-depth scientific research. The project began when I was starting back into nuclear construction a few years ago, after decades elsewhere, and became inordinately interested in physics, electricity and gravity.

The World's Foremost Authority I am literally a Westinghouse baby from Pittsburgh, where he built his company, who grew up around a previous era of innovation. As the type who visited the Wright Brothers' Kitty Hawk memorials as a kid on vacation, I can see why they risked bankruptcy to give us what we have today. When an idea like this takes hold, you are in its thrall and unstoppable. It takes on a life of its own. Now I'm looking to build a team that loves this one and can manage its execution. My role here is mainly to initiate and lead, because I envisioned what can be accomplished and laid out a plan in the form of a patent. I've run teams before where I had ultimate P&L responsibility, but in a different sphere, and I'm probably well-rounded enough to pass your basic competency test. As for chemistry, culture and other such frivolities, you will have to judge. I am just here to get this done, no matter what it takes. Email and arrange a phone call. On the other side of this blog post is an idea far more important and “investable” than myself or any team.

8. How big is the funding request, and how much equity will you give?

I don't know what kind of funding to request as yet. I've put in about five years of sweat equity, but it was a labor of love. Now I'm looking for your sweat equity, which is simply interest in the project, first. Then we can plan and phase this as with any product development project. I know what has to be done, but not how to do it, in a business sense. I made a lot of deals in my attorney days, and easily admit I don't know enough to have an informed opinion. I'm still learning these deal structures and what might be the right-sized fund and ask. I'm probably a higher equity, lower dollar type, with everything phased slowly. There is no need to have all the answers right now. I'm here to start something, but not an early career empire builder planning on sticking around forever. I will get you on the right path, then you run with it. And if it's your money that makes this happen, you might want your own people in there asap – I get it it, experienced product development people. I recognize that I'm older, and a founder that will likely cede easily, when the inevitability of success becomes evident. Until then, I see myself as the reality distortion field remover when the “it can't be dones” happen, because nature already does it and science tells us how. I will kick your backward asses until you understand that and make it happen. When you understand the consequences here, you will see why the current valuation estimate is “approaching infinity”, and why startup-experienced people are needed to do this right the first time, not a first-timer like me, guessing at it.

9. What are your forecasts for revenue, expenses and cash flow?

This is the undiscovered country, a potential black swan. You are either intoxicated by the prospect of becoming a multi-planet species by now, or a drive-by. I can not answer this question honestly without a lot of 0's and infinity signs. Divide those, and you have your cost/benefit. In the middle, maybe tens, or even hundreds of millions. Upside, trillions. Current cash flow 0. Get the picture?

Cash flow, as I see it, is most-closely correlated to say, sitting on a hydrogen atom as light is absorbed and emitted at the speed of light, and how very few of those it might take to make my car massless on this Earth with its weak gravity, itself moving through space away from me now at 67,000 miles-per-hour or more as I stay in place, transparent to gravity. Would a soup can size suffice? Maybe it would take a coffee can. Also, as an afterthought, somebody might pay for something along those lines. That's the plan.

Cost and schedule planning and forecasting used to be my job, later it was analyzing risk. But those all involved previous similar undertakings and projects. Engineering and construction is somewhat similar to product development, and yes, I've had P&L responsibility, in the low 100 millions. I get it. When somebody becomes interested we can hone this down and start doing things in phases. But I'm looking for a "We have to have this!" instead of, "Well, what's the EBITDA multiple?" **

10. How much and when do you foresee investors getting a payout?

This could go either M&A, outright sale or IPO. Quickly, or in ten years. Of course it will make money – it's the most imaginative transportation method proposed in human history. Ok, maybe “the wheel” was more impressive, I admit it. The question for you right now is: “Do I have any interest in gravity technology?” If you only have two nickels to rub together but know what to do here and can help, let's talk. My current favorite "comparable" company story is French Giant Veolia To Buy Nuclear Waste Cleanup Startup Kurion. Very roughly, it was a highly technical idea on the back of an envelope, with five million in, $365 million came out in less than ten years. This will either be far better than that or is a complete joke. Let's find out.

The source for those ten questions is: 10 Answers That Will Make Your Startup Plan Worthy of Investment.

Additional Comments

Never heard of this? Don't worry, virtually no one has. I can find no evidence that this idea has ever even been considered before. Not a single musing. That's how fresh it is. When you get into it, you will see that for yourself. You are probably among the very first to see what is inevitably going to happen. It's not like I can present this at the local solar-powered propeller hat app pitch fest. You've likely been targeted.

This is one of two black swans involved in this proposed KGE unicorn. That said, I freely acknowledge the tin foil hat nature of my proposals. But coming from the Karl Popper school, may I say that you are welcome to try to falsify what I've found – because I can not.

You have a strong interest in the future and big ideas, not incremental iterations of a 2% improvement of the same old shinola. Deep reality seems far more fascinating to you than virtual toys. Lukewarm is something you are not. You are not a drive-by, formulaic, incurious, throwing spaghetti-at-the-wall statistical investor – not that there's anything wrong with that. You are looking for a mini-Manhattan Project, from and for visionaries, at its nascent conceptual stage. Expect no spreadsheets here. I want your interest and advice before I ask for any money anyway. It's easier to throw a few bucks at everything and hope something works, than to understand anything. While I understand and respect that approach, this is not the place for it.

Here, you will be required to stop talking about the “cutting edge” and actually understand what it is. And it is simple and correct, not a contrived, iterated, incremental fad that is going to seem like something for a little while then fade away. We are going to need to hire some specialists of course, mostly in optomechanics, a field full of knowledge looking for something useful to do, physicists, hydrogen and photonics experts, materials types, as well as all kinds of other interesting engineers and experts. But that'll cost nickels and dimes compared to the frivolous nonsense we both still see daily, even in the hard science side of start-up, and especially on the energy-related side of that side. Sure, I love my 140 characters, but KGE is the actual flying car. KGE is the actual too cheap to meter.

The “proof of concept” here is nature itself. We are simply reverse-engineering. I didn't come about it that way, but that is its essence. That's the paradigm shift. There are no disputes about nature's best (or at least far better) ways of doing certain things, but people haven't always looked at engineering solutions with that in mind. That in itself is natural, they're just following the path of accidental discovery and happenstance development. Why? Because it's easier than thinking too hard. Somebody else smarter than me will do that, right? Not necessarily.

The hard science and everyday examples, prototypes that are archetypes, speak for themselves. Once you understand that, and most especially the scale of large numbers of small things doing small things repeatedly on infinitesimal time scales, and how that adds up to very large things on our human scale, you'll see that there is only relatively easily-achievable grunt work left to make it happen. Remember those two pounds of Hiroshima plutonium? Now imagine that kind of efficiency at a billion trillion times a second, but used to smoothly overcome gravity with continuous radiation pressure. One might call this design philosophy “technology informed by teleology”, unlocking the beautiful simplicity and utility of that which is.

The way we're doing things now works fine, too. I like my gasoline car, fossil and nuclear electricity, but they're suboptimal, and many of these so-called new technologies are just laughable. Our current technology is not wrong, but we forget that it came about accidentally through happenstance. And for the most part, it has not been updated since Einstein, let alone kept current. I argue that we don't have to move forward based on that past. Have Goddard's methods been re-considered in light of relativity theory? How far has flight come since say, the 1950s?

Isn't it time to take a breath and revisit all that?

Contact bk@suretyinsider.com to arrange a phone call.

Thank you.

* The Half Life Of Facts
** VC Investor Lessons From the Past 12 Years: Exits


KGE