Author Topic: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432  (Read 21438 times)

Offline SergioZ82

  • Member
  • Posts: 25
  • Italy
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 10
An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« on: 09/16/2017 06:52 AM »
First things first, ASPS has found external collaborators who are helping the association to adapt one of its prototypes, F432, for space flight. If all goes well, within the end of the year the PNN spaceship will be ready for spaceflight.  :)

The first attempt has been made with F242 ( already discussed here): modifications have been made to make the thruster autonomous in its dynamic through the removal of the external power cables. This means power supply through a battery pack and amplifier plus preamplifier installed directly onboard the prototype. Also, the ignition command is sent via remote control.  This project has been jokingly nicknamed telefonone , “big phone” in Italian.

This type of configuration is testable under any verification procedure that will be decided by eventual financiers, thus tests on ballistic pendulum, torsional pendulum, frictionless test tracks etc..

The purpose of this prototype was to reduce through constructive approaches the temperatures developed by the propulsion unit.
The overheating is due to the ferrite cores that are used to increase the magnetic fields, as they’re created using the limited amperes available from ASPS power supplies. As the ferrite cores work at millions of oscillations per second, the ferrite reaches temperatures that are critical for the whole system: the thermal camera detected a temperature above 250°C (full-scale). This intense heat propagates to all thruster components, hence compromising its integrity. Unfortunately it isn’t possible to realize a metallic frame because the induction currents would be uncontrollable under rapidly changing magnetic fields. Thermal deformations are able to compromise the measurements of the thrust as a result of deformation of the coaxial cable.

A possible solution could be the use of ceramic materials but ASPS resources aren’t enough to make customized components for PNN thruster. Therefore utilized ferrites and ceramics are common components found on the market and then wrought as much as possible to fit the prototype. For such motivations F449 power frequency has been increased from 144 Mhz of F242 to about 432 Mhz to reduce the prototype dimensions and consequently the overheating damages (although the temperatures remain the same). Last experiments have been conducted ad 449 Mhz, where it has been detected a thrust in the opposite direction.

There is a plausible explanation for the phenomenon, Laureti says: phase shifters are made of ferrite and it would be improvident to think that they can maintain the fields phase as it happens without them. The fields through ferrites can operate in maximum phase, thrust in a direction with a phase of 0,360,720 degrees, or with 180,540 degrees that is thrust in opposite direction (quadrature 90,450 degrees) and no thrust when the fields reciprocally auto-erase themselves.

However incontrovertible PNN thrust tests can be made in “closed box” (prototype core can’t be disclosed) through battery power, thus without coaxial cables for external power that deform when heated.

At the moment, incontrovertible PNN tests with external power cable can be made only in “open box”, where one can directly observe the force created by thrust elements.
This is a situation that ASPS can’t afford because it’s looking for resources to industrially develop PNN.

However all tests for both F242 and F449 are feasible in closed box with battery power supply after it has been conveniently prepared and with commands transmitted from remote .

The current electrodynamic violation procedure of action and reaction principle is a more effective variant than the one related to a patent filed on April 22nd 1998 that can be found at EPO (European Patent Office) with the following registry data:

ITRM980250 (A1) ― 1999-10-22 – Sistema di propulsione elettromagnetico

Today PNN buries its roots in this patent.

Basically the patent covers what Maxwell couldn’t know, not because he wasn’t capable but because he hasn’t got the technology to investigate further.

I report Laureti’s words about this issue:

Quote
The first who thought to interactions between open circuits like the dipoles, for what I could find from a historical point of view, was Maxwell.

He explicitly says at page 163 Vol.2 of his Treatise:

…no experiments on the mutual action of unclosed circuits have been made…

and I have to say that at that time it was almost impossible to do such experiments. I’ve discussed more extensively this topic in Nova Astronautica n.84 Vol.20 2000 pages 3-9 as well as in n.77 Vol.18 pages 1-17, where it is described the standard procedure for the violation of Newtonian action-reaction principle through standard electrodynamics that led to the above mentioned patent.



Offline SergioZ82

  • Member
  • Posts: 25
  • Italy
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #1 on: 09/16/2017 06:59 AM »
After F449 the Association has created what seems to be the lucky thruster who’ll make it into space!

