Eternium Aerospace: First Principles Hydrogen Aviation and the Mindset Shift the Industry Needs

What does it actually take to build a zero-emission aircraft that can fly 8,000 miles — transatlantic, fully electrified, cargo-capable — using hydrogen? 

Not a better battery. Not a shinier fuel cell. 

A complete rethink of how the systems relate to each other from the very beginning.

Jared Semik is the founder and CEO of Eternium Aerospace Corporation, a Marine veteran with three combat deployments, and a 20-year aerospace R&D veteran responsible for roughly 20 proprietary technologies including a dual-rotor high-temperature superconductive motor. He's working on a cryogenic Brayton cycle propulsion architecture built on deconstructed NASA research — and a modular hydrogen production system designed to solve the infrastructure problem at the same time as the aircraft problem.

Eternium is still in stealth mode, so Jared can't share everything. But what he does share raises a question that goes well beyond aviation: why do so many innovators walk away from the old system to build something new — and then immediately recreate the same financial models and business structures they were trying to escape? New technology. Same thinking. Different result? Not usually.

This conversation covers hydrogen vs. batteries for aviation range, liquid vs. gaseous hydrogen trade-offs, why modularity fails when you're trying to change a paradigm, why critical mass in deep tech is a sociology problem as much as an engineering one, and what holistic systems thinking actually looks like in practice — in aerospace, in business, and in life.

Chapters

1. Introduction - 00:05 
2. Guest Introduction - 04:33
3. Discussion on Current Projects - 06:38
4. Challenges in Mobility Industry - 18:48
5. Energy Choices - 26:15
6. Current Work and Innovations - 37:22
7. Propulsion System Insights - 39:50
8. Conclusion and Takeaways - 55:36
9. Closing Remarks - 59:50

Watch on YouTube: https://youtu.be/324AJrjEfeY

And for previous episodes of the Ways We Move on your favorite podcast platforms, see: 

▶️ Watch on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@TheWaysWeMove📺

🔊 Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/the-ways-we-move/id1797599255 🔊

🎧 Listen on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4V0qe3eZqublwn6dasXWCf 🎧

🎙️ Amazon Podcasts: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/cd3349e1-275f-4691-ae38-f1b6a153d5e5/the-ways-we-move 🎙️

📻 iHeart Radio: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/269-the-ways-we-move-268614085/ 📻

🌱 Buzzsprout: https://thewayswemove.buzzsprout.com/ 🗣️

🎬 Patreon education and news analysis! https://www.patreon.com/c/TheWaysWeMove 🔒

📢 Support now: https://www.patreon.com/c/TheWaysWeMove

Subscribe for more insights into the future of mobility and support the show! https://www.buzzsprout.com/2428454/supporters/new 📡

The Ways We Move covers innovative mobility solutions and the people behind them. Subscribe for weekly conversations with the founders, engineers, and thinkers reshaping how we travel.

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:05

Good morning, good afternoon, good evening wherever you are, and welcome back to another episode of The Ways We Move, uh, the podcast that highlights innovative mobility solutions and the people behind them. My name is Nicola Zart, and I am your host on this podcast where we really go out of our way to uncover some of the most innovative mobility solutions out there. And today I certainly have one that fits that title very well. Jared Simek has been has a long career in aerospace and aviation, also a marine veteran. And he brings to the table something that is not always uh found or found as often as we would probably would need to find in Adventure Mobility or in any other form of innovative mobility solutions. So he's working on a project that uh would yield an aircraft that can fly thousands of miles, roughly a thousand miles, using a hydrogen but creating electricity for electric propulsion, basically. Now, when I first heard that, I thought another hopeful one because there are a lot of projects like that out there. But what changed my mind and what made me continue to talk to him was the fact that he was extremely pragmatic how he was approaching this. First of all, he's not using an off-the-shelf solution, he's working with NASA, and he went as far as taking one of NASA's most uh promising technology, but uh still it wasn't working fully well, decompose it completely, break it down to its bare essentials, and then bringing it back together into a coherent platform. But the one thing that he does a little bit differently than other companies do is that he's not uh patchworking it all together and then uh looking at the efficiency of it all, the coherence of it all, but he's doing it as he's uh really breaking down the components how do you use first principle thinking, how do you make everything coherent, how do you make everything efficient? And it's a very subtle change from what we have seen up until now, but it also begs the one question that I've been asking for well over a decade is uh talking to these founders, these CEOs, these people who are changing the way that we will uh travel and and be mobile tomorrow is you walked away from a big corporation because you felt shackled with a business model, a financial model, you know, a business as usual kind of model, to embrace it as a paradigm shift of electric propulsion, which in and of itself is so different from internal combustion engines. So you embrace it as a newer technology, but yet at some point or another, you bring in the old business model of how you structure your sort of the old business model of how you approach the financial institutions to fund you, and there's no easy solution for that, right? Because that's how 99.9% of the data of our societies work. But in order to make full sense of a new technology and a new business, you also have to adopt a new business model, and of course, that means also a new financial model. And this is where the sticking point is today. So, anyway, we're going to talk a little bit about that with Jared. And he cannot fully say what he's working on because uh they're still in stealth mode. But I want you to pay attention to the way they're approaching this and they're not just using uh you know the idea of an evital and a vertebord world, they're really talking about how do we eke out so much efficiency that now we can use something and exponentially have more energy coming out of it than how we traditionally uh think about these things. I hope you will enjoy this podcast. Please uh like and subscribe. It means a lot to us, it helps us a lot, and of course, uh share with other people who may be interested in understanding a little bit more about what is happening out there and what kind of innovative mobility solutions are going on. And you might even say that today's podcast that, although we do talk about aviation, is something that could work in the maritime world and uh why not even in the railroad industry. So I look forward to your comments and please let us know what you think. And uh, we'll see you next week with some interesting news. I'm launching a business intelligent platform because after 20 years I've seen a lot of what can work and what doesn't always work. We'll see you next week again. Well, Jared, thank you very much for being with us on the Ways We Move. This is the podcast where we talk about innovative mobility solutions and the people behind them. And really, I don't think anybody fits that title better than you. So give us a little bit about who is Jared and give us a little bit about your background.

SPEAKER_01 4:49

Yeah, uh, thanks for the uh the invite. I'm glad to be here. So I'm Jared Semick. I'm the founder and CEO of Eternium Corporation. Uh we're split into two divisions, the aerospace and hydrogen side. I'm a eight-year veteran of uh um defense uh aviation. So I was uh I was an eight uh aviation marine for five years, three deployments, and uh three years in the uh army reserves.

