An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432

[SergioZ82]

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:

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.

[SergioZ82]

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):

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.

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:

[E.Laureti]

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

[dustinthewind]

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.

[kamill85]

Have you done any tests/videos with rotary rigs? Balance based tests do not rule out many possible thrust measurement errors...

[dustinthewind]

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. 

[SergioZ82]

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.

[E.Laureti]

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.

[SergioZ82]

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.

[E.Laureti]

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 ?

[Bob Woods]

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

[Alvidrez]

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?

[E.Laureti]

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

[E.Laureti]

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)

[E.Laureti]

Pnn test of control and power  for F432

[E.Laureti]

Building of a mini PNN spaceship in action

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

www.asps.it/ceo.htm

[E.Laureti]

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 .

[meberbs]

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) :

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.

[E.Laureti]

@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.

[E.Laureti]

I excuse for a my error in latin:

quos vult deus perdere dementat prius

[meberbs]

@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.

As explained in the paper that you linked, displacement current is a mathematical construct. It is one of multiple correct ways to go through the math to predict the results of any given experiment. You can discuss the motions of charges or of fields. Position and motion of charges determines electric and magnetic fields. On the other hand from the electric and magnetic fields you can determine the position and motion of the charges.

All EM fields are generated by charges, but there are common situations (almost anything to do with propagation of light) where the generating charges are far away and long ago, so it is easier to base the calculations on the local fields rather than the distant charges and currents. Your so-called "error source" is just the fact that the information is equivalent. The oscillating magnetic and electric fields of light have been directly detected by various methods such as here: https://physics.aps.org/story/v26/st13

Whichever calculation method you choose, the result is the same, so there can be no experiment that shows a difference. It is like trying to compare 3x3 = 9 versus 3+3+3 = 9. The statements are equivalent by definition. There is no experiment like the one you describe, there can't be a changing E-field that didn't come from a moving charge. You might as well be asking for an experiment to determine the color of a hypothetical perfectly invisible object. Since that object would not interact with light in any way, there is no way to actually define the color of such an object.

[E.Laureti]

@meberbs

In 1901, Henri Poincaré pointed out the Newton 's third law is violated if the displacement current does not exist. This conjecture implies that, according to Maxwell' s equations, a net propulsion force can be generated from electromagnetic interaction ...... "(H. Poincaré, Électricité et Optique (Paris: G Carré et C Naud), 1901, pp 465-6).

Following the indication of Poincarè some years ago I theoretically conceived a propulsion system based on what was said Poincare http://www.calmagorod.org/pnn-la-sua-genesi/ ... When I went to his experimentation with great difficulty I found that it was perfectly NOT working ... or functioning as if the displacement current did NOT exist. 

No one has likewise gone to make an experimental measurement in the vacuum of the magnetic component of the wave H in order to experimentally verify that E / H is approximately 377 Ohms. I would be very happy to find a link where there is this measure in  vacuum.

In my opinion we are dealing with an electromagnetism that accurately avoids certain types of displacement current measurements so the objective conclusion is that believing or not believing in the magnetic component of the wave propagating in the void you will build the antennas more or less always alike.
Personally I believe that there is no magnetic component of the electrical wave in propagation in the vacuum, that E / H is equal to infinity, or that in the vacuum only the electric field propagates. On the contrary, the non-existence of the magnetic component of the propagating wave implies that in the void there is something that absorbs the power of the wave when the field E is null or that in the vacuum there is the notorious ether if we do not want to renounce the conservation of the energy for a propagating electrical wave.
In this sense I am unfortunately a follower of Maxwell

But the worst thing for Maxwell's fans is that the set of heresies I just told you did not in any way deprived me of being able to build antennas working for purely electromagnetic objectives (antennas) as for Newtonian and non-Newtonian targets that pushed me to reach.
In fact, those who build an antenna even remotely dream of building it through measures of the current of displacement or at least I have never found anyone who took it into account.

[E.Laureti]

Excuse me ... a correction about what Poincarè said in 1901: ".....Henri Poincaré pointed out that the Newton's third law is  violated if the displacement current does exist ... "

i.e. "does exist" and not "does NOT exist"

[meberbs]

In 1901, Henri Poincaré pointed out the Newton 's third law is violated if the displacement current does not exist. This conjecture implies that, according to Maxwell' s equations, a net propulsion force can be generated from electromagnetic interaction ...... "(H. Poincaré, Électricité et Optique (Paris: G Carré et C Naud), 1901, pp 465-6).

A few years later, Einstein published his paper on special relativity. This modified our understanding of momentum such that massless particles can exist and carry momentum. Recognizing that electromagnetic fields consist of photons and can therefore carry momentum, conservation of momentum still holds. The propulsion force pointed out exists and has been known about for the last century. The concept of a photon rocket comes with the drawback of consuming absurd amounts of power, and is generally only useful on a rocket if you had matter-antimatter reactors to turn a large fraction of your spacecraft mass into pure photons that you direct in the opposite direction than you want to move. Otherwise there are better propulsion methods for the given energy. Having an external laser reflecting off the spacecraft is feasible with today's technology, but not quite enough to be useful.

Following the indication of Poincarè some years ago I theoretically conceived a propulsion system based on what was said Poincare http://www.calmagorod.org/pnn-la-sua-genesi/ ... When I went to his experimentation with great difficulty I found that it was perfectly NOT working ... or functioning as if the displacement current did NOT exist. 

Photon radiation pressure has been measured in many experiments, it is tiny though, so if you had no understanding of the large power levels required for significant force, it is not a surprise that you failed to measure it.

No one has likewise gone to make an experimental measurement in the vacuum of the magnetic component of the wave H in order to experimentally verify that E / H is approximately 377 Ohms. I would be very happy to find a link where there is this measure in  vacuum.

Radiation pressure would clearly not be able to exist if there was not a magnetic component to EM radiation. Radiation pressure has been measured countless times with a force that exactly matches the expectation. Generally electromagnetic radiation existing at all only makes sense with the magnetic component existing. The original confirmation came from Hertz in 1888. See https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0602073.pdf for a modern take on the experiment. Other evidence for the magnetic fields comes from the existence of modes such as TM modes in waveguides and resonators.

But the worst thing for Maxwell's fans is that the set of heresies I just told you did not in any way deprived me of being able to build antennas working for purely electromagnetic objectives (antennas) as for Newtonian and non-Newtonian targets that pushed me to reach.
In fact, those who build an antenna even remotely dream of building it through measures of the current of displacement or at least I have never found anyone who took it into account.

I don't know what you are trying to say here, it just sounds completely incoherent. It sounds like there are at least 2 mistakes you are making though, one being that you still seem to think that "displacement current" refers to a physical current of some physical thing, when it is just the rate of change of electric field at a point. My last post explained that there is no question about whether "displacement current" is a thing. It is just part of one of multiple equivalent methods for calculating what happens in certain situations. You also seem to be using a clearly bad assumption that because an effect is small, and negligible in some cases, it must not exist.

[E.Laureti]

PNN in progress

[E.Laureti]

@meberbs

>It sounds like there are at least 2 mistakes you are making though, one being that you still seem to
>think that "displacement current" refers to a physical current of some physical thing,
> when it is just the rate of change of electric field at a point.

i.e. you say to me that such change of electric field DON’T GENERATE A MAGNETIC FIELD?

>My last post explained that there is no question about whether "displacement current" is a thing.

I REPEAT SUCH MAGNETIC FIELD EXIST OR NOT EXIST?

When you propose such experiment:
>See       https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0602073.pdf    for a modern take on the experiment.

Or Others

> Other evidence for the magnetic fields comes from the existence of modes such as TM modes in
>waveguides and resonators.

They don’t are magnetic fields from displacement current  but the same of Bartlett experiment in the near zone field i.e. magnetic fields of moving charges
mixed with the hypothetical magnetic field of displacement current
Here one paper of Bartlett

https://deanostoybox.com/hot-streamer/TeslaCoils/OtherPapers/displacement_current-Bartlett.pdf

http://www.asps.it/bartlett3.jpg

http://www.asps.it/bartlett4.jpg

When you propose such experiments  of magnetic field of displacement current

https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0602073.pdf it is a modern comics becouse it is fruitless as result

In fact at the end of several experiments the  Bartlett  conclusion was : http://www.asps.it/bartlett5.jpg

I.e it is fruitless the search such magnetic where are magnetic fields of different origin
On my opinion this is the better experiment to detect the magnetic field from displacement current.
The existence of the magnetic field H by DS (Displacement Current) implies that through the E / H = 377 ohms we can measure with new and unfortunately expensive field sensors both E (electric field) and H (magnetic field)

Placing us at a distance due (let's say 50 of wavelengths) from a dipole emitting frequency field equal to 144 Mhz

If we use the electric Probe EF 1891 (frequency range 100khz-6Ghz) page 71 of the link
http://www.narda-sts.us/pdf_files/DataSheets/NBM-Probes_DataSheet.pdf
  we can measure the electric field E at 144 Mhz.