The prototype name is F432 and it has the following specs:

Input power: 250W
Thrust: 250 mg ( measured at less than 1 minute into testing, because Laureti had to turn the power off to avoid overheating)
Once again it has been observed the thrust superimposition phenomenon (I’m calling it this way to convey the idea but it might not be technically correct) that first manifested with F242: in short words under a constant power input the thrust slowly builds up over time and once the power is turned off the prototype keeps thrusting, like if it had to work off the previously “accumulated” thrust.
This behavior previously led Laureti to hypothesize that PNN moves with uniform accelerated motion rather than with uniform linear motion.

What does F432 lack to become a small starship? I quote Laureti’s writing on ASPS webpage (original in Italian):

Quote
It lacks a battery power supply (and solar panels for recharging), amplifiers and preamplifiers, telemetry etc. In detail, amplifiers and preamplifiers must be far lighter than the mastodons actually in our possess. Certainly the best thing would be to couple rechargeable batteries with an RTG, but we can’t afford it because our country has repudiated with a referendum [against nuclear power – E.N.] the work of Enrico Fermi, the first who managed to create the first nuclear reactor. Repudiated on the basis of extremist environmentalist propaganda, with the vows of who can’t usually distinguish physics from physical education.

Since apparently RTG technology is forbidden in Italy (I say apparently because I hope Italian State will find a loophole, when it’ll be the moment), Laureti’s choice has to fall back on lithium batteries but it’s not a simple quest because the required specifications aren’t common in the products on the market. I post a Laureti’s discussion about this topic (original in Italian):


>Well, this battery pack isn’t nuclear but rechargeable lithium:
>https://www.niu.com/it/m1/specs/
>They allow to power a small electric motor for city mobility up to 60Km
>48 V, 32 Ah, weight is about 8 kg

Laureti: They don’t adapt to any of the values of our amplifiers.. we bent over backwards (or better: my collaborators did) to find the right ones.. and the most powerful ones can’t be even freighted by plane from America!

>Ok, Mars is farther, but such batteries are rechargeable, so with some help from solar panels.. who knows?

Laureti: We need the pair rechargeable lithium batteries and RTG batteries (plutonium, unfortunately) to be able to land on Mars with some sensitivity, collect martian soil and then head back to Earth (no crew of course!). With lithium batteries alone we can only have a stroll around Mars and then go back home.

>However, if I can ask a question.. What means do you think to use to send your equipment into space?

Laureti: I’ve got two answers that I can’t give.


In the above mentioned writing on ASPS webpage he also published a couple of raw sketches of the future PNN test spacecraft configuration.

Here’s the side view:


and the front view:


Laureti wrote that after many hardships, maybe (emphasis on maybe) within the end of the year ASPS will honor its old dream of a PNN spaceship for Mars! In fact, unlike F449, prototype F432 is actually in the process of being adapted to space flight, thanks also to the help of four formidable Italian collaborators.

Quote
Unfortunately we can carry only moss and/or bacteria instead of elephants. This is what our personal budget allows and it’s the consequence of my  ASPS-Calmagorod stubbornness , because for decades I’ve never bent the knee in front of various Baal (that is NASA,ESA and friends) who only wanted the know-how of PNN in exchange for “fried air” (an Italian way to say "nothing"

If you’re asking yourselves why the cross-shaped fore of the future F432 spaceship, it’s because Laureti dedicates it to all those detractors who yelled for years hate and derision against ASPS work and Laureti’s faith in God.

Here's some images of F432:



Here under pre-test phase on ballistic pendulum:

« Last Edit: 09/16/2017 07:02 AM by SergioZ82 »

Online E.Laureti

  • Member
  • Posts: 64
  • Roma - Italia
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #2 on: 09/16/2017 09:27 AM »
I would like to emphasize an essential point in the inertia of pnn
The violation of the newtonian third principle necessarily involves rewriting the principle of inertia, which displacement  is no longer a uniform straight motion but a uniformly accelerated motion unless a dissipative process (similar to thermal irradiation) is in progress during the implementation in velocity of such inertia law.
Conclusions: A real Mars journey may be shorter in times when few electric energy  compensate the dissipative process. More energy principle conservation need that mass decrease as pnn velocity increase.
Other info in
http://www.asps.it
http://www.asps.it/jka.htm

quo fata ferunt

Offline dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 656
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 257
  • Likes Given: 287
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #3 on: 09/19/2017 03:53 AM »
I believe I know exactly what this is.  It looks like what I like to call a near field reverse magnetic phased array but I can't tell from the information given exactly.  I read here https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43756.0 that is uses frequencies in the MHz which is near the frequency I believe the device needs to run at but also needs a dielectric to shorten the wavelength so that 1/4 lambda is on the order of cm to operate in the near field region.  In one image I have seen of this it does suggest a separation of 1/4 lambda.  It also uses control of phase quoted below:

phase shifters are made of ferrite and it would be improvident to think that they can maintain the fields phase as it happens without them. The fields through ferrites can operate in maximum phase, thrust in a direction with a phase of 0,360,720 degrees, or with 180,540 degrees that is thrust in opposite direction (quadrature 90,450 degrees)