SPEAKER_00 5:19

Wow, thank you for your service.

SPEAKER_01 5:21

Yeah, it's a pleasure. I'm also a 20-year veteran of research and development in the aerospace industry. I'm responsible for, I would say, somewhere in the neighborhoods of about 20 proprietary technologies. Uh, I have two personal patents myself and a contributor to uh any number of others, and mostly in the direction of where we're taking uh terrarium aerospace. That's a little bit about uh that's a snapshot of me. There's uh many more bits, but um yeah.

SPEAKER_00 5:47

It's it's a good one because you really laid it out really well. For now we can talk about what you guys are doing. And I have to say, before we do that, you know, there there are a lot of wild and funky projects out there, and some eventually make it, some don't. But the one thing that we know for sure is that eventually we'll get there, right? We all grew up on Star Trek, you know, we're watching uh, you know, from a phone, from a tablet, all the things that they were thinking about before. And so I've heard a lot of people wanting to go your route, but I've seen that some of them sometimes go too much in the research part of it and forget what they're really trying to do, or on the more theoretical side of things, and of course miss out a few spots. So far, all of our conversations have been have shown me that you're sort of striking that middle road. You're not getting bogged down too too much into only looking at the technology, you're keeping the big picture alive. So tell us a little bit about what are you guys doing? What need are you answering that people may or may not know that they have?

SPEAKER_01 6:46

Uh well, so attorney is trying to tackle the the hydrogen and aviation space. You know, there's there's quite a few players, everybody's you know has their specific ideas. When I set out to um to solve this problem in my engineering career, I basically started just asking questions because that's it's sort of the impetus of how I operate as a as a um as a STEM professional, just in general, is I'm very inquisitive. I I think the thing that usually stands me out is kind of what Einstein says. I'm you know, I'm just incessantly curious. And I really sat there, and it was one of those moments where it was it was just you know, I was sitting in my cubicle of all places in my my little uh my walled prison. And you know, I was I was kind of asking, I was like, you know, I I've been a lover of aviations. I mean, I've been in my my entire professional career. I started in and around aviation and about 16 years old when my mom gives me this discovery flight, you know, and I I get hooked on on aviation. So, you know, I started flying and didn't get a crew, and you know, so I mean this this whole thing, you know, and I've had a I've had a love for for aviation. Um and I started asking the question, like, where are we going next? You know, what would it take? Everybody's really kind of electrifying. What would it take to really kind of get into that space? And I think the one thing that I really sought to answer, I don't really feel a lot of the other organizations that are trying to tackle this issue are really sort of asking. They're I don't think they're really driving towards that direction. They may be indirectly, but that I don't see a whole lot of evidence that that is their mission statement. And the mission statement to for Eternium is how do we get to electrification with usable adjacency to of performance? So you know, to clarify that, that means how do I create a how do I create a non-petroleum-based aircraft that can fly and carry the same weight over the same distances with you know the same performance pair, you know, the same performance characteristics or superior. How do we do that? And Atternium basically, when I started the business, um, when I even I mean pre pre-Eturnium's existence, was really just kind of walking through every one of those elements and basically answering them one by one from a technical perspective, you know. And you know, I I feel like I'm a very I'm a hybrid thinker in the sense, you know, the the blue-collar background with the you know, with the military experience of you know, fixing and flying aircraft, it it gives you know, it gives me this, you know, kind of it does give me that pragmatic experience, it perspective. It that balance exactly, and you know, it fixing cars, fixing jets, fixing you know everything else. I I understand that we have to make things, and we can sit around and speculate all day, but in the end, how are we going to manufacture this? What kind of capabilities are we gonna give to the humanity? And then only then, after that, as a business, how do we monetize it? You have to you have to be mindful of what are the capability statements. So the idea was okay, once we started running into the same problems that I feel everybody else is running into, I started understanding that patchwork doesn't work. Um, we need to find synergies. I don't know if that's a buzzword, but we really need to actively find the synergies in the system, in the physics. And, you know, I started knocking out things, you know, the one of my patents is uh our dual rotor high temperature superconduct superconductive motor, um, you know, ultra-high torque torque density. I mean, that those things were gonna be necessary to get us to where we need to be. But I started realizing that individual component improvements wasn't gonna actually get the you know, cut the mustard. So I think what I ended up doing at that point was kind of taking it in a different direction and seeing how these systems relate to each other and how can we extract the maximum amount of energy with what we have available, you know, what modalities, and it really has just been kind of this iterative process of micro, you know, macro improvements to individual components driven by full systems development and full systems architectural holism. And I think that's really kind of the the driving statement, the driving spirit behind Eternium. Um it's also sort of the driving mission statement of Eternum is to say, okay, how are we going to actually compete with the incumbent? Because this is the actual, this is the thing that I've really decided that it has become the talking point that I need to rest on is I can create a motor or I can create a uh say a new fuel cell or a new Brayton system, or I can create, you know, I can I could slap all this in a blended wing body, but no one, the market will not exist for those components if the platform doesn't exist, and the platform won't exist if it's not competitive with the incumbent technology. If I'm putting a 500-mile range aircraft that can't carry anything, and I'm trying to put that up against a say a Gulfstream 650 that can fly 8,000 mile range, which one am I going to buy? Why? Because it's green, right? Yeah, and it and that's in it, and I think a lot of it has to, I think what we're missing in the industry is a lot of that real hard realism is is just the I mean, you should see people's faces when I say this at conferences.

SPEAKER_00 12:00

Yes. Oh, yes, I can imagine. So it and this is, I mean, what the point you're making is so subtle, and I think it might be lost for a lot of people because everybody thinks that they are doing a holistic work when they develop either an Eevee toll, an East Toll, and EC toll, whatever, a drone, but you're doing it in a much more pragmatic way, which means that you're actually saving time on RD because you're really thinking it way, way, way before. Whereas you're right, a lot of companies do uh a lot of patchwork, right? And then after that, once they have a sort of a mosaic, they go, all right, how do we make this efficient, right? You're taking that step way before, which ultimately means that you might get there faster than most other people, or at least faster than we think of. Because when we think about doing what you're doing, pretty much everybody is is will agree that it is 50 years into the future. Yeah. But if you do it the way you do it, and this is the futurist in me, right? This is what I've seen for the last 20 years repeatedly. This is where a lot of companies fail, is just they're a little too pragmatic, but maybe not a little holistic enough. You might be doing this in maybe half the time or even less, actually. Who knows?