The Narda electric probe could well detect 30 Volts / meter (appropriately calibrating the power of the dipole emission)
While the magnetic probe HF 0191 (frequency range 27 Mhz - 1 Ghz) always on pag.71
placed in place of the electric one, always at the same distance, has the deadly ability to well detect the .079 Amp / meter that through the relationship E / H give the fatal 377 ohms WITHOUT SCREENINGS and rip-offs to save the physical incompetence of mathematical J.C .Maxwell!
I have noticed MORE THAN STEPS that only propose this type DIRECT measure of both E and H disrupts and contrasts
all those who believe in the existence of the magnetic field of the displacement but do not want to do the measurements in the FAR zone or the same type of error that you propose as “modern” (https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0602073.pdf) and that Bartlett declares without fruits for measures made inside the armatures of a condenser.

[meberbs]

@meberbs

>It sounds like there are at least 2 mistakes you are making though, one being that you still seem to
>think that "displacement current" refers to a physical current of some physical thing,
> when it is just the rate of change of electric field at a point.

i.e. you say to me that such change of electric field DON’T GENERATE A MAGNETIC FIELD?

None of my words mean anything remotely like what you said. Stating that the term "displacement current" refers to a "changing electric field"  rather than a "physical current" does not in any way conflict with the fact that magnetic fields exist that can be described by their relationship with changing electric fields.

>My last post explained that there is no question about whether "displacement current" is a thing.

I REPEAT SUCH MAGNETIC FIELD EXIST OR NOT EXIST?

I offered multiple proofs that the magnetic field exists exactly as described by Maxwell's equations. Repeating a question that has been clearly answered is a waste of time.

When you propose such experiment:
>See       https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0602073.pdf    for a modern take on the experiment.

Or Others

> Other evidence for the magnetic fields comes from the existence of modes such as TM modes in
>waveguides and resonators.

They don’t are magnetic fields from displacement current  but the same of Bartlett experiment in the near zone field i.e. magnetic fields of moving charges
mixed with the hypothetical magnetic field of displacement current
Here one paper of Bartlett

Grammar is bad in that sentence, so there are multiple opposing things I could take it to mean. My best guess is that you are trying to say that the magnetic fields come from moving charges rather than from changing electric field. That statement is silly, because changing electric fields come from moving charges, so the root cause of the magnetic field is the charges. It just is usually easier to describe the effects using Maxwell's equations rather than something like the Liénard–Wiechert potentials:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li%C3%A9nard%E2%80%93Wiechert_potential

This description is equivalent to the Maxwell equations, so again by definition either description is correct, just like 3x3 = 9 and 3+3+3 = 9.

When you propose such experiments  of magnetic field of displacement current

https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0602073.pdf it is a modern comics becouse it is fruitless as result

I am not proposing an experiment, I am giving an example of an experiment that has been done.  Trying to demean it with words like "comics" just shows that you missed the point.

In fact at the end of several experiments the  Bartlett  conclusion was : http://www.asps.it/bartlett5.jpg

I.e it is fruitless the search such magnetic where are magnetic fields of different origin

Let me simplify that conclusion for you, since it seems you misunderstand it. It basically says "This may seem silly, since there are easier ways to get the same result, but it is useful for understanding and to show that physics works." It does nothing to support your claims.

On my opinion this is the better experiment to detect the magnetic field from displacement current.
...

You can waste your time and money running that experiment if you want. As I already stated, the effect of radiation pressure has been measured many times, and for an incoming easily known electric field strength of an EM wave, the pressure makes sense if and only if there is an accompanying magnetic field exactly as described by Maxwell's equations. Measurements have been done in the far field, so this covers what seems to be your concern with other examples.

You should also note that any significant deviation from Maxwell's equations would inevitably be noticed during the calibration of probes such as the ones you linked.

the physical incompetence of mathematical J.C .Maxwell!

Insulting figures who created theories that have been shown to make incredibly accurate predictions without providing a single shred of evidence that there is any flaw in there theories is not productive.

Also:

PNN in progress

I don't see anything there that looks like "progress." I see a foil wrapped box with a cable sticking out. Unless you actually describe what is shown in such posts, I find them to be a waste of bandwidth.

[E.Laureti]

Still you has not answered me on this elementary fact:
if modern Narda probes that measure both the electric field and the magnetic field of an electric and presumed magnetic wave
http://www.narda-sts.us/pdf_files/DataSheets/NBM-Probes_DataSheet.pdf
  they do not detect the magnetic field H relative to the E / H = 377 ohms

... who misses Maxwell or the Narda probes?

And I repeat Maxwell never made that measurement   E/H = 377 ohm  since there is no experiment done by Maxwell to verify his mathematical theory in the e.m. (?) field

And again if Lorentz evaluates the displacement current as not existing
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.205.6223&rep=rep1&type=pdf

why should I trust Maxwell and not Lorentz since Lorentz is a nobel prize and Maxwell is not a nobel prize?

[meberbs]

Still you has not answered me on this elementary fact:
if modern Narda probes that measure both the electric field and the magnetic field of an electric and presumed magnetic wave
http://www.narda-sts.us/pdf_files/DataSheets/NBM-Probes_DataSheet.pdf
  they do not detect the magnetic field H relative to the E / H = 377 ohms

This is not an "elementary fact" it is you making up false statements. The probes would detect the fields as long as the power is sufficient for the detection sensitivity. You can run an experiment if you want. Claiming that they don't when you have no evidence is simply unscientific. It is also unscientific to continue to ignoring some of the evidence I have provided such as measurements of radiation pressure (You can google "measurement of radiation pressure" that kind of experiment has been done many times)

And I repeat Maxwell never made that measurement   E/H = 377 ohm  since there is no experiment done by Maxwell to verify his mathematical theory in the e.m. (?) field

Others did the experiments that confirmed his theory, and there is nothing wrong with that.

And again if Lorentz evaluates the displacement current as not existing
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.205.6223&rep=rep1&type=pdf

He doesn't though. I already pointed out when you linked the paper the first time that the response to the paper included in the same document explains that it is just a semantic argument. I have even linked you to a formulation of potentials derived from Maxwell's equations that shows how the same effect can be written solely as a function of a charge and its motion, so there is no difference in the physical result.

why should I trust Maxwell and not Lorentz since Lorentz is a nobel prize and Maxwell is not a nobel prize?

"Has a Nobel Prize" is a terrible criteria for many reasons, but  even worse in this case, since Maxwell died before the Nobel prize was founded and was therefore never eligible for one.

[E.Laureti]

@meberbs

The narda probe that I have indicated and which measures the magnetic field H has the appropriate sensitivity threshold for that measurement ... and you make it fit with the narda probe because you do not believe to me  and I don’t want to convince you at all costs…. Quos Deus perdere vult, dementat prius.
..............
…."measurement of radiation pressure" is not a measure of the magnetic field of the displacement current.
You exchange the effects with the causes. An  wave is electric only when it invests the matter finds electric charges that in turn set in motion generate a magnetic field ... but there is no magnetic field upstream in the wave that does not invest the matter and does not generate any radiation pressure.

I have the potential suspicion that you will never understand how the emdrive works without understanding that the wave  without interaction with matter it is only an electric field. But I do not want to experience the emdrive for me emdrive is and remains a pnn with the square wheels.

[meberbs]

@meberbs

The narda probe that I have indicated and which measures the magnetic field H has the appropriate sensitivity threshold for that measurement ... and you make it fit with the narda probe because you do not believe to me  and I don’t want to convince you at all costs….

Your assertions that the probe would measure anything other than what classical electrodynamics and countless experiments confirming electrodynamics predict are worthless. When you are claiming a revolutionary result, it is up to you to provide the evidence. You'll have some difficulty with that since you haven't provided alternative explanations to any of the multiple experiments I referenced. (You attempt one in this post, but it is blatantly wrong as I describe below.) If you don't want to convince anyone that you are correct, why are you wasting your time posting about it online?

Quos Deus perdere vult, dementat prius.

"Those whom God wishes to destroy, he first makes mad."
I fail to see the relevance of this statement.