As the ferrite cores work at millions of oscillations per second, the ferrite reaches temperatures that are critical for the whole system

I can't tell what your using for a dielectric but it looks like in this image you are using a dielectric which appear to be between the coils.  I am guessing the coils are wrapped around the ferrite disks?  Is the dielectric a ferrite also?  I suspect from one statement the ferrite is a phase shifter? 


If a near field reverse magnetic phased array does work I have stated because there is not enough momentum in emitted light that I would suspect instead an induced flow in the vacuum possibly.  Your statements about your ballistic pendulum deflection test here:
in short words under a constant power input the thrust slowly builds up over time and once the power is turned off the prototype keeps thrusting, like if it had to work off the previously “accumulated” thrust.

Suggest to me an induced flow in the vacuum that seems to carry momentum.  They suggest eliminating relativity from the equation and I am not sure how they arrive at that but I do think if you can induce the vacuum to carry you then you may be able to counter relativistic effects. 

I'll attach the patent and the thread I started on an idea I though was origional.  Later I found a patent from 2014.   http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.0

I have been looking for some test of this reversed magnetic near field phased array so that I would know for sure if it works.  If you have any evidence this is what I think it is and if it works I would be very interested.  Thanks

-Dustin.

P.S. The 2014 patent advises not using the ferrite for some reason, I don't qutie remember though. I did suggest possibly using ferrite cores in the center of a coil configuration here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1718338#msg1718338
The patent suggests using barium titanate or some other dielectric that drastically shortens the wavelength at MHz.

Hope it helps.
« Last Edit: 09/19/2017 03:56 AM by dustinthewind »

Offline kamill85

  • Member
  • Posts: 29
  • Poland
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #4 on: 09/19/2017 10:55 PM »
Have you done any tests/videos with rotary rigs? Balance based tests do not rule out many possible thrust measurement errors...

Offline dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 656
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 257
  • Likes Given: 287
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #5 on: 09/20/2017 01:18 AM »
Have you done any tests/videos with rotary rigs? Balance based tests do not rule out many possible thrust measurement errors...

I agree I would highly suspect thermal effects and would seek ways to eliminate them from the measurement process.  Isolate variables.  The pendulum experiencing a lasting thrust is also a possible thermal effect but then again, until you isolate the desired variables it may remain a mystery. 
« Last Edit: 09/20/2017 01:19 AM by dustinthewind »

Offline SergioZ82

  • Member
  • Posts: 25
  • Italy
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #6 on: 12/05/2017 09:25 PM »
Laureti has recently shared some details about the experimental setup for F432. Once again, he has experimentally observed that  Newtonian mechanics can't explain the thrust behind electromagnetic propulsion.
Here's the translation:

Waiting for the PNN system with a battery-powered and remote-controlled power supply to be operational (Fig.A)


Figure A: PNN test platform with on-board power source

several tests have been run trying to minimize the effects of measurement errors, mainly due to thermal deformations of the coaxial cable that brings power to F432 from an external amplifier.

The experimental setup is very simple: a Kern electronic scale, with an accuracy of a  thousandth of a gram, is placed on the arm of a balance scale while the prototype is placed on the opposite arm.
On the opposite side, with a suitable counterweight, the Kern scale is suitably shielded (fig. 2) according to the indications of one of our four new collaborators.
The shielding is perfect by using a triple layer anti-radiation net plus humble but effective tinfoil.


Figure 1: F432 on the arm scale. The thrust direction is upwards

As you can see in figure 1, F432 is anchored to an arm of the balance scale.
The scale power supply has been switched from AC to battery. Both scale and battery have been enclosed in a box (shoe box) that has been conveniently shielded, even on the support surface (further details are not released)


Figure 2: the Kern scale and its power source inside a shielded container

The fulcrum of the balance scale rests on a knife whose support structure is locked by a clamp (fig.3 in the middle)


Figure 3: the complete setup: balance arm scale, F432, Kern scale and counterweight

On the arm related to the Kern scale there is a counterweight, to avoid that the scale becomes unbalanced and goes out of scale exceeding 60 grams.