SPEAKER_01 13:04

Yeah, I would what I would I would agree with that to a degree. Um, the issue is the barrier to entry of that is the inertia that exists in the mindset that we have in most most technology uh industries. You know, you've got you've got this the shift that had happened in the 90s to sort of software as a service. We, you know, I feel investors and a lot of the uh the foundational support networks for startups, for tech startups, you know, have kind of gotten largely lazy in their funding models in the sense that you know they they want very quick turnarounds and on investment. Yes. Um, and they have uh very low risk tolerance, they have very low um tolerance for long run ways that are necessary, they just want it out to the market. And you know, in and you know, as an economist, you know, as a as a business person, um, you know, I understand the return on investment. I you know, I understand I don't want to I don't want to vent you know capital assets into into the ether and not get any sort of return any you know in a reasonable amount of time. So I understand the I understand the the fiscal side of it. It's it's that we have to, and this is what I'm trying to deconstruct in and sort of realign is this this idea that the holism doesn't necessarily exist solely in the technical space. Um, it exists also in the fiscal side, you know, the funding and resources uh in development and also sort of the business structure side. And I think that is a big issue that we run into. And you know, you you you make the comment of I think you're gonna get there faster. And my only pushback is, you know, I was asked very early on when I, you know, when I started doing this, you you know, you you get into accelerators and you know, various different cohorts, and they ask you, you know, all those boilerpoint uh uh boilerplate questions where you know, what do you what do you see the the biggest barrier to success? And I and much to everyone's chagrin, I would always say humans mindset. The human mindset and our tribalistic, socialistic way of doing things that we've always done, and I know it's cliche, but it's it's the reality that we that we exist in is that you know things I I can't completely rail against it because it works. You know, when when I'm when I'm upset about the fact that we don't we don't de-risk by system, we don't de-risk by holistically, we de-risk by the component. The reason why no one wants to depart from that is because it still works to a high enough percentage of success that it sort of glosses over the fact that we can't have the next step of really nice things in tech without thinking holistically. Everything that we really want as a society is on the other side of holistic thinking. You look at social programs, you look at politics, you look at technology, you look at the development of all these things. I mean, look at all the things that have sort of fallen flat on their face, you know, and kind of gotten a black eye. You look at solar and wind, you know, and you look at the fact that, you know, we de-risk that by the, you know, by the component. And we we made some amazing wind turbines, we made some amazing solar panels and solar fields and you know, concentrated solar thermal. The problem is that we never really thought of it as a system. We didn't deploy it as a system, we didn't integrate it as a system, we didn't understand all of these things that needed to take place. And then when we actually deployed them in a patchwork, we just sort of we're gonna slap this into the grid and hope for the best. And the issue that we ran into is the fact that it failed because we didn't think of it as a system. We thought that the everything was just a module, a module on top of it. Yeah, and and all these modules don't just plug and play. No, I'm watching watching some of these conversations being had presentations, various commentaries about some of the OEMs. They they they think that we're gonna arrive at success for electrification of aviation and marine vessels by modularity. And modularity is really good for optimization at a uh for a budgetary perspective, from yeah, but not particularly when we're trying to completely change the paradigm. You can't shoehorn, you know.

SPEAKER_00 17:09

No, and and and and and to your point, modularity works when you have a platform that you've been using for a very long time, internal combustion engines, everything. Yes, in that case it makes a lot of sense, but then when you're going to a new whether it's an energy platform, it's a propulsion platform, whatever, then you need the same paradigm shift that needs to happen at the business level, at the financial level. You're hitting a point I've been making for well over a decade, talking to all of these CEOs, these founders, all of these people. And the question I've been asking them is you okay, so let me get this straight. You left XYZ, but I think a big international corporation company. You could have retired with millions of dollars in your pocket to embrace a fundamentally different uh means of mobility, but you're looking for money the same way that those big companies are, and you structure the business exactly the same way that the same thing that you ran away from, you're bringing into that. How do you expect that to work? And now we're getting right back to the definition of insanity is repeating the same things, expecting different results. Well, you can't if you embrace electric mobility, whereas 99.9% of everything we do is internal combustion engines, then you need to change everything radically fundamentally. So, this is what I liked about you because you this is something I've been looking out for the last 20 years, and not a lot of companies. Well, I shouldn't say that. A lot of companies understand that, but they're either they cannot do it or they don't know how to do it. And we've talked about this, you know, there are solutions, it's just I don't know where it breaks, so I don't know what makes you so different than others. But I wanted to talk a little bit about what you are trying to do now. What is the answer that you're trying to solve here? The the sticking point that you're trying to solve here inside of our mobility industry or our new mobility industry, I should say.

SPEAKER_01 18:56

Um it's uh we we all understand you know uh electrification to be um you know largely initially driven by um you know sort of the uh reduction of you know carbon emissions and you know everything that we've kind of beaten, you know, the dead horse that we've beaten to death, you know, again and again and again. Um but I think being uh being a military veteran, having you know, having deployed overseas uh a few times, you know, and you're looking at these um you know, large um, what do they call them? These I can't remember what they actually call uh the the the emerging conflicts is their the they're they're like block conflicts or like emergen like large power peer peer-to-peer conflicts. You know, a lot of the a lot of what's happening geopolitically is I mean, time immemorial. It has been driven largely by you know resource management and resource allocation and the economics of the needs of man, you know. And I am a self-sufficientist at uh at the core. I believe I love it.

SPEAKER_00 20:01

Self-sufficientist, I love that term.

SPEAKER_01 20:04

I think I just kind of spontaneously coined that.

SPEAKER_00 20:07

I love it. We're we're gonna keep it.