…."measurement of radiation pressure" is not a measure of the magnetic field of the displacement current.
You exchange the effects with the causes. An  wave is electric only when it invests the matter finds electric charges that in turn set in motion generate a magnetic field ... but there is no magnetic field upstream in the wave that does not invest the matter and does not generate any radiation pressure.

Baseless assertions again. You are talking about magnetic field generated by the motions of charges in the surface that is being hit, but these cancel out, because they are internal forces to the object. Any forces exerted by part of the object on another part are met by equal and opposite force of the second part on the first. Next time, try doing some calculations rather than just asserting that you are right and every physicist on the planet is wrong.

Here is one of many examples of a paper calculating the forces of electromagnetic waves on a charged particle. Such results always are consistent with radiation pressure measurements in labs, and other related experiments. For any alternative you provide, you would need to go through actual calculations to show consistency with radiation pressure measurements, and also to explain how light exists at all if the fields of a moving charge aren't described by the Liénard–Wiechert potentials.

I have the potential suspicion that you will never understand how the emdrive works without understanding that the wave  without interaction with matter it is only an electric field. But I do not want to experience the emdrive for me emdrive is and remains a pnn with the square wheels.

I am reasonably certain that I will never understand how the emDrive works because that statement implies that the emDrive works. Current evidence is not in support of the emDrive working. Your made up theory that you haven't even written down in a formal way and that fails to predict results of common experiments has little chance of explaining anything.

Comparisons of the emDrive and PNN are pointless, because at least the emDrive is defined in what it is: a frustum RF resonator. You have never explained what your drive is other than pictures of a foil covered box.

[E.Laureti]

@meberbs

The article you mentioned pro DC (Displacement Current) https://physics.aps.org/story/v26/st13
They say:
"Light wave", "the weaker effect of the magnetic component" has been nearly impossible to detect directly. " 

It does not specify how "tiny". But I suspect that not having found the magnetic field from DC (Displacement Current) went to change the experimental setup and have multiplied their efforts to look for it by exchanging whistles for flasks (fischi per fiaschi in italian) .
 How is it that nothing becomes a proof?
Simply by inadvertently replacing the magnetic field from DC with the one generated by real charges! 

And then there is another alarming fact that comes from the fans of DC: you do not even dream of going to see if electric field and magnetic field from DC are in quadrature.
What does it mean?
THAT YOU AGREE TO ANY MAGNETIC FIELD IN ANY PHASE! (I am attaching two figures)

An author says ......... .Electric and magnetic field vectors are 90 degrees out of phase in electromagnetic wave propagation. Many text books and resources fail to make note of this. Worse even, some explanations for polarization confused a second electric wave with the magnetic component of the first wave. Both feilds are able to propagate through space without a physical medium by cyclically inducing eachother. Aproaches zero magnitude, while the other aproaches maximum or minimum, hence, 90 degrees out of phase ..........
But you, like many others, says that the fatal magnetic field from DC exist even if nobody has ever used it to do an antenna or to propel it .... because it does not even remotely doubt the sole title of an article of the genre AFTER ABOUT 150 years
“The present status of Maxwell's
displacement current”
John Roche
Linacre College, Oxford, OX1 3JA, UK
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.205.6223&rep=rep1&type=pdf

And then the experimental setup https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0602073.pdf that you brings or research of the DC in a waveguide "The original confirmation came from the Hertz in 1888. See for a modern take on the experiment. Other evidence for the magnetic fields comes from the existence of such modes as TM modes in waveguides and resonators. "
 is another great place or to exchange fireflies for lanterns.

Worse, unfortunately happens to those who after about 150 years have tried to use the magnetic field from displacement current.

Miller says they have lost millions of dollars!
 in making antennas based on the displacement current!!!!

Miller's words
"... .Unfortunately, the misinterpretation of Maxwell's equations is not just an academic error of consequence only to scholars. This error has led to at least two failed antenna designs: the CFA and the EH.
And those projects have many years, countless wasted hours, and the destruction of many professional reputations.
It is time for instructors everywhere to stop teaching an erroneous concept. "

I can only repeat the same thing that says Miller : stop teaching an erroneous concept!

From http://www.asps.it/miller.pdf

I  have lost only a few thousand euro in trying to follow the advice of Poncarè or violation of the III of Newton through the magnetic field from DC   
http://www.calmagorod.org/pnn-la-sua-genesi/

In conclusion dear meberbs I must say that in practice I keep my feet in two brackets are both against and pro displacement current 

So I can only congratulate those who follow the advice of Poincaré will make a propellanless propulsion from DC and I will be right 

ps: Today PNN is NOT based on Displacement Current

[meberbs]

@meberbs

The article you mentioned pro DC (Displacement Current) https://physics.aps.org/story/v26/st13
They say:
"Light wave", "the weaker effect of the magnetic component" has been nearly impossible to detect directly. " 

It does not specify how "tiny". But I suspect that not having found the magnetic field from DC (Displacement Current) went to change the experimental setup and have multiplied their efforts to look for it by exchanging whistles for flasks (fischi per fiaschi in italian) .

They don't mention the value because they assume their readers have taken a relevant course in electrodynamics. The B field magnitude is equal to the E field magnitude divided by the speed of light, as can be found in any textbook.

How is it that nothing becomes a proof?
Simply by inadvertently replacing the magnetic field from DC with the one generated by real charges! 

Again, there is no difference between these things. Changing magnetic fields come from accelerating charges, so the concepts are inseparable. I have said this repeatedly, yet you keep refusing to acknowledge it. Please respond to this statement, because I can't tell if you have even read it.

And then there is another alarming fact that comes from the fans of DC: you do not even dream of going to see if electric field and magnetic field from DC are in quadrature.
What does it mean?
THAT YOU AGREE TO ANY MAGNETIC FIELD IN ANY PHASE! (I am attaching two figures)

This is called a strawman argument. It is simply untrue that people don't pay attention to the relative phase. The calculation I linked you to before show how radiation pressure is generated, and it is dependent on the phase. There are some situations where the phase changes, such as the fact that waves can propagate for a short distance in (finitely) conducting media, and while in that media, the phase changes as a result of the generated currents.

I am sure there are incorrect descriptions out there if you look for them, since people are human and make mistakes. It is the curl of each field that is related to the time derivative of the other, not the fields themselves. As a result it turns out that the fields are in phase when discussing vacuum propagation.

Speaking of mistakes, you keep referencing that article, ignoring that your link to it includes a rebuttal explaining that while there is good historical information provided, it does not actually indicate any question about the nature of displacement current.

And then the experimental setup https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0602073.pdf that you brings or research of the DC in a waveguide "The original confirmation came from the Hertz in 1888. See for a modern take on the experiment. Other evidence for the magnetic fields comes from the existence of such modes as TM modes in waveguides and resonators. "
 is another great place or to exchange fireflies for lanterns.

You aren't actually providing a counterargument here, for an example of what a counterargument looks like, see the response to that paper you keep citing, located at the end of the document.

I can only repeat the same thing that says Miller : stop teaching an erroneous concept!

From http://www.asps.it/miller.pdf

Miller doesn't know what he is talking about. If you actually take a sufficiently advanced course in EM, you will come across the descriptions of the fields directly as a function of the motions of charges. I already linked you to an example formulation of that (potentials are generally considered easier to calculate from than the equations Miller cited, but the give the same result.) If Miller lost money trying to use Maxwell's equations, it is only his own lack of understanding that hurt him. The equations he cited predict the exact same results as Maxwell's equations, the only difference is which is easier to use for a given application.

I  have lost only a few thousand euro in trying to follow the advice of Poncarè or violation of the III of Newton through the magnetic field from DC   
http://www.calmagorod.org/pnn-la-sua-genesi/

In conclusion dear meberbs I must say that in practice I keep my feet in two brackets are both against and pro displacement current 

So I can only congratulate those who follow the advice of Poincaré will make a propellanless propulsion from DC and I will be right 

ps: Today PNN is NOT based on Displacement Current

Is PNN based on the non-existence of the magnetic field described by displacement current then? Otherwise I don't know why you brought it up. (Note: Please read the words I used carefully. I did not say the displacement current causes the fields, since it is simply describes the fields. None of the alternatives produce anything different.)

There are multiple ways that electromagnetism can appear to break momentum conservation laws if you are not aware of relativistic notions such as the fields consisting of massless particles that carry momentum, and relativistic effects on the relationship between the motion of an object and its velocity. 150 years ago, these concepts hadn't been discovered yet, so it is silly to use old quotes from someone who didn't have all of the required knowledge to try to contradict modern understanding.