Specifically if on one arm the prototype pushes upwards on the opposite one the thrust is downwards, with an increase in weight indicated on the scale display.

To avoid the usual electromagnetic interference the transmission of the reading on the scale display is made through an optical fiber cable connected to a laptop. Obviously the remote transmission is required to avoid any collateral damage and therefore to remain at safety distance from the PNN prototype while in action (irradiation).

And we come to the subject of the title:  if the PNN law of inertia was the same as the Newtonian mechanics we would have to expect a constant thrust after ignition (at about 500 watts).

Instead, as you can see in this video:



 the thrust (weight increase on the scale) increase with time … that is the same effect I had noticed on the ballistic pendulum.

Luckily there seems to be a dissipative process since as it looks absurd (at Newtonian interpretation level) the very paradoxical problem of PNN thrust is to make it stop once the power is turned off.
What does it mean ? That even with a few Watts I can reach enormous thrusts..

One only has to wait.

In the video I’ve turned off UHF power after about 40 secs due to overheating problems (passive-only thermal dissipation).
Everything can be done without violating the conservation of energy or that of momentum simply by accepting the anti-relativistic concept of mass decreasing with increasing PNN kinetic energy.
The achievement of consistent thrusts that exceed the dissipation (PNN energy with power off) can allow the take-off from planets like Earth..
As I said above, to reach an appropriate escape speed (ascending progressively like an elevator) one only has to wait.

In conclusion, this kind of thrust would lead to the liberation from every relativistic bond to reach Earth-like planets that are light years away.

Obviously when the prototype is mounted in the opposite direction to fig.1 there is a decrease in weight on the plate of the Kern scale.

I have tried to eliminate thermal errors induced by the coaxial cable, which heats up in ways that I can only discuss with my collaborators.
I tried to eliminate them by making thermal deformations work against the PNN thrust
but, I repeat in order to not create opposite impressions, I expect decisive certainty only when the ” little cart” in fig.A will be operational and coupled with F432.
That is when F432 will be a small spaceship with a DPS (Supplementary Power Device) as it’s not possible for private citizens to obtain a Radioisotope Thermal Generator.
« Last Edit: 12/06/2017 07:14 AM by SergioZ82 »

Online E.Laureti

  • Member
  • Posts: 64
  • Roma - Italia
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #7 on: 12/06/2017 08:47 AM »
Addendum Dec.6  2017 from http://www.asps.it/fibra432.htm


The new law of inertia would greatly shorten the times of approaching a celestial body.
I would like to underline an essential datum of the inertia of the pnn systems if what has been revised on the arm scale will also be confirmed by the next tests of the pnn with the structure of the prototype with a cart i.e. a very little spaceship (fig.A)

The violation of the third principle necessarily involves the rewriting of the Newton first and second principle.
The principle of inertia low is no longer a uniform rectilinear motion but a uniformly accelerated motion.
This implies that a law of inertia is something non-linear as hypothesized in http://www.calmagorod.org/inerzia-della-pnn/
The thrust should be there even with the engines switched off unless a dissipative process (similar to the thermal irradiation) is in progress during the implementation of this inertia law. The quantification of the dissipative process is currently impossible as its control and reduction procedure.
Let's get back to another essential detail with some modifications:
Now let's come back to action/reaction principle and to an event (A NEW KIND OF INERTIA LAW) which is to me is more important than the thrust itself: the changing of inertia law by the system that violates the action/reaction principle.

Recently I came to know about this fantastic correlation:

EmDrive experimentally verified that "Thrust signals even after the electrical power was turned off" (from http://www.sciencealert.com/independent-scientists-confirm-that-the-impossible-em-drive-produces-thrust)
The same occurs with more grandeur and evidence for F242 (and F432 December 2017)
https://neolegesmotus.wordpress.com/2016/04/24/f242-is-now-at-2-56-grams-of-thrust/
http://www.asps.it/assettof242.htm
For me "Thrust signals even after the electrical power was turned off" is not a measurement error and agrees with findings in F242, in the sense that the violation of Newton's Third principle involves a change of the law of inertia and therefore the law of inertia for systems that violate the third principle (PNN and Emdrive) is a uniformly accelerated motion!

Who says I don't use mathematics simply must go at http://www.calmagorod.org/inerzia-della-pnn/ [English at https://neolegesmotus.wordpress.com/2015/10/01/as-if-one-wasnt-enough-pnn-breaks-another-law/ - Sergio] and tell me if in his opinion the violation of action/reaction principle doesn't imply a change in inertia law. I only mathematically defined an hypothesis completely theoretical about the inertia deriving from violation of action/reaction principle.