SPEAKER_01 20:09

It's I I think, you know, in order to in order for everybody to play well in the sandbox, I you know, I agree that there's there should be a um a modicum of interdependence, you know, because we can't do everything. But I think this hyper-specialization, I think, doesn't work really well when we're considering sort of the uh the human condition. I think the humans largely are tribal, I think they're largely selfish, I think they're largely a lot of things, you know, uh, you know, on top of all the good things that that we can be, of course, but you know, but at our core, you have to understand that you know, people want the prosperity, and there's oftentimes conflict when it when those parties meet at the resources. So when I'm thinking of what additional thing that drives me, I think it's largely it's actually probably 90% at this point is what drives me is uh sort of fuel and energy energy independence. Um, you know, I know it's another buzzword, uh, democratization. But when you well, when you're thinking about these regional conflicts over, say, like oil or any other energy resources, any of the other high demand uh resources, I have a bit of a problem with the fact, you know, the the the geopolitics have basically always centered around that, and I want to do something about it. And I think electrification of aviation is is at least one of the many tentacles of this hydra. Um, you know, is is if we can sort of get ourselves out of this space of locally regionally extracted energy, and then on this entire infrastructure, yep, it's like this entire infrastructure of refinement, of delivery, pipeline, you know, the and distribution. And you can do something like localized. So, you know, one of the things that we're working on is is a localized high temperature, high pressure uh alkaline electrolysis system in in the same spirit of Say Tesla, when you know Tesla Motors created their vehicles, they understood the infrastructure also has to be simultaneously developed and standardized. And you know, they knew, you know, they, I mean, Elon Musk and and his uh, you know, his cohort, you know, understood that in order for this to proliferate, this is these are the things that we're gonna have to do. And we can't just we can't just rely on the energy production system to do it for us. We actually have to we have to create the chicken and the egg at the you know at the exact same time. Um and a lot of that to me ends up becoming a vision of sort of this um more democratized. There's obviously going to be stakeholders, there's obviously gonna be people that are, you know, they're gonna own it and control it, etc. etc. But it becomes sort of decentralized, it becomes a little bit easier for us to play you know well in the sandbox when everybody's able to make their own their own fuel and use it in you know these these now new fuel compatible vehicles. I think it at least contributes. You know, I'm I'm not so delusional to think that you know the technology that we're developing is gonna somehow you know save the the world, but I think it at least contributes to um some of the issues that we have. And I think that is largely the I think it's largely the the power of electrification is in in the sense that when you electrify, you can diversify the energy input sources. So wherever you're getting it from the grid, whatever makes electricity can power electric vehicles. And this and to a certain degree, uh the same as with hydrogen. You know, I mean it's not the exact same as just an input with uh with with batteries, you know, because it's a chemoelectric energy storage system. You you essentially kind of have the same thing with with hydrogen, except for instead of being internally contained um and non-exhausted, you um you're storing it in you know, obviously in a different form. And we there are some advantages to it, there are obviously some disadvantages, but when you when you add all of these elements together, and I know we're kind of getting really deep into the weeds of like you know, how all of this stuff overlaps, it's you know, when you're looking at it from a system standpoint, you're now kind of you know venturing into availability and ease of production, and you know, if you're creating it locally, you know, you're you're eliminating some of the issues with um you know infrastructure in terms of transportation and storage and you know, etc. etc. So I don't know, that got really long-winded, but that's yeah.

SPEAKER_00 24:33

No, no, but you you that's such a great point that you've been making. That's what got me started in 2006 on electric mobility. Is look, it's super efficient, it's way more efficient than an internal combustion engine. And then the other thing, too, was that it was you know, five years after 9-11. Obviously, this is made at home, this is safe local energy that we can really localize to, of course. No, that that's uh a big problem for these big companies that like to uh make a uh domestic product, but uh it was just a wonderful idea, and it's true that I think we we've seen a lot of you know localized energy solutions, but they've never really made it. I think the one person speaking of hydrogen, because hydrogen, by the way, is is always the same thing you love it or you hate it, and most of the time for all the wrong reasons, right? Yeah, yeah. But the one person who actually did make some sense of how to use hydrogen in aviation was Val Mikakov at Zero Avia. I'm not saying his solution is perfect, right? But he had something that he pat down and he said, you know, all these regional airports what do they have? A lot of space that's unused, right? You can create energy there, you can create uh electricity, hydrogen, whatever you want to do. The temporary storage solution has hydrogen. And that was for me the beginning of oh, okay, I get it. Because in the easy industry, in the uh the automotive industry, it made no sense, right? The cars are everywhere, the distances are too big, um, and a gas station inside of a city does not have that much space to make hydrogen, let alone a lot of people wanting 10,000 pounds per square inch, you know, like hydrogen tanks right under the where they live, yeah. Not really the thing that they do. However, with aviation, now you do have that, and I think this is where you're going with that one. So t tell us a little bit about what what why did you choose excuse me, hydrogen and not some other form of energy or storage energy.

SPEAKER_01 26:24

Um I mean, anyone that's been in this anybody that's been in this space really kind of knows that they're I mean the issue is always uh specific energy and energy density. You know, I mean when you're looking at batteries, you know, you're talking about 400, uh what is it, 400 kilowatt hours per per kilogram?

SPEAKER_00 26:40

Yeah, you know that's that's that's a good point, yeah.

SPEAKER_01 26:43

And um well, it's it's well it's 400 watt hours per kilogram uh versus 31.2 uh uh kilowatt hours. So I mean you're talking about 31,000 watt hours versus 400 watt hours per kilogram. So I mean you have really good specific and uh specific energy, you know, and you know, but of course, you have a slight advantage over batteries when you come to uh energy density. So volumetrically, it's it's not nearly as good. I think that's why we've really sort of stuck with petroleum for a while, because it's almost a one-to-one specific energy to uh volumetric energy density ratio, um, which kind of makes it very ideal. Uh, but for aviation, you know, you end up getting a lot of different advantages. I mean, you have that mass reduction per volume. So if you can figure out how to utilize, you know, more of the aircraft uh volume, so like the wing volume, the fuselage volume in sort of a distributed method of storing the hydrogen, you can carry more energy, more energy equals more range, especially when you have this kind of a mass discount, if you will, uh versus both batteries and uh and petroleum. That ended ended up lending itself into a lot of the, you know, you almost can't avoid. So when you ask a question, you know, it's a single-pointed question. I think this is what's interesting about uh holism is that you ask a single-pointed question, and there's you know, you can answer it simplist uh simply, and you can say, well, we used it because of energy density, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And you know, if you look at the you know, a lot of the successful vehicles that are out there, you look at like the Toyota Murai that set the record of like 845 uh miles on a single uh 5.6 kilogram uh fill, you know, obviously under good conditions, et cetera. You know, you could you could but you can look at that and you can say, okay, well that there's something there. So um, and then you look at some of the issues, you know, with respect to the mass of batteries, blah blah blah. And you arrive at this thing, okay. Well, this this is going to be our energy storage, um, this is gonna be an energy storage uh modality. But the thing is, is then it starts opening up, it starts open it's branches off the tree, and then all of a sudden you start having these things. They're well, okay, well, it's great, uh, it's great in mass, but it's terrible in volume. So how do we exactly you know how exactly how do we mitigate some of these things?