[E.Laureti]

@meberbs

> Is PNN based on the non-existence of the magnetic field? By displacement current then?
 > Otherwise I do not know why you brought it up. (Note: Please read the words
>I used to do not say the displacement current causes the fields, since it is simply
>described in the fields.)


What you are telling me is a philosophical assumption that unfortunately does not allow me to understand it or formulate other questions and then give to you answers.
I talked about DC (Displacement Current) because I think Maxwell's electromagnetism brings with it mathematical concepts that do not serve the operational objectives of physics.
In practice I think that the minimum of truth that the emdrive has is precisely obscured by the theoretical mass of mathematical chatter that are useless and away from the most elementary facts.
PNN unfortunately does not know what to do with DC. For PNN if Maxwell had never existed it would have been better and identically “in this phase of PNN”  I assure you that I have never used relativistic concepts for it.

I am  in full empirical phase for the PNN ... identically to Marconi who has never used Maxwsell's electromagnetism. Note the Maxwellian heresy that for Marconi (NOT graduated in physics) the waves were electric and not electromagnetic 

Only that unlike Marconi I'm not good
[From: http://www.radiomarconi.com/marconi/congiura2.html "Marconi in fact, without absolutely wanting, ridiculed the official science by showing that the opinions on the impossibility of communicating at a distance by means of electric waves they were not scientific, because they did not take into account the factors investigated and discovered by him.
Probably the science of academies and universities, this has never forgiven him..... "]

Unlike Marconi I have outstanding accounts with my old professors at the Institute of Physics where I graduated (Institute of Physics G. Marconi in Roma) ....
said more simply I want to ridicule the official science. 

Greetings

[meberbs]

@meberbs

> Is PNN based on the non-existence of the magnetic field? By displacement current then?
 > Otherwise I do not know why you brought it up. (Note: Please read the words
>I used to do not say the displacement current causes the fields, since it is simply
>described in the fields.)


What you are telling me is a philosophical assumption that unfortunately does not allow me to understand it or formulate other questions and then give to you answers.

There is no "philosophical assumption" or even assumption of any sort. It is simply a mathematical fact that the fields described by Maxwell's equations are mathematically identical to the the Liénard–Wiechert potentials and Jefimenko's equations.

The question was whether anything you are doing is based on the assumption that the fields as described by those equations are not what really happens.

I have given you multiple examples of experiments that have results that depend on the existence of the magnetic portion of the fields, and you have yet to even respond in any way to some of them.

I talked about DC (Displacement Current) because I think Maxwell's electromagnetism brings with it mathematical concepts that do not serve the operational objectives of physics.
In practice I think that the minimum of truth that the emdrive has is precisely obscured by the theoretical mass of mathematical chatter that are useless and away from the most elementary facts.

The facts are that every experiment related to electromagnetism has always given results consistent with Maxwell's equations, and there is no alternative theory that is testably different unless you get into quantum (which extends Maxwell's equations into what is known as Quantum Electrodynamics.)

PNN unfortunately does not know what to do with DC. For PNN if Maxwell had never existed it would have been better and identically “in this phase of PNN”  I assure you that I have never used relativistic concepts for it.

Relativistic concepts are well tested though, and behave directly opposite to your unphysical assumptions. (I have never seen a clear, precise description from you, but you seem to be claiming a reduction of mass with increasing velocity.)

Note the Maxwellian heresy that for Marconi (NOT graduated in physics) the waves were electric and not electromagnetic 

Maybe this is a language barrier thing, but heresy generally implies religious type beliefs. As I have provided multiple examples of, science is inherently based on experimental fact.

said more simply I want to ridicule the official science. 

"Ridiculing" in general is against the rules of this site.  Since you have done nothing but make claims that are contrary to observed experimental results, misrepresented what science says, or generally pointed to people's understanding or lack thereof from a time when they did not have access to all of the modern experimental data,  you aren't doing a very good job of it anyway.

[E.Laureti]

@meberbs

I'm not doing an olympiad I work for free.
Our pnn team will only be paid when the pnn will have demonstrated experimentally that it works, NOTE AFTER NOT BEFORE.
Our potential financier wants the prototype only with batteries ... in practice he wants a mini spaceship controlled remotely.
I had to change all the experimental setup and 4 engineers have been helping me for about 2 years. Everything resembles this www.asps.it/sidetra.jpg even if it is changing in the construction phase.

In the past we did tests but they were not with batteries. It all costs and takes a long time for those with few resources and does not want to deliver their know-how at ridiculously low prices.

I only say one thing before saying goodbye. When you know the know-how of the pnn you will obsessively ask for one thing: because you have not noticed it before.

[meberbs]

@meberbs

I'm not doing an olympiad I work for free.
Our pnn team will only be paid when the pnn will have demonstrated experimentally that it works, NOTE AFTER NOT BEFORE.
Our potential financier wants the prototype only with batteries ... in practice he wants a mini spaceship controlled remotely.
I had to change all the experimental setup and 4 engineers have been helping me for about 2 years. Everything resembles this www.asps.it/sidetra.jpg even if it is changing in the construction phase.

That diagram says almost nothing about what you are building. There is a coax cable and amplifiers, which implies some form of RF power, but that doesn't really narrow it down.

You can't just test things as a black box with any setup. Previous diagrams you have shown seemed similar to the seesaw like balance beams that some emDrive experimenters used. They found out the hard way that that introduces many potential error sources. Even the best available setups (torsion balances) can be tricked if tested as a black box. It is easy to generate a force from the Earth's magnetic field, and there are multiple ways to make mechanical assemblies that could trick the setup, such as shifting masses.

I only say one thing before saying goodbye. When you know the know-how of the pnn you will obsessively ask for one thing: because you have not noticed it before.

You have given no evidence that your device does anything, explained nothing about it, demonstrated that you don't understand electromagnetism, and said that you are in "full empirical phase for the PNN" which implies that you have no supporting theory to suggest you are doing anything other than wasting your time in addition to your lack of experimental evidence.

[E.Laureti]

@meberbs

how many words .... but for now I will not give you any information that could be to get out of the darkness of propellantless propulsion where you are

[meberbs]

This is a discussion forum, if you are not going to provide information, and it seems that you are not listening to information provided to you, I am not sure what you are trying to do here.

[E.Laureti]

@meberbs

I gave you the information but you answered me as a mathematician and not as a physicist
 
Miller wrote: (  from: http://www.asps.it/miller.pdf )

"For the last 140 years, the rate of change of E fields has been dogmatically accepted as the source of the magnetic fields that are hypothesized as existing between the plates of a capacitor, (and everywhere else in an EM environment.) This concept is taught in every EM class worldwide. This is true even though no one has ever been able to measure these mythical between-the-plates fields. The reason for this failure is simple: they are not there.
Using both a simplistic approach (charges moving on and off a capacitor surface) and complex retardation concepts, we come to the same conclusion. Magnetic fields, previously associated with Displacement Current, have a simple – and physically sensible – cause. That cause is charge movement and the rate of change of charges.
Unfortunately, the misinterpretation of Maxwell’s equations is not just an academic error of consequence only to scholars. This error has led to at least two failed antenna designs: the CFA and the EH. And those projects have cost millions of wasted dollars, countless wasted hours, and the destruction of many professional reputations.
It is time for instructors everywhere to stop teaching an erroneous concept."

I gave you the information but  you answered me as a mathematician and not as a physicist
Mr. Meberbs Miller spoke of the lost millions of dollars in the CFA and EH antennas ... I only a few thousand euros years ago in the propellantless propulsion from DC

More you do not even think that Nobel Lorentz had any reason to Maxwell about DC
Since the believers in Maxwell are so many because you do not make a  collection of money to build a nice displacement  current antenna ?   

So put some money in the faith in Maxwell that you have

[meberbs]

First of all, you are the one who said "I will not give you any information." Are you taking that back, or just wasting time?

@meberbs

I gave you the information but you answered me as a mathematician and not as a physicist

No, I told you that Miller doesn't know what he is talking about. I have given you multiple examples of experiments that provide evidence that fields exist exactly as described by Maxwell's equations. You have ignored these, and Miller appears to be unaware of these. He also ignores that the equations he cites for the fields directly as a function of the charge motions make the exact same prediction as Maxwell's equations. When he claims the fields don't exist, he is simply contradicting himself.