One salient characteristic of the system that changes inertia law is that when the power supply is turned off the motion isn't uniform and linear anymore but uniformly accelerated, thus the mass of the movable object must decrease when speed increases in order to conserve the energy. It's like if a force was still present.

Now this “seems” it has been observed also with the EmDrive.

With F242 and F432 I'm observing several times this phenomenon

To recap, in my opinion the violation of Newton's Third (which for me it occurs probably in the EmDrive too) implies:

1.   the impulse conservation (momentum) through electrodynamic field (also Moretti says this in www.asps.it/azione.htm)

2.   the thrust increase for the same energy used

3.I specify: when powered the prototype progressively increases its inclination.. but I can't increase too much the thrust duration due to thermal issues (since the thrust can't convert itself in kinetic energy on the ballistic pendulum it convert itself in thermal energy)

4.   the most important fact: only by violating the Third Newton principle and by changing the inertia law (in the one I mathematically defined it's even exponential!) the moving object accelerate even with engine turned off. What does it mean? That moving object mass must decrease when speed increases in order to conserve the total energy. On Reddit one immediately said to me: then it doesn't work! But I didn't reply him that Relativity has NOTHING to do with the sum of all non-null internal forces of a mass. What do I want to say? That in physics the concepts are valid only with the procedures used to define them and NOT with those they HAVEN'T BEEN defined with.
In my opinion only by changing the law of inertia one can face interstellar travel.

Offline SergioZ82

  • Member
  • Posts: 25
  • Italy
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #8 on: 01/06/2018 04:04 PM »
Another update about the F432-powered spaceship.
In his last writing Laureti describes some hypothesis for a flight to Mars and back without using rockets and nuclear power (Italy rejected the use of nuclear energy, so ASPS can't use RTGs or other nuclear generators).

Premise: the incredible possibility for a PNN spacecraft, whose essential scheme is given in the underlying figure (this “little cart” is actually under construction with time and resources available to ASPS)


Figure a: preliminary design for PNN spacecraft, jokingly nicknamed “Carretto” (Little cart)

derives from the fact that the tests that have been carried out so far have indicated this unusual anomaly for a mobile that violates the action/reaction principle.

The starting point is that if PNN violates Newton’s third principle one can’t expect that the law of inertia and the second principle of dynamics aren’t different. The tests carried out so far indicate this and the final confirmation test will only be the one with a configuration similar to figure a.

However if inertia law is not linear we won’t need, as you’ll see, huge resources to reach Mars.

What also works against us is to be part of a country – Italy – where nuclear energy has been rejected by 2 referendums. Private Italian entrepreneurs who would want, and could, undertake a space flight to reach and land on Mars couldn’t have nuclear reactors to produce electric energy or RTG batteries (unlike the majority of NASA martian rovers). Let alone to have access to RTG technology and improve it when Italy, land of E.Fermi (who built in America the first nuclear reactor), has renounced to nuclear.

In short, it is to cry about the opportunities that must be abdicated in a country of ideological cunnings where nuclear power plants are closed after failures in those of countries who don’t even dream (Russia) of doing something similar. The extremist environmentalism lodges only in Italy and its goal is probably to go back to the golden age of the polished stone. That the E-cat does not work and has been for some years an illusory whining and a crazy rip-off as desired energy by those who voted against nuclear classic is for me the right revenge of the spirit of the nuclearist E.Fermi whose works are prohibited in this country.

Since we, differently Italians, only have rechargeable batteries we must use everything available to always keep at full charge the batteries to be used for PNN, that is we have to expiate the ecologist punishment of reaching Mars without nuclear energy.

I reiterate what I said earlier: if the law of inertia and the thrust were by chance confirmed as that of this video of the prototype F432 placed on an arm of a scale:



we could reach Mars and return to Earth even without nuclear reactors.


Figure b: F432 on arm scale

The basic idea for the DPS that will recharge the batteries is the wind turbine, that is using wind propellers while landing on a celestial body with atmosphere… only that the wind does not blow against the turbines but the opposite.

Of course, the landing site must have an atmosphere.
In detail, a PNN system equipped with propellers (in the guise of a drone) impacting a planetary atmosphere (with the necessary attitudes and speeds to avoid self-destruction) can produce electricity without the need of RTGs.
Without planetary atmosphere, the DPS can not be used.
As said, in a preliminary hypothesis the propellers would resemble those of the drones but they would operate in reverse as generators of electricity when a PNN system decides to land on a planet with an atmosphere.
After all, the DPS turn a disadvantage into the advantage.