SPEAKER_00 29:01

Okay, so and then the next question that follows after this is are we talking about liquid hydrogen or gaseous hydrogen? Which route did you choose? Because again, pros and cons. Gas is gonna have a lot less weight than the liquid, um, but liquid still would eke out a little bit more than petroleum. So, how did you make that decision? And what was the decision, by the way?

SPEAKER_01 29:24

Uh so even with liquid, uh mostly because um you know compression of compression of gas is is too it's too energetic. I think hydrogen terrifies a lot of people. Uh, I think compressed hydrogen terrifies even more people. Obviously, cryogenic fuels, it sounds a little exotic, but we've been using it since I mean uh I think the Nazis were using it in the V2 rocket. No, I mean we've been using it since Werner von Braun created, you know, all of the all of our rockets that we use to go to the moon and you know into space, etc. I mean, everything's been using liquid hydrogen forever. So, from a technological perspective, we have uh tremendous knowledge base on you know its utilization. I think it's a little exotic for the for the general public. There is some volatility, but here's the thing everything that is stores energy has volatility.

SPEAKER_00 30:08

You puncture a battery, petroleum, anything, batteries, everything can explode. You just gotta be careful about it. And the funny thing about it is we we were able to master fire on a log, right? We can we mastered everything in the end. So if you're just gonna cower every time there's a problem, then yeah, please step out of the way, find solutions. You know, the tagline of of my company is there are more solutions than obstacles. You gotta find them, and you will find them.

SPEAKER_01 30:35

Well, and the and and the thing is is that you know, I think that's another uh kind of hallmark trait of my personality. You ask, you know, kind of like really sort of bringing uh you know, bringing into the fore, you know, kind of what are the elements that create this sort of pragmatic perspective, and I think a lot of it is is uh a lack of risk aversion. Um I'm a calculated risk taker. Um, you know, so I've been you know I've been in the air since you know my the early professional career exhibition. I'm a rock climber, I'm a mountaineer, I scuba dive, I ride motorcycles, I've raced dirt bikes, I'm I was a skydiver years back, you know, and you can look at that and say, you know, this this person has no regard for their safety, et cetera, et cetera. But if anybody that actually knows me knows how calculated I am in terms of risk, you know, I kind of I sort of get this uh snicker because I'm I'm very careful with uh personal protective equipment. You know, I'm I'm sort of known for if I do anything, I'm you know, I'm I'm I'm sanding with a with an orbital sander, you know, I I put on my uh I put on my glasses, I put on my respirator, I put on, you know, I usually have hearing protection. And I think a lot of that is, you know, it's not because you know there's a there's a level of anal retentiveness. I think I've been around so many very energetic things, very loud, like I've the amount of times I've injured myself, you know, I have hearing loss from the military being around jet engines, but you have all these things, and and it's it starts to kind of enlighten you. I mean, that's the that's sort of the thing about you know life experience, is it you can read it in a book, but uh the life experience will make it an indelible truth to you. And I've started I've essentially kind of learned these things, and you realize that you know, I risk doesn't the the concept of risk doesn't make any sense to me. It's it's really to that point to me. Because the people are always talking about risk. Oh, risk, risk, risk, risk, risk. And it's like, well, to me, I just like you said, I see problems to be solved. Um, and I and obviously, yes, there is some risk reduction. You know, I don't go headlong into things, I don't go, you know, I I'm not uh the level of climber is Al of Tondled, so I'm just just gonna go to El Capitan and just say, hey, I'm just gonna start free climbing this.

SPEAKER_00 32:42

Um it's a mountain.

SPEAKER_01 32:44

Yeah, right. It's you know, it's like, well, I'm a climber. This is uh, you know, someone's done it, so obviously it's possible. So I think I'm gonna do it. No, it doesn't work that way, you know. So there's there's obviously you know some risk in the in the calculation. It's just to me, I think that's sort of what courage is required to go move into the spaces that we're moving into. And I think that's sort of where we exist is when you were talking about a lot of these, you know, a lot of these uh tech founders have left these large uh you know corporations, these uh, you know, OEMs, the primes, et cetera, and they've started their own business and they get into the situation where you know we need funding, you know, we need to and and they're structuring the company the exact same way, and they're getting funded the same way. And I think the issue is that I think people encounter the pushback and it terrifies them. They're like, okay, well, I'm gonna lose my income source, I'm not gonna be successful, I have to play nice in the sandbox. I don't really have that. So I think a lot of this is I have a very strong level of patience uh for everything, people and situations and just life in general. And I think what that gives me, and I think that's what it gives attorneyman, is this sort of patient perspective of okay, if if uh say VCs or you know, the funding bodies in the in the federal government and they're you know releasing these solicitations and you propose to them and you keep getting rejected, etc. etc. And they and and the issue with it is because of the holism, they're like, you know, we're you are the scope's too big for us. We want you to de-risk at the component level, and then you know, there's no opportunity to fire back at them and say, hey, listen, you can fund, you can throw millions and millions of dollars into a really nice motor, it will have zero market. If you're making an aviation-based or uh marine vehicle-based motor, it will have zero market because those things are not competitive. The platform's not competitive, equals no market, equals no market for the components that are being created for it. So we're just throwing a bunch of money into something that's never going to happen because we're not actually thinking of something holistically. And I think it sort of runs into that, and I think that's now folding all that back onto the way I operate with with Attornium is essentially now I take this, you know, long, you know, long suffering, this patience, you know, and saying, listen, we need to now sort of pivot into kind of raising awareness of the fact that this is not going to happen unless this this happens. And unless we completely change the way we do things, there is any number of hardware-based technologies that will not materialize. They will not, there will not be a critical mass established to the point where we can actually create a new economy of these of these techs if we don't create the entire system for it. And if we don't integrate that into a system that is also being thoughtfully driven holistically, to also integrate those systems. And unfortunately, what's happening is that we have this sort of mindset that it'll happen over X amount of years, like, oh, this just what happens, you know, people will learn the lessons.

SPEAKER_00 35:48

One part of the equation, yes, it's true, but you need to put the work into it and the thinking before you even put the work into it, so on and so forth.