I gave you the information but  you answered me as a mathematician and not as a physicist
Mr. Meberbs Miller spoke of the lost millions of dollars in the CFA and EH antennas ... I only a few thousand euros years ago in the propellantless propulsion from DC

The problem is that Miller, and presumably the designers of those antennas didn't understand how Maxwell's equations work, not that there is anything wrong with Maxwell's equations. See here for something I quickly was able to find listing some mistakes by the people who did those antennas.

More you do not even think that Nobel Lorentz had any reason to Maxwell about DC
Since the believers in Maxwell are so many because you do not make a  collection of money to build a nice displacement  current antenna ?   

The concept of a special "displacement current" antenna does not even make sense. Displacement current refers to rate of change of electric field. To have a changing electric field, you need to have charges moving around. This is something that happens in every antenna ever built. Without accelerating charges, you don't have radiation. With accelerating charges you have radiation, and Maxwell's equations are a relatively simple way to describe this radiation.

So put some money in the faith in Maxwell that you have

I use the results of Maxwell's equations in my day job. Your use of the word "faith" is insulting. I have no "faith" in Maxwell. I have seen results indicating that Maxwell's equations work under every relevant condition.

You are the one being unscientific here, you are not providing actual experimental results, and ignoring the results of experiments I have listed. You also are not providing any alternative theory that can explain experimental results, are ignoring the definition of words, and are ignoring the fact that various equations are equivalent to or derived from each other.

[E.Laureti]

@meberbs

if you make a research you will find many authors that doubt of Maxwell equations

for example from:
http://lefteris-kaliambos.wikia.com/wiki/ERRORS_IN_MAXWELL%27S_EQUATIONS

………The second postulation of Maxwell was his hypothesis that a changing electric field between the plates of a capacitor produces a hypothetical electric current (called displacement current) able to give a magnetic force. However the experiment of French and Tessman in 1963 showed that changing electric fields between the plates of a capacitor cannot give magnetic forces. On the other hand  in case in which the displacement current (Id) is correct one can prove that such a current violates the Ampere law…..

Or  George Galeczki in http://www.asps.it/beyond.htm

The question among us  is assuming aspects of dispute that I do not care about and that goes beyond the my interests . For all there is an evangelical motto that I apply first of all for me: from their fruits you will recognize them.

[meberbs]

@meberbs

if you make a research you will find many authors that doubt of Maxwell equations

They are known as "crackpots." With 7 billion people in the world, it is not surprising that some of them go around writing nonsense. They may just not understand what they are talking about, or they could be making stuff up in some misguided bid for attention.

Here is one list of ways to recognize them: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
(While you are looking at the list, you can check how your posts in this thread score.)

The ignorance of your source is obvious from multiple things in the quote you used:
"a hypothetical electric current (called displacement current)"This simply is not the definition of displacement current. It is not a physical electric current as I have said multiple times.

"On the other hand  in case in which the displacement current (Id) is correct one can prove that such a current violates the Ampere law….."
This statement is trivially backwards. Using the integral form of Ampere's Law, we can consider the textbook case of a charging capacitor. You can pick an Amperian loop around the wire some distance from the capacitor, which clearly yields a non zero magnetic field integral. On the other hand, the surface you pick has no restrictions on it, so you pick one that moves parallel to the wire for a while and then connects through the gap in the capacitor. The surface never intersects the wire, so there is no current moving through it.

This clearly indicates that Ampere's law cannot hold in general. It turns out that the extra term Maxwell added does create a comparable law that works in all known situations. This is the exact opposite of what that author claimed.

The question among us  is assuming aspects of dispute that I do not care about and that goes beyond the my interests . For all there is an evangelical motto that I apply first of all for me: from their fruits you will recognize them.

There are not assumptions backing what I am saying, and at least among people who actually know anything about electrodynamics, nothing I am say is disputed. I am making statements that are based on experimental observations, definitions of terms, or otherwise direct conclusions from pure math or logic, such as showing the inherent contradictions in the quote you provided.

[E.Laureti]

@meberbs

In   http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.205.6223&rep=rep1&type=pdf
We read:
“In 1901 Poincaré found another weakness in displacement current theory. He showed
that when the displacement current is acted on by a magnetic field it ‘does not experience
any mechanical action according to the theory of Lorentz’….”

However, the real problem is that trying to find the magnetic field of DC was in practice the salvation for the invention of Maxwell called precisely DC since the magnetic fields that as a false procedure can be attributed to DC save precisely the invention of Maxwell of the DC.
In reality, as Poincarè wanted, we need to look for the true and unequivocal clue: the Lorentz force that the magnetic field from DC generates in the presence of a current.

Now Poincare says that there is no mechanical action according to the theory of Lorentz ', Miller that you degrades to incompetent says that no one has found the magnetic field from DC between the plates of a capacitor. I add myself to Poincarè and Miller with 2 photos of my attempt to find that force between the 3 plates of a condenser http://www.calmagorod.org/pnn-la-sua-genesi/
In conclusion you should find an article where someone found the Lorentz force between the plates of a condenser OR IN OTHER PLACE due to the magnetic field from DC.
You can not be allowed to give incompetence and crackpots to everyone without showing at least one example of DC magnetic field thrust for more than 140 years!

I would be happy that a maxwellist could prove that the magnetic field from DC exists and can boost. It would give proof that what I wrote in
http://www.calmagorod.org/ could lead to a propellantless propulsion from Maxwell DC.

The comic thing that you evoke all the possible mathematical chatter (for example Liénard-Wiechert potentials and Jefimenko's equations) to avoid any experimental test that can close the question related to the mechanical action that the fatal magnetic field from DC.

And look what we read that we read in honor of Lorentz for the award of the Nobel
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincitori_del_premio_Nobel_per_la_fisica

 …In certain respects however Maxwell's theory of light was inadequate, in that it left individual phenomena unexplained. The greatest credit for the further development of the electromagnetic theory of light is due to Professor Lorentz, whose theoretical work on this subject has borne the richest fruit. While Maxwell's theory is free from any assumptions of an atomistic nature, Lorentz starts from the hypothesis that in matter extremely small particles, called electrons, are the carriers of certain specific charges. These electrons move freely in so-called conductors and thus produce an electrical current, whereas in non-conductors their movement is apparent through electrical resistance. ...

[meberbs]

In   http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.205.6223&rep=rep1&type=pdf
We read:
“In 1901 Poincaré found another weakness in displacement current theory. He showed
that when the displacement current is acted on by a magnetic field it ‘does not experience
any mechanical action according to the theory of Lorentz’….”

As I have said many times, displacement current is not a physical current, just a rate of change of the fields, so the concept of it experiencing a "mechanical action" doesn't make sense.

You continually repeating this same mistake indicates that you haven't read anything I have written, or are deliberately ignoring it.

I add myself to Poincarè and Miller with 2 photos of my attempt to find that force between the 3 plates of a condenser http://www.calmagorod.org/pnn-la-sua-genesi/

Is condenser a mistranslation of capacitor? Anyway, you show field directions generally consistent with Maxwell's equations, and do not show an apparatus that could measure the magnetic force you are simply ignoring the forces on the plates, as well as fact that the central plate can't have the charge on it changing unless there is somewhere for the charge to go.

In conclusion you should find an article where someone found the Lorentz force between the plates of a condenser OR IN OTHER PLACE due to the magnetic field from DC.
You can not be allowed to give incompetence and crackpots to everyone without showing at least one example of DC magnetic field thrust for more than 140 years!

Here is one example:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0143-0807/36/5/055048

You previously cited this one:
https://deanostoybox.com/hot-streamer/TeslaCoils/OtherPapers/displacement_current-Bartlett.pdf
"That measurement confirmed the classical prediction that there is an azimuthal B field that increases linearly with distance from the axis."

There is also this one:
https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1119/1.1987657
That one is actually cited by Roche in the paper you have mentioned a few times, though Roche uses a selective quote to try and present EM radiation arguments as "not good enough," while leaving out the part that clarifies Carver is only saying that a more direct measurement is helpful for intuition, and goes on to describe more direct measurements.

Not hard to look up these and other related experiments, claiming that they don't exist is not a sign of competence. Making claims contrary to these results is in fact an indication of being a crackpot.

I would be happy that a maxwellist could prove that the magnetic field from DC exists and can boost. It would give proof that what I wrote in
http://www.calmagorod.org/ could lead to a propellantless propulsion from Maxwell DC.

No, Maxwell's equations prohibit "propellantless thrust" other than the special case of a photon rocket

The comic thing that you evoke all the possible mathematical chatter (for example Liénard-Wiechert potentials and Jefimenko's equations) to avoid any experimental test that can close the question related to the mechanical action that the fatal magnetic field from DC.