Mars, like the Earth, has an atmosphere even if very weak.

I recap the whole departure sequence from Earth and the flight with landing on Mars and return to better understand the essential procedure of something that is still largely at theoretical level in the many details it’s composed of.

Phase A: Departure from the Earth

If the inertia law is what it seems at the moment, that is non-linear with the thrust that increases with time, for the purpose of take off one only has to wait. At present in order to not risk overheating damages I activate F432 for about 40 seconds with a power between 400 and 500 Watts. It’s temporally too little to achieve take off and obviously I lack of a series of instrumental checks that because times, expenses and the nonexistence of instruments themselves I can’t do.

In the end, in the take off from Earth there is the advantage that we can power the system through an external electric supply while it’s still lying on Earth surface, hence without using the on-board rechargeable batteries.

However at least two other problems must be solved before we can reach this goal:

A) thermal dissipation through an active system (that F432 hasn’t got). The solution of equipping the system with active thermal dissipation systems must be calibrated with the NON-alteration of impedance. What is easy to do in the absence of rapidly variable fields is not identical in the phase of frequencies of millions of megahertz. The alteration and the non-control of the thermal phase of the impedance have destroyed me several prototypes.

B) conservation of the accumulated PNN thrust energy without an unfavorable exchange against time with the surrounding environment.

Successively the system (which is a spaceship) have to be tied – or better, anchored, as a ship should be – to Earth surface without releasing it and then to release it only when the accumulated thrust is suitable to reach a low orbit without depleting too much the rechargeable batteries.

The accumulation times of the thrust also depend on the mass that the PNN system wants to carry with it with engine thrust being equal. However the batteries can be fully recharged during the journey to Mars through solar panels.
In order to land on Mars DPS can be used since the planet has an atmosphere and DPS produce electric power only through a soft impact in the presence of an atmosphere.

Obviously in departure from Earth the solar panels, the mounts and the wind turbines (whose drawings and the number of blades are only indicative) must be turned backwards due to friction with the Earth’s atmosphere (fig.1)


Figure 1: configuration for the traversal of Earth atmosphere. All DPS are folded by 90 degree to prevent friction against the dense atmosphere

Phase B: in transit to Mars

With the absence of external friction, both solar panels and wind generators can be deployed.


Figure 2: configuration for the transit to Mars

Phase C: descent on Mars

Folding of solar panels and a configuration (Figure 3) for soft braking.


Figure 3: configuration for the traversal of the thin Martian atmosphere

The orbit around Mars must be duly eccentric (I don’t know how much), that is with the apogee greater than perigee in order to impact Martian atmosphere at the passage on perigee and to put the propellers into action to charge the accumulators, hence to utilize the electricity produced to brake the PNN system through a thrust opposite to the movement direction, reduce its speed and lowering the orbit.

In practice in the passage through perihelion it is necessary to brake with an inverted thrust, lowering the orbit continuously without a loss of energy in the previously recharged electric accumulators. All this requires an exact knowledge of the number of orbits to be made around Mars for the braking and of how much the perihelion must be lowered down to the total immersion in the Martian atmosphere.

In short, complex calculations and a PNN spacecraft structure suitable to not be damaged during braking are required, also because the same procedure will have to be implemented for the return to Earth and the Earth’s atmosphere is considerably denser and therefore more dangerous.

Phase D: departure from Mars

The same criterion for taking off from Earth must be used differently. That is, the PNN system will have to be “loaded with thrust” for the time necessary for take-off and it will necessarily have to bring to Mars a greater number of solar panels to be left presumably on site with related accumulators (and therefore reusable for other trips). Complex calculations and studies of all the necessary components must be made to prepare the necessary and to compensate for any unforeseen events, as we always lack of RTGs and / or nuclear reactors.

Phase E: return on Earth

The procedure is identical to that for landing on Mars, only with the difference that Earth atmosphere is much denser and the risk of structural damages to PNN spacecraft is higher. In conclusion the spaceship must be designed and built by keeping into account the most difficult reentry, the one on Earth. Again we must operate heel and toe, that is multiple passages through apogee and perigee by braking, charging the accumulators and opportunely lowering the orbit at perigee phase.