SPEAKER_01 35:57

Yeah, and and and some of it is, you know, I I had this conversation with uh with the guys at NASA, you know, and I got some pushback and they said, you know, why are you trying to do everything? And I said, Well, we're not trying to do absolutely everything, we're just trying to do the actual key components that lend themselves to the key subsystems, etc., etc. We have identified nine overlaps of energy and mechanics that are you know dual, you know, they're dual purpose, they're also dual use, and they're you know, we're reclaiming a lot of that energy, et cetera, et cetera. That's how you're gonna get it done. That's how you're gonna get 8,000 mile range aircraft like ours, versus a 500-mile range, which is basically a you know Frankenstein shoehorn model, you know, a tech that was okay, just throw an electric motor into it, and they're just throw a fuel cell into it, and then it's hydrogen. And that's essentially kind of what's happening, a little bit more technical than that, but of course, of course, yeah.

SPEAKER_00 36:49

You know, yeah, I think you said it well. It's not a question of doing everything, it's a question of giving it the right foundations and making sure that foundation is sustainable for everything else that you put on top of it, instead of like you said before, patchwork, and then after that, we'll look at the coherence of it all. No, you can't do that, it doesn't really work this way unless you are still back in the internal combustion engine era, then that's fine because you already have a platform. That's fine, it works really well with it. So you started hinting at some numbers that I'm sure a lot of people who are listeners or watchers will want to hear a little bit more about it. How much can you say about what you're working on right now to give our listeners and watchers you know some some bit I want to know more about this and and follow you?

SPEAKER_01 37:33

Well, so the aircraft set point that we're driving towards accomplishing is first and foremost transatlantic. So the ability to fly from uh New York to Paris or London nonstop, completely electrified, completely zero emission. When we started running the first order briquet equations from most of our modeling and some of our uh lab simulation and some of our actual lab testing of components, we put all that together and we we made uh a virtual uh virtual model. We started we started breaching 5,000 miles. And the more we started getting more realistic with what the capabilities are, it started driving up to about the the highest estimates were I thought were absurd, but they no matter how many knockdowns we put into some of the individual components and subsystems, we were still getting somewhere around 8,000 mile range. And this is with um, you know, this is obviously dry, so this is something you know you're you're carrying the payload of uh you know a couple of people. We're not PAX driven, so um, this is going to be obviously cargo. The airframe itself, we're looking at uh max payload of uh a little bit under 20,000 pounds, uh somewhere around the sweet spot of about 15,000 pound payload. Wow. Um it's a 105-foot wingspan, uh, blend wing body in the in the nature of the B2 uh B21 stealth. Um it's not it's not the MIT, what is it, X47 uh derived uh blended wing body everyone's working on um mostly because of uh lack of wing volume. Um we are less concerned about the overall maximum uh max optimization of uh aerodynamic efficiency and more about kind of hitting that that sweet spot of wing. Sweet spot. Yep. So for us, we we gained wing volume um and we're also working on uh a conformal wing uh cryogenic wing tank. So we're you know instead of having a a large centralized uh cryogenic tank in uh the tube and wing that pretty much everyone's kind of working on, is we're going to be using um the the wings as wing as wing tanks like they are currently as a wing tank, which is what we should be getting into by now anyway.

SPEAKER_00 39:50

So tell us what can you tell us as far as the actual propulsion system? Because we know that you're using hydrogen, we know that you're using electric motors, but most people at this point are going to assume some sort of fuel cell system. What can you tell us without um and I know you shook your head when I said that? I was like, okay, intriguing. What do you mean? What can you tell us so far? Because by the way, you're you're still in stealth more or less in stealth mode, right? Yeah, so we we want we want to give just enough information, but obviously not everything, so that anyway, you answer that question first.

SPEAKER_01 40:21

Yeah, so we're not uh so we're not fuel cell-based. Uh we were until uh conversations I had with Roger Dyson from NASA. Um, you know, he he lobbed over this this concept that they they have the straight and it's a sterling acoustic uh Brayton closed Brayton system. Um and we adapted it. So we essentially we like everything in the aircraft, we completely exploded it down to the we deconstructed it down to the principles. So the form factor that NASA's been working on, we've completely deconstructed that and we've come we've we've extracted some of the principles that are in it, and then we overlaid some things that NASA's not using. So ours is not a straighten, it's a craton, it's a cryogenic Brayton. So this is where those overlaps start coming in. So we lose the cryogenic thermal condition of the fuel uh for dual use. Uh Brayton systems are driven by uh, you know, as hot as you can get and as cold as you can get, and that gives you a good Carnot efficiency. So without using fuel cells, because of their mass volume and uh and cost and etc., we actually found that we can get a 60% reduction in mass and volume per megawatt out uh when you use something like a straighten. So when you use a closed brain.

SPEAKER_00 41:36

Can you get I I am I'm not very familiar actually with what a straightened um uh device looks like. Can you give us a 52,000 foot view of it so that our listeners and watchers because yeah, I mean, you're right, we are all thinking in terms of either generator, turbine, or fuel cell. Um, so this is totally different.

SPEAKER_01 41:55

Yeah, it looks like a plumber's dream. It's essentially a four-foot uh four-foot cube, and you get about a megawatt out of it. Um, you know, NASA's they're doing the research on it steadily. Um, this is Roger Dyson's technology, but they're they're running into some issues uh with some of the heat transfer characteristics. Um a lot of the a lot of what they ran into is what we've essentially solved and what we're currently working with.

SPEAKER_00 42:20

So heat transfer always a problem, yes.

SPEAKER_01 42:23

Yep. So a lot of it is, you know, how do we how do we integrate and improve the the heat uh um the heat exchangers? Um, because the the massive recuperators and closed brain systems are are an issue. So how do we integrate all of that? How do we use certain uh geometries to improve the physics, uh the molecular kinetics of the the fluid, the working fluid? Not going to get into the weeds. I mean, I could talk about this stuff for for hours, but a lot of it is just you know, going back to you're asking how do we power this? It is obviously an electrified system, so we use we use hydrogen in combustion to provide heat, and that heat uh you know is used uh to heat up the working fluid of a closed Brayton uh combined cycle uh Brayton system, and that produces our electricity, uh so our electric current, electric power for the entire aircraft. So that's you know, obviously payload, auxiliary ancillary systems like flight controls, avionics, etc. etc. But also the propulsion bus. So the propulsion bus, um, you know, talking about multiple megawatts. So at 105-foot wingspan, the the same aircraft is our our full-size uh architecture operates uh north of uh four megawatts. So it's not it's not big, uh it's not really big.