No, I provided you with a variety of experiments that you are ignoring. The mathematics is to show that the field is real no matter how you calculate it. (Jefimenko's equations were actually brought up as evidence against the field existing by Miller despite the fact that they show it is real if he did the math10.)

And look what we read that we read in honor of Lorentz for the award of the Nobel
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincitori_del_premio_Nobel_per_la_fisica

 …In certain respects however Maxwell's theory of light was inadequate, in that it left individual phenomena unexplained. The greatest credit for the further development of the electromagnetic theory of light is due to Professor Lorentz, whose theoretical work on this subject has borne the richest fruit. While Maxwell's theory is free from any assumptions of an atomistic nature, Lorentz starts from the hypothesis that in matter extremely small particles, called electrons, are the carriers of certain specific charges. These electrons move freely in so-called conductors and thus produce an electrical current, whereas in non-conductors their movement is apparent through electrical resistance. ...

That is talking about the discrete nature of charges, which is handled by Maxwell's equations just fine, even if he didn't know they exist. The discovery of discrete charges is important of course. When you get to really detailed quantum calculations, then you really need to apply quantum mechanics as well, but that is another story.

Please try actually responding to anything I have written, or at least acknowledging the definition of displacement current.

[E.Laureti]

@meberbs

>As I have said many times, displacement current is not a physical current, just a rate of change of the
>fields, so the concept of it experiencing a "mechanical action" doesn't make sense.

>You continually repeating this same mistake indicates that you haven't read anything I have written, or
>are deliberately ignoring it.

still philosophy meberbs?
You told me that the variation of the electric field generates the magnetic field H ... whether it is current or not I do not care we are talking about the magnetic field that must be a physical observable and not metaphysical .
It seems to me that you run away when you ask for precise answers ....
Again, does the magnetic field exist from DC?

and those link that for you are DC measures are the usual fireflies for lanterns where you passed off for DC magnetic fields of another nature and yet without quadrature

>No, Maxwell's equations prohibit "propellantless thrust"

You must say better all classic electrodynamics prohibit "propellantless thrust" 

My answer: False but will know it later

>other than the special case of a photon rocket

photonic propulsion is for incompetent.

[meberbs]

@meberbs

>As I have said many times, displacement current is not a physical current, just a rate of change of the
>fields, so the concept of it experiencing a "mechanical action" doesn't make sense.

>You continually repeating this same mistake indicates that you haven't read anything I have written, or
>are deliberately ignoring it.

still philosophy meberbs?
You told me that the variation of the electric field generates the magnetic field H ... whether it is current or not I do not care we are talking about the magnetic field that must be a physical observable and not metaphysical .
It seems to me that you run away when you ask for precise answers ....
Again, does the magnetic field exist from DC?

and those link that for you are DC measures are the usual fireflies for lanterns where you passed off for DC magnetic fields of another nature and yet without quadrature

I gave you multiple links to direct measurements of the magnetic field. There is a changing electric field, and there is a magnetic field that exists exactly as predicted. There is no "fields of another nature." You are the one trying to run away from the experimental data I gave you with meaningless philosophy. The changing electric fields are generated by changing charge distributions. Whether you say the magnetic fields are directly caused by the charges, or take the extra step and say the charges cause changing electric fields which in turn cause magnetic fields, there is no difference. The only thing that matters is that the fields exist.

If you only care about physical observables as you claim, then you should have no complaint about the experiments, all physical observables are accounted for. You are the one making metaphysical statements with your "fields of another nature." The field is the field. Also, "without quadrature" is not a counterargument. The first link I provided used phase sensitive measurements and found agreement with the theory.

>No, Maxwell's equations prohibit "propellantless thrust"

You must say better all classic electrodynamics prohibit "propellantless thrust" 

My answer: False but will know it later

Same difference Maxwell's equations are effectively the definition of classical electrodynamics.

The prohibition of propellantless thrust is a mathematical fact. If you claim otherwise, you either did something wrong, or are not using classical electrodynamics (which basically means you did something wrong.)

>other than the special case of a photon rocket

photonic propulsion is for incompetent.

Radiation pressure has been measured accurately and repeatedly. Anything beyond that, has not.

P.S. Try using quote tags. Click the "quote" button on my post and you can see how it is done.

[E.Laureti]

@meberbs


We could argue eternally about the DC and not come to any shared conclusion.

I would like to point out some things:

1) Maxwell's equations work well as long as someone does not get the psychic disturbance to go and measure the magnetic field from DC 

2) Even without Mr. Maxwell we would have developed electromagnetism

3) Through all the classical electrodynamics DIFFERENTLY USED, the principle of action and reaction can be violated. I have commitments to other people for commercial and patent pnn objectives and I can not say NOW how to do it


>I gave you multiple links to direct measurements of the magnetic field.
>There is a changing
> electric field, and there is a magnetic field that exists exactly as predicted.

Then it is an additional mystery that we can not use the magnetic field from DC for the
Lorentz force

[meberbs]

We could argue eternally about the DC and not come to any shared conclusion.

I would like to point out some things:

1) Maxwell's equations work well as long as someone does not get the psychic disturbance to go and measure the magnetic field from DC 

You are just ignoring the experiments that I linked showing that you can measure the fields, and it works perfectly. Calling it "psychic disturbance" is pointless name calling, presumably to distract from your lack of an argument.

There is no arguing about it eternally if you insist on ignoring the results of experiments, there is just you being in denial.

2) Even without Mr. Maxwell we would have developed electromagnetism

Yes, eventually someone else would have come up with the same equations. So what?

3) Through all the classical electrodynamics DIFFERENTLY USED, the principle of action and reaction can be violated. I have commitments to other people for commercial and patent pnn objectives and I can not say NOW how to do it

By "differently used" you mean "wrong." Math and classical electrodynamics are both self-consistent, there is no such thing as an alternate way to use them that gets a different result. I already pointed out trivial errors in the one setup you referenced with such a claim. If you don't want to (or supposedly "can't") share the details, there is no point in you making the claim. Come back to it if you can ever share, and I will point out your mistakes.

>I gave you multiple links to direct measurements of the magnetic field.
>There is a changing
> electric field, and there is a magnetic field that exists exactly as predicted.

Then it is an additional mystery that we can not use the magnetic field from DC for the
Lorentz force

What additional mystery? The experiments measure the magnetic field, so it is present and generating forces, or it couldn't be measured. The way you measure any field is by the forces it generates. If you are referring to your failed experiment, I already gave you the answer. You calculated the force of the plates on the wires, ignoring that the currents in the wires also generate fields, and those fields apply forces to the charges moving in the plates.

[as58]

... You are the one making metaphysical statements with your "fields of another nature." The field is the field. Also, "without quadrature" is not a counterargument...

Well, it's not a factual counterargument of any sort, but the statement "and those link that for you are DC measures are the usual fireflies for lanterns where you passed off for DC magnetic fields of another nature and yet without quadrature" works very well as a koan...

[E.Laureti]

@meberbs

>By "differently used" you mean "wrong."

PNN is based on classical electrodynamics, there are no strange fields or ad hoc conjectures as for some theories on emdrive. From this it follows only one thing: that you unfortunately do not know how to use classical electrodynamics at best.

[meberbs]

@meberbs

>By "differently used" you mean "wrong."

PNN is based on classical electrodynamics, there are no strange fields or ad hoc conjectures as for some theories on emdrive. From this it follows only one thing: that you unfortunately do not know how to use classical electrodynamics at best.

Here's some facts:
-Any decent textbook contradicts you, and supports that momentum conservation is inherent to classical electrodynamics.
-Your statement is based on the assumption that you can't possibly be making a mistake
-I have already pointed out simple, basic mistakes you have made in doing electrodynamics.
-You haven't actually pointed to any mistakes I have made (And I do make mistakes, but haven't done so in this thread.)

Conclusion: You are making up insults (not just to me, but everyone who has written an electrodynamics textbook) because you refuse to acknowledge that you can be wrong. The evidence points to the exact opposite of your statement, indicating that you are the one who doesn't understand electrodynamics.

[E.Laureti]

@meberbs

>Here's some facts:
>-Any decent textbook contradicts you, and supports that momentum conservation
> is inherent to classical electrodynamics.