Conclusions:

Examining the single steps it seems to me that one of the essential data to set everything on, apart from the timing of the trip that will alway be in acceleration or deceleration (if the inertia law is non-linear), are the calculations to design the foldable solar panels structure, DPS and necessarily the calculation for a soft braking for the return on Earth. In short very complex and expensive problematics that unfortunately ASPS can’t face alone, as a fair number of experts and specialists in various sectors have to partecipate.

Incidentally I add that we can land on celestial bodies without an atmosphere, like the Moon, without deploying the wind generators but utilizing with as much patience as possible a recharge procedure based solely on solar panels, maybe opportunely enlarged.

However the most intriguing conclusion, to whom I can’t still believe because it’s too good to be true, is the non-linear inertia from which it descends, or better, it can be glimpsed, something that could have implications also in energy production.. but it’s too soon to talk about it because the steps must be overcome one at a time.
« Last Edit: 01/06/2018 04:12 PM by SergioZ82 »

Online E.Laureti

  • Member
  • Posts: 64
  • Roma - Italia
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #9 on: 01/07/2018 12:35 PM »

To Mars and back- hypothesis for a PNN spacecraft

https://neolegesmotus.wordpress.com/2018/01/06/to-mars-and-back-hypothesis-for-a-pnn-spacecraft/

from : http://www.asps.it/versomarte.htm

There is someone who knows where to find the density of the Martian atmosphere according to height and whether there is a link on the speed of approach (in terms of altitude and time) to Mars of a Martian probe that has arrived whole on its surface ?

Offline Bob Woods

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 279
  • Salem, Oregon USA
  • Liked: 387
  • Likes Given: 1241
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #10 on: 01/08/2018 02:13 AM »

To Mars and back- hypothesis for a PNN spacecraft

https://neolegesmotus.wordpress.com/2018/01/06/to-mars-and-back-hypothesis-for-a-pnn-spacecraft/

from : http://www.asps.it/versomarte.htm

There is someone who knows where to find the density of the Martian atmosphere according to height and whether there is a link on the speed of approach (in terms of altitude and time) to Mars of a Martian probe that has arrived whole on its surface ?
Mars Atmosphere pressure model from NASA
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/atmosmrm.html
« Last Edit: 01/08/2018 02:14 AM by Bob Woods »

Offline Alvidrez

  • Member
  • Posts: 1
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #11 on: 03/14/2018 09:10 AM »

To Mars and back- hypothesis for a PNN spacecraft

https://neolegesmotus.wordpress.com/2018/01/06/to-mars-and-back-hypothesis-for-a-pnn-spacecraft/

from : http://www.asps.it/versomarte.htm

There is someone who knows where to find the density of the Martian atmosphere according to height and whether there is a link on the speed of approach (in terms of altitude and time) to Mars of a Martian probe that has arrived whole on its surface ?
That is interesting.

What do you think will be harder? To get to Mars or come back again?

Online E.Laureti

  • Member
  • Posts: 64
  • Roma - Italia
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #12 on: 03/15/2018 03:33 PM »
Both things …. But it all depends on the next experiments with our "cart"
www.asps.it/sidetra.jpg

We will keep you informed as soon as possible

Online E.Laureti

  • Member
  • Posts: 64
  • Roma - Italia
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #13 on: 06/19/2018 11:45 PM »
Pnn test with pnn prototype (F432) powered by batteries.
The general layout scheme of the prototype:




The prototype will be switched on and off remotely via a remote control and can be tested under any conditions:




We sincerely thank the outside of our association www.asps.it who are helping us in this venture.



The mini-spaceship configuration is used to evaluate any differences between Newtonian inertia and non-Newtonian inertia resulting in the violation of the action and reaction principle





More details in www.asps.it/ceo.htm (in Italian)

Online E.Laureti

  • Member
  • Posts: 64
  • Roma - Italia
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #14 on: 06/27/2018 03:57 PM »

Pnn test of control and power  for F432

Online E.Laureti

  • Member
  • Posts: 64
  • Roma - Italia
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #15 on: 06/29/2018 07:30 AM »


Building of a mini PNN spaceship in action

“He made the constellations of the Pleiades and the Orion”

www.asps.it/ceo.htm



Online E.Laureti

  • Member
  • Posts: 64
  • Roma - Italia
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #16 on: 06/29/2018 02:35 PM »

The takeoff of the pnn from the ground is determined by the fact that:
The impedance tends to cancel ... while the power supply increases ... that is, the electromagnetic wave produced tends to disappear at about 10 wavelengths from the source since the magnetic field of the displacement current has always proved with the pnn experimentally its inexistence

Lorentz (Nobel Prize) also considered the phantom of Maxwell to be non-existent, ie the displacement current.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.205.6223&rep=rep1&type=pdf

like others

http://www.asps.it/miller00.pdf

Maxwell was a mathematician who never did an experiment in his life about displacement current.
Therefore I say to those who needlessly try to understand how EmDrive works.
Attention to the basics of classical electrodynamics there is something wrong and that inevitably alters the physical perception. Some time ago I was very angry about this situation. Now no longer.
My current positions are expressed by these two words in Latin.