SPEAKER_00 43:37

It's not big, but it's but it's it's it's efficient, it's good.

SPEAKER_01 43:40

Yeah, and and the idea is each one of these uh individual components, they have their own increases in efficiency and and power density, and then you have a lot of these overlaps. So geometric overlap for volume volume storage of uh liquid hydrogen, and then you use the cryogenic state to improve the efficiency of. of your your energy conversion and you also use that for cooling so we use the cold we use the cold state uh the cryogenic cold state and everything down to uh combustion and then we take the uh high thermal state and we roll that back into we recuperate that back into the aircraft so we use that for uh leading edge anti ice we use that for um cabin h vac we use that for the improving you know the reclamation of the use is used to improving the efficiency of the uh the crating system so and that's kind of you know and then when you actually look at the individual components the high temperature superconductive motor um you know it's it's cooled by the fuel not directly um because we don't want hydrogen embrittlement in the motor itself and we also don't want yeah because you know because motors come with um I mean if you have a quench condition in in uh YBCO tape um you could have a spark condition which can if you have the right mixture and you know of course hydrogen being you know uh pretty volatile at a low percentage of uh you know fuel air I wanted to avoid that condition and we also didn't want to have to worry about the embrittlement issues and you know the thermal shock associated with 20k liquid hydrogen fuel so we ended up going with uh just a liquid nitrogen and that is cooled through a small loop uh small recuperated loop using the uh thermal state and then we also use um uh the expansion exergy so a lot of people crying about uh the use of liquid hydrogen because the liquefaction system adds a certain um certain input uh in terms of energy and cost and you know when you use a fuel cell you have to warm up the hydrogen um in order to be able to use it because you can't you there I as far as I know I don't think there's any uh PEM or solid oxide fuel cells that uh can directly use cryogenic hydrogen so what we used is we use that a phase change exergy we also use that and we harvest that you would so we we use that you're hypermyeling yeah I mean essentially what and that is really kind of the tail of the tape I mean that's what we do with with the aircraft um that's what we're also doing with the uh what we call the emperor scale the modular portable nuclear reactor based uh super critical alkaline electrolysis and liquefaction system say that 10 times fast um is a lot of a lot of this folding of energies exergies and mechanics um and you know my this going back to what I was saying about NASA's pushback you know why are you trying to do all this at the same time I said well here's the issue um and this is kind of one of the main points I always want to make with everybody is critical mass is time is time and sociology related so when you're talking about something like the use of hydrogen people have only so much tolerance of failure until they throw their hands up and say this is never going to happen.

unknown 46:54

Yep.

SPEAKER_01 46:55

So I'm not a I'm not a hype driven person. I don't like to drive hype I like to drive pragmatism I like to drive real data I like to say okay is this possible or is this not possible I studied all the people that failed I mean I'm a close uh student of the of the Theranos uh debacle and it's one of the reasons why we're stealth I don't want to go into the I don't want to go into the ecosystem and say hey we can do this if we are not able to prove that the feasibility at least mathematically is possible or something close. But where I'm going with this is critical mass is time related and a sort of like um market psychology related. So if we don't if we think that we're going to let an ecosystem of primes and OEMs and established you know players and even startups really kind of develop this technology the way we've always sort of done it, you know, piece by piece, unfortunately what's going to happen is you're gonna get a lot of these failures. You're gonna get somebody that's not going to deliver anything remotely resembling performance parity to the incumbent and then the general population which includes you know the sovereign wealth funds the VCs the angels you know the the you know of the president of the United States to put it in a skidding budget basically said this is a waste of money to to be funding electrification of aviation once you convince people that this is not going to work because we didn't go full pull the funding dries up and then it never reaches critical mass. And we're running into that with a bunch of different things I mean you're running with hydrogen in general is because we keep dithering and no one has you know no one has the spine really to kind of say we need to do this all at the same time let's all get on the same sheet of music let's all be clean sheet we only have to do this once that's really the the operative component stop stop trying to adopt old things into an a different type of technology it just doesn't work guys okay and I think that's exactly yeah yeah so um just one more question before we ask a little bit more about you personally but um when do you see the light at the end of the tunnel?

SPEAKER_00 49:02

I was like when do you yeah exactly when do you expect to actually have either a flying prototype or or a conceptual framework that you can introduce to the public and say no we thought of this we thought of this we thought of this we thought of that um well the cons I mean the conceptual framework were is is already in existence you know the models exist um the the feasibility studies have been done the architecture of the aircraft you know the majority of the the components and subsystems are you know are reaching a certain level of maturity uh at least in a you know in the lab you know I know everyone sort of cringes you're like oh you haven't made anything you haven't you know no MVPs well the problem is this is a long arduous process and if you want to get it done fast you do it like everybody has done before if you want to get it done right and you actually want to succeed you have to play the long game and the long game oftentimes means that there is a lot of dead time because you have to now disengage what you're doing from a technical perspective.

SPEAKER_01 49:57

And then you have to re-engage sort of the the mindset and mentality of the of the entire community and then you have to kind of get everyone on board this is you know why I keep driving this conversation in the direction that I keep going is that we're if we until we get people convinced that this is the only way it's going to happen, you know, this is going to be years and years and years. I would say to answer the question I would say that all depends on the success of that narrative building.

SPEAKER_00 50:24

Yeah and I think you said it really well it's not a technological breakthrough that you're working through right now but it's also a human thinking breakthrough and that can take however long it takes generations but you know I I'll have to tell you one thing and this is something that I'm gonna have to and my shameless plug into this is so I do a business intelligence site and I'll tell you something this year we're going to see a lot of interesting movements that will definitely shake up the tree especially the AAM tree. And I think it should give you enough of an open door and you know crack on the door so that you can say great are you guys tired of doing this how about we look at this so I think the way that things are going right now there's a lot of panic there's a lot of oh my gosh we're not going to get to make it the next three to four years with the financial models that we have right now investors are worn out. Simply put we just don't have the platform to the financial platform the business model platform to do what we're trying to do right now. Technology yes I think we can make it like you know I can make a bit we can spin fast enough to act like a wheel if I you know that's not a problem right but I I think that you're right it is the mind frame that needs to change around that so I'm thinking about what's gonna happen the next six months or so might actually give you that that little hump that push forward to to uh to bend some minds around yeah we're bending minds around well there is some momentum and I I have personally kind of so I pivoted a little bit in some of my personal efforts as head of the company so you know we're we're very confident in the the technical side the business structure etc etc you know building the co-development partnerships and creating this consortium that is you know eternum now I've sort of pivoted into more public speaking good and a lot of this is you know until I stop hearing the I've never heard that you know I've never heard it said like that before until I stop hearing that I'm gonna continue on I think most of it is because one of the biggest value uh you know propositions of of my experience personally has been I've made all the mistakes I've I really learned from everybody else's mistakes that's another key thing I have I can completely avoid it just by looking at everyone else and saying okay that's that's yes absolutely let's not do that sucks to be number one or number two or number three you want to be way behind.