With the pnn the electrodynamic field preserves the total momentum, as says dr. Moretti who clearly shows  in       www.asps.it/azione.htm  that the principle of action and reaction does not make sense in electrodynamics


>-Your statement is based on the assumption that you can't possibly be making a mistake

As I said with the pnn the basic laws of electrodynamics are not violated. Moreover, I can only say that the violation of Newton's III principle also obliges us to rewrite the law of inertia, which unfortunately is no longer that of Newton. There are also other problems that I find premature to deal with now

>-I have already pointed out simple, basic mistakes you have made in doing electrodynamics.
>-You haven't actually pointed to any mistakes I have made (And I do make mistakes,
>but haven't done so in this thread.)

You carefully avoid answering if the magnetic field from DC can or does not generate thrust through the Lorentz force. I say that this magnetic field can not generate thrust because it DOES NOT EXIST that then is the thought of  Poincarè and Miller and of Lorentz himself. As long as you are not going to measure any thrust through that field, you can pass magnetic fields from DC to magnetic fields that do not originate from the displacement current.

>Conclusion: You are making up insults (not just to me, but everyone who has written an >electrodynamics textbook) because you refuse to acknowledge that you can be wrong. The >evidence points to the exact opposite of your statement, indicating that you are the one who >doesn't understand electrodynamics.

Conclusion:  I invite you to prudence and patience mr. Meberbs because you could have strong contradictions if the pnn works

[meberbs]

>Here's some facts:
>-Any decent textbook contradicts you, and supports that momentum conservation
> is inherent to classical electrodynamics.

With the pnn the electrodynamic field preserves the total momentum, as says dr. Moretti who clearly shows  in       www.asps.it/azione.htm  that the principle of action and reaction does not make sense in electrodynamics

Preserving momentum and the principle of action and reaction are the same thing. Your statement is self-contradictory.

Electrodynamics involves the fact that fields (photons) have energy and momentum themselves, and people like you who ignore this fact and come to incorrect conclusions. Go get a textbook and read it for the details (for example Griffiths' Electrodynamics book.

>-Your statement is based on the assumption that you can't possibly be making a mistake

As I said with the pnn the basic laws of electrodynamics are not violated. Moreover, I can only say that the violation of Newton's III principle also obliges us to rewrite the law of inertia, which unfortunately is no longer that of Newton. There are also other problems that I find premature to deal with now

Electrodynamics inherently has special relativity baked into it. In special relativity, p = m*v is no longer accurate, (diverging at speeds approaching c), but this does not break conservation of momentum, does not break the principle of equal and opposite reactions, and does not match any of your claims.

>-I have already pointed out simple, basic mistakes you have made in doing electrodynamics.
>-You haven't actually pointed to any mistakes I have made (And I do make mistakes,
>but haven't done so in this thread.)

You carefully avoid answering if the magnetic field from DC can or does not generate thrust through the Lorentz force.

I didn't avoid answering anything, I answered it in detail, in fact I repeated myself with slightly different phrasing to make sure you understood that the fields were in fact generating forces, or they wouldn't have been measured.

I say that this magnetic field can not generate thrust because it DOES NOT EXIST that then is the thought of  Poincarè and Miller and of Lorentz himself.

You are simply denying the results of experiment. The field exists If you don't like reality, and prefer to live in a fantasy world, keep it to yourself. Please stop insulting people like Poincare and Lorentz by misrepresenting things they have said. Quotes from them before experimental data disproved the existence of the aether are irrelevant, since everyone misunderstood the nature of electromagnetism back then. They figured it out eventually though. Miller is just some random guy that I have already demonstrated is ignorant, so please stop wasting your time referencing him.

As long as you are not going to measure any thrust through that field, you can pass magnetic fields from DC to magnetic fields that do not originate from the displacement current.

You can't measure the existence of a field without measuring some kind of force generated by that field. Your statement about what happens if you don't measure it is metaphysical, since that doesn't matter. The fact is that it never matters where you describe the field as coming from, every way you cut it, the same physical predictions are made.

>Conclusion: You are making up insults (not just to me, but everyone who has written an >electrodynamics textbook) because you refuse to acknowledge that you can be wrong. The >evidence points to the exact opposite of your statement, indicating that you are the one who >doesn't understand electrodynamics.

Conclusion:  I invite you to prudence and patience mr. Meberbs because you could have strong contradictions if the pnn works

You already have contradicted yourself, multiple times in just this post. I am not telling you anything other than results originally derived by people way smarter than me. How about you take some of your own advice, develop some prudence, and stop trying to deny reality.

[E.Laureti]

@ meberbs

Good mr. meberbs I think we have all the modern tools to come to an end to the definitive and experimental conclusions of this rather than age-old dispute over the existence of the magnetic field of the displacement current.

You tells me

>I offered multiple proofs that the magnetic field exists exactly as described by Maxwell's >equations.

Ok I say
On my opinion this is the single  and indisputable experiment to detect the magnetic field from displacement current remains the following … which unfortunately costs.
And with this experiment we will also measure the impedance of the vacuum

The existence of the magnetic field H by DC (Displacement Current) implies that through the E / H = 377 ohm we can measure with new and unfortunately expensive field sensors both E (electric field) and H (magnetic field)

Placing us at a distance due (let's say 50 of wavelengths) from a dipole emitting frequency field equal to 144 Mhz

If we use the electric Probe EF 1891 (frequency range 100khz-6Ghz) page 70   of the link
http://www.narda-sts.us/pdf_files/DataSheets/NBM-Probes_DataSheet.pdf
  we can measure the electric field E at 144 Mhz.
The probe EF 1891 has a range from .8 to 1000 Volts/meter

The Narda electric probe could well detect 30 Volts / meter (appropriately calibrating the power of the dipole emission)
Now as you can read at page 70 of http://www.narda-sts.us/pdf_files/DataSheets/NBM-Probes_DataSheet.pdf

The magnetic probe HF 0191 (frequency range 27 Mhz - 1 Ghz) has a range from .026 to 16 amp/meter

So if placed the magnetic probe close to the electric one, always at the same distance, has the deadly ability to well detect the .079 Amp / meter that through the relationship E / H give the fatal 377 ohm.

Several parameters of the experimental setup can be varied as distance of the probes and power of the emitting dipole to eventually reach the inevitable consequence that the vacuum impedance is 377 ohms as Maxwell says.

Notes that when I had the money to buy everything I need for this experimental setup I will buy everything for such a check.

Also because I have lost all hope that others can make this verification.
In fact, it is about 3 years that I try in vain to make the believers in Maxwell such an experiment that, as I said, unfortunately it costs.

These are the costs for the electric field probe for example.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Narda-NBM-550-Field-Meter-with-EF-1891-Probe-3-MHz-18-GHz/372358767493?epid=746838883&hash=item56b24fe385:g:KCwAAOSw3FBbFb0Y

Regards

[meberbs]

@ meberbs

Good mr. meberbs I think we have all the modern tools to come to an end to the definitive and experimental conclusions of this rather than age-old dispute over the existence of the magnetic field of the displacement current.

You tells me

>I offered multiple proofs that the magnetic field exists exactly as described by Maxwell's >equations.

Ok I say
On my opinion this is the single  and indisputable experiment to detect the magnetic field from displacement current remains the following … which unfortunately costs.
And with this experiment we will also measure the impedance of the vacuum

You are right that with modern technology there is no reason to be arguing this, which is why no one argues it. If you wish to ignore all of the experiments that others have done, you are free to waste your time any money doing your own experiment.

Some things for you to consider:
-The Narda probes are just antennas hooked to sensors that basically act as power meters
-E-field probes are a set of 3 (electric) dipole antennas
-H-fields probes are a set of 3 coil (magnetic dipole) antennas
-Antennas of either of these general types are used all over the place (though usually not in groups of 3) and would not work at all if there was any question about the results of your proposed experiment.
-The Narda probes are calibrated, which is almost certainly done by running a similar test to what you propose. You can contact them and ask about their calibration procedures if you want.
-These probes are regularly used to check power levels of RF radiation, generally for safety reasons, since a sufficiently high power transmitter could cook people like a microwave.

If you insist you want to see the results yourself anyway, some notes:
-50 wavelengths at 144 MHz is about 100 m. At that distance you would need about a 300 W dipole transmitter to just reach 1 V/m, towards the low end of what most of those probes can detect. You could use use a directional antenna to cut down on the overall power needed.
-There are safety and regulatory concerns when you get to these power levels.
-You can probably rent most of the equipment for much cheaper than buying it.

In summary, you have not provided any explanation of why you running that experiment would be different than the many other experiments that show the magnetic field exists, nor have you recognized that the simple fact that those probes exist and are calibrated means that an equivalent experiment to what you are proposing has already been done many times. You can still go run the experiment yourself if you want though.