Deus qui vult to lose dementat.

Vulgus vult decipi ergo decipiatur. 

The figures in the Impedance Analyzer at

http://www.asps.it/ceo.htm

 already show the abatement in F432 of the capacitive impedance X and a certain progress in the abatement of the resistive impedance R ... but still not enough for the purposes of take off .


Online meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1637
  • Liked: 1503
  • Likes Given: 368
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #17 on: 06/29/2018 07:57 PM »
Private Italian entrepreneurs who would want, and could, undertake a space flight to reach and land on Mars couldn’t have nuclear reactors to produce electric energy or RTG batteries (unlike the majority of NASA martian rovers).
Only 3 Mars landers have had RTGs, and only one of those was a rover. One upcoming mission will also have an RTG. The majority by any count has used solar panels. Nuclear reactors have never been using in space. Please just stop talking about this irrelevant nonsense. It is too hard too find any meaningful information in your posts even without this.

Your recent posts have mostly been a bunch of pictures, with no particular explanation of what is shown in any of them.

The takeoff of the pnn from the ground is determined by the fact that:
The impedance tends to cancel ... while the power supply increases ... that is, the electromagnetic wave produced tends to disappear at about 10 wavelengths from the source since the magnetic field of the displacement current has always proved with the pnn experimentally its inexistence
I can't properly interpret this statement, since you have never provided the information needed to know what your experimental setup is. As far as the pnn proving anything experimentally: you have provided no actual data. Your assertions are worthless.

Lorentz (Nobel Prize) also considered the phantom of Maxwell to be non-existent, ie the displacement current.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.205.6223&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Try reading the reply Jackson made to the first paper in that pdf (also in the pdf) :
Quote
It is clear from section 3 and equations (11) and (13) that it is a matter of procedure and taste whether or not the displacement current enters explicitly in a calculation. Maxwell is wrong if he asserts that the displacement current is a real external current density on a par with the conduction current density, but he is right if he says that it is electromagnetically equivalent (in the sense that it can appear on the right-hand side of the Amp`ere–Maxwell equation together with the conduction current density). Implementation of the displacement current as an ‘external source’ depends, however, on a perturbative approach, starting with electrostatics.
Basically the entire so-called controversy is just a matter of semantics, and there is no question about what the expected results are for any given experiment.

Maxwell was a mathematician who never did an experiment in his life about displacement current.
Therefore I say to those who needlessly try to understand how EmDrive works.
Attention to the basics of classical electrodynamics there is something wrong and that inevitably alters the physical perception. Some time ago I was very angry about this situation. Now no longer.
My current positions are expressed by these two words in Latin.

Deus qui vult to lose dementat.

Vulgus vult decipi ergo decipiatur. 
Maxwell was wrong about some things such as the aether, but since he lacked the data to show there was no aether, that was a reasonable position at the time. The alternative was equivalent to special relativity which has strange consequences that are unintuitive, and no one had fully considered at the time. Unlike your claim though, there is nothing wrong with classical electrodynamics. It needs quantization added to it for quantum, but that is not relevant at the scales discussed here. It actually has special relativity built into it with no modification needed. There are many experiments that confirm all aspects of relativity, including the increase in relativistic mass as you approach the speed of light. Your claims of the opposite happening are incompatible with all of those experiments and point to issues with your setup or your understanding of what you are doing.

Online E.Laureti

  • Member
  • Posts: 64
  • Roma - Italia
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #18 on: 06/29/2018 08:48 PM »

@meberbs

To change my mind, it is enough to have an experiment in which there is a measure of the magnetic field of the displacement current that does not originate from exchange errors like: magnetic field generated by charges exchanged for magnetic field by displacement current. In conclusion I have no difficulty in changing my opinion ... .. but this should not happen not through equations or theories but through an experiment.

Online E.Laureti

  • Member
  • Posts: 64
  • Roma - Italia
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #19 on: 06/29/2018 08:53 PM »

I excuse for a my error in latin:

quos vult deus perdere dementat prius

Tags: