Like you pointed out, its interesting he characterises thrust in terms of Earth's gravity, 1G etc, given this is an acceleration.

But it doesn't mean much without a figure for mass.

1G experienced by 1g of mass is 1/1000 G experienced by 1KG, which would not budge it much at all, for quite a long time, even in a vacuum. And 1KG is still a long way off being a practical mass for a spacecraft.

To me, if we have something solid to sell, we state it in as simple terms as possible, so folk are most likely to understand it, and buy into it (If they were investors for example).

When it obviously has not been stated simply, but looks convoluted or ambiguous (Like "Renewable" energy!) to the point we can't really follow it, alarm bells start to ring.

A practical prototype showing spacecraft applicable propulsion would good.