SPEAKER_01 52:43

Yeah I agree so for new things at least well and that's and that's the thing is that being able to share some of the insight from kind of the method that I think just in general um I'm a I'm obviously a holistic thinker by by nature. I love both the 5000 foot view. I also love the nanoscopic view um I love everything in between agreed and I usually see it in simultanity. So yes being able to and and the talent really exists as being able to sort of take all of that that I can see and if I have a long enough timeline it's very difficult to do it in a presentation's length because there's so many elements to it that cannot be dismissed. You can't that's the unfortunate part is everyone wants everything compressed because we all have 30 second attention spans is there are some things that you really have to flesh out. This is the reason why and now these conversations that I get into with fellow CEOs and and stakeholders they always push back with the same bulgar plate you know they say why don't you do this and you know the the lowest common denominator this is what you need to focus on the least you know the least effort etc etc I said that's that's fine I understand that I I get the mentality you know this isn't my first rodeo um however there's the reason here all of these in this sequence are the reason why we have to do it this way and it took me about two and a half hours to in a conversation with the folks at NASA Glenn it took about two and a half hours and then I finally hit them with um you know if we if we wait for the industry that doesn't communicate amongst itself to somehow find their way to this holism we're gonna be waiting longer than the window that opens in critical mass and we will fail we will lose the opportunity for humanity to think that this is feasible and it'll either take us another hundred years to get to that point or we can do it all at the same time and prove that this is how we do it. We accomplish it just once and then everyone else can copy and optimize. And you know and he basically you know kind of stepped back and said well you're right because he he had a deep knowledge of the way you know the way deep tech works and the fact that there are some things and you know this I know this from our conversations there are some things that you can just kind of piecemeal and those are the things that get funded and they get to the market and everyone makes money and that's why we think that the system works. Then there are then other things where humanity's trying to transition into this other space that now we have to deconstruct the entire thing break it down to first principles and say okay what can we replace in this now with our new uh material science our new understanding of of the the principles and how do we now reconstruct this into something exactly slightly different and that that's the heavy work that a lot of people are not willing to get into because it would take longer time and how do you explain that to an investor and how do you remind an investor that this is aviation this is not six months down the road or even three years down the road it's a it's a decade into that Jerry tell us a little bit about tell our listeners and viewers what would you like them to walk away from with our talk today and by the way you're you're welcome to come back and continue talking about this but what would you like people to walk away from with our talk our talk today excuse me I would definitely have to uh I would the centralized theme is really what I want everyone to kind of walk away with a lot of this is it's it's not about Jared it's not about eternum it's not about any of these elements that are are on the exterior that you're seeing so a lot of it is a change in mindset it's a change in the spirit of thinking is the enlightenment enlightenment into the space that exists that is in order to have this next phase of humanity in general it's not even just technology. You know technology is is one element of this of this big ecosystem of humanity and in order to get to that next step like I think we're we're we I feel like we're all just kind of on the on the edge of that cliff and we all want it but we don't seem to know how to get it. And we're all arguing amongst ourselves about how is this going to be accomplished and you have you're essentially what you have is trying to put new wine into old wineskins and yes that's true you know and you have to get rid of the old wine you need new wineskins because you're gonna break the wineskins you're gonna ruin the wine and the issue is is that what's that's what needs to be raised in terms of awareness and understanding is this idea that everything that we want is on the other side of good holism and good good systems thinking and I think Eternium represents less the aircraft and the in the amper scale system and the hydrogen ecosystem and it represents more sort of holism of engineering holism of philosophy um I mean that's part of the the book that I've been you know kicking around in in in writing um is a is a you know it's a compilation of a lot of the sort of stoic thoughts of of that sort of mindset of thinking and you know a lot of people get in this like weird space where you know I think it therefore it's right but one of the other facets of my personality is that I beat every single thing that I hold to be true I beat it to death. So if I've you know if I've arrived at a conclusion oftentimes it comes you know obviously and it comes with a with a sort of an uncertainty so I'm I'm very pragmatic both in my my holding of truth is is that nothing is ever really definitively true. There's always variability in in a lot of it so you understand that the way I see something isn't this is right I look at it in terms of this is variably in this in this range. So there's a spectrum of whatever and I look in terms of everything is in terms of spectrum. So until we can start looking at everything in terms of and and not just either or we're not really going to advance as a society because we're we're too tribalistic in the sense that we want to stake our claim we want to put our flag in the ground and say this is definitively true everything else is wrong etc etc but the weirdest thing and I was actually thinking about creating my own you know podcast and YouTube channel whatever and it basically is the the name of it is is and is the whole movement of and is you know you look at the difference between the you know the leftists and the rightists and you know you look in the terms of like this is the way we do things and from the from a technology and business perspective. Yes and so I can hold these truths and these truths in some semblance of simultaneity and they can live in coexistence this and this you know I'm a I'm a very spiritual person. I'm also very scientific. Yep and absolutely you have to that's part of being holistic by the way absolutely exactly so the the holism is I think what if there's anything to be gleaned from the conversation in at large is is holism is really kind of understanding what holism actually is what it looks like.

SPEAKER_00 59:47

And I would love to come back and and you know talk your ear off for taking the time to explain this and you've made a really good point of saying it's not just the technology it's everything behind it. It's the platform it's it's the foundational work both physical and also I guess you could say mental or business if you want to call it this way. So you've made you've done a really good job with that. I want to thank you for being here Jared and I certainly look forward to hearing more from you because I love our conversation and likewise yeah yeah absolutely thank you so we'll see you soon again I hope yeah absolutely and thanks for uh for inviting me as this is a pleasure absolutely thanks Jared