[E.Laureti]

@meberbs

Calibration of Narda probes with the impedance of the vacuum no one speaks.
I asked the Narda both European and American and no one answered me.
I also asked in two NG rec.radio.amateur.antenna and sci.physics.electromag but nobody , at now, identically knows the procedure to which you mentions.
I have found this but the calibration seems to have nothing to do with the impedance of the vacuum.

Calibration Procedures
Most Narda NY survey instruments are designed so that the meter and probes are calibrated independently of each other. The 8100, 8200, 8600, 8700 and NBM series equipment can have probes and meters interchanged within the same series with- out in any way affecting calibration. The 8500 and NIM series are supplied as a single probe and meter that are calibrated as a set. Personal monitors and area monitors are calibrated as sets.
Meters (except the 8500 series) are calibrated by using a precise DC voltage that relates to the full scale measurement range of the probes in that series.
Probes are calibrated by placing them in precise RF fields using either TEM cells or free field environments. The RF field strength is normally established to be equal to 5.0% of the full scale rating of the probe. For example, to calibrate a model 8721 electric field probe, which is rated at 20 mW/cm2, an electric field equal to 1.0 mW/cm2 is established at each calibration frequency. If the probe were perfectly flat, it would then produce an output that reads 1.0 mW/cm2 at every frequency. In practice, the probes are not perfect and some error is expected. If the probe indicates 1.1 mW/cm2, a calibration factor of 0.91 would be marked on the handle. Multiplying the calibration factor times the indicated rating provides the true value (0.91 x 1.1 +0.999). The actual procedure is to calibrate at every frequency and then to set the gain of the amplifier to center the frequency response for “best fit”.
Probes that are obviously damaged will not zero properly. Occasionally, a probe will appear to function properly but cannot be calibrated successfully. This can occur when some form of internal damage or malfunction in the RF sensor results in certain frequencies not being measured accurately. This problem necessitates some type of repair of the sensor. It is for this reason that, occasionally, a probe that appears to require calibration only, will require minor repairs (see REPAIR CATEGORIES).
Personal monitors and area monitors are calibrated in a similar manner to probes. Since there is no readout, except NS3 monitors, they are normally calibrated at a limited number of frequencies.
from : http://www.narda-sts.us/support_main.php

I believe that in the end when I have the appropriate resources I will end up buying such probes and organizing an adequate experimental setup to close a question that is now centuries old.

Of course I always hope someone has links to what you claims.

Greetings

[meberbs]

I have found this but the calibration seems to have nothing to do with the impedance of the vacuum.

The procedure you list below has exactly as much to do with impedance of free space as the experiment you discussed. In fact it is exactly the experiment you discussed. The procedure you describe lists power in mW/cm^2 while the sensors give readouts in V/m. Guess how you convert between electric field and power per area:
https://www.powerwatch.org.uk/science/unitconversion.asp

Most Narda NY survey instruments are designed so that the meter and probes are calibrated independently of each other. The 8100, 8200, 8600, 8700 and NBM series equipment can have probes and meters interchanged within the same series with- out in any way affecting calibration. The 8500 and NIM series are supplied as a single probe and meter that are calibrated as a set. Personal monitors and area monitors are calibrated as sets.
Meters (except the 8500 series) are calibrated by using a precise DC voltage that relates to the full scale measurement range of the probes in that series.

Summary: There are 2 pieces to the meter, the RF sensor that converts the incoming energy to some fixed voltage, and a voltmeter. They calibrate them separately for convenience. What matters is the calibration of the RF sensor portion.

Probes are calibrated by placing them in precise RF fields using either TEM cells or free field environments. The RF field strength is normally established to be equal to 5.0% of the full scale rating of the probe. For example, to calibrate a model 8721 electric field probe, which is rated at 20 mW/cm2, an electric field equal to 1.0 mW/cm2 is established at each calibration frequency.

They put each meter in a fixed power field at various frequencies. The free field type of measurement is exactly what you were proposing as your experiment. They would use this equivalent procedure for either E or H field measurements, it is just the inverse conversion factor to get the H-field from power per area. The fact they are able to do so shows that the fields exist. The magnitudes of the fields are what is predicted (As the given example shows, to within about 10%, which is expected since it is easier to do the calibration than repeatedly build ideal probes.)

I believe that in the end when I have the appropriate resources I will end up buying such probes and organizing an adequate experimental setup to close a question that is now centuries old.

Of course I always hope someone has links to what you claims.

You just provided all the evidence needed to support my claims. All your experiment would do is partially verify the quality of their calibration at the frequency of your choice.

There is no centuries old question. The question has been closed for a long time.

[E.Laureti]

@meberbs

no one has told me what you say and I do not see any problem to make a further direct and clear verification of the measurement of the vacuum impedance

[meberbs]

no one has told me what you say

I am not sure what this part of your statement is supposed to mean. Are you trying to deny some specific statement I made?

There is obviously no problem with you doing the measurements yourself (assuming you get a powerful enough transmitter for your measurement distance and there are no regulatory issues with transmitting sufficiently high power RF in your chosen frequency band.). The question is why you want to spend significant money to repeat an experiment that has been done many times.

What you don't seem to understand is one simple statement:
The calibration procedures you described are exactly the same as the experiment you are going to run; using those meters to measure the field of a fixed power RF signal.

The only difference is that they look at the absolute strength for each probe type individually, whereas you only would pay attention to the ratio of the 2 field outputs. Obviously if the absolute value of both field strengths is correct, than the ratio also is correct.

[E.Laureti]

@meberbs

Today I receive the following from a branch Narda in Italy (which I attach at the end)

1) The electrical and magnetic components of a wave e.m. they are generated separately and measured separately.
For the magnetic component, Helmholtz coils are used, for the electrical component TEM and / or anechoic cells.

2) For the far zone, as I suspected, they only measure one (and I presume that it is unfortunately the electric one!) and the measurement of the magnetic field deduce it from the formula E / H = 377 ohms!

That is, they NEVER MEAN A MEASURE of the 2 components of the wave together!

Conclusion: allow me to be even more suspicious about this whole issue and to have to do sooner or later a measure of E and H in the far area to do simultaneously to reach shared (?) conclusions.


……………….

Gentile Dr. Emidio Laureti,

a nome di Narda la ringrazio per averci sottoposto il suo quesito.
Prendo spunto per informarla che nei nostri laboratori la componente elettrica e quella magnetica del campo elettromagnetico sono generate separatamente e non calcolate con la formula /, X 377
Ad ogni modo per la generazione del campo magnetico vengono utilizzate delle bobine di Helmholtz, e per l’elettrico celle TEM e/o camere anecoiche.

Naturalmente in situazione di campo lontano, l’ortogonalità dei due vettori fa si che è corretto misurarne soltanto una componente e derivarne l’altra con la formula che anche lei conosce.

Resto a sua disposizione qualora avesse necessità di ulteriori informazioni.
Distinti saluti.

MPB Srl
Jan Bulli Wilkinson
Direttore Tecnico


Telefono   +39 06 41200744 – Interno n° 13
Fax   +39 06 41200653
Indirizzo   Via Giacomo Peroni, 400/402 - 00131 Roma
Contatto Skype   janbulliwilkinson
Indirizzo Web   http://www.gruppompb.com

   

[meberbs]

An important part of the communication:

"Naturally in a distant field situation, the orthogonality of the two vectors makes it correct to measure only one component and derive the other with the formula that you also know."

They are stating right there that the results of your experiment are already obvious assuming you know what you are talking about, and there is no reason to measure both fields since the ratio is known to be fixed. It makes sense that it is easier to generate the required field strength from coils for calibration, but the probes are regularly used for far field RF, just read the data sheet.

http://www.narda-sts.us/pdf_files/Datasheet_HF0191_EN.pdf

"Unless otherwise noted specifications apply at reference condition: device in far-field of source"

The listed applications for the device include many RF transmission applications. If none of the H-field measurement devices ever measured any RF fields, people would have noticed.

Between the fact that these probes work at all, and the many other experimental results (such as radiation pressure, the simple existence of RF radiation, and the fields inside a charging capacitor) that are perfectly described by Maxwell's equations, your denial of basic physics is simply unsupported. There is no alternative theory that can explain any of these results let alone all of them. There are different expressions such as translation of the equations to describe the fields directly in terms of charge distributions and motions, but that is still the same theory, and produces the same predictions.

[E.Laureti]

@meberbs

>They are stating right there that the results of your experiment are already obvious assuming you know >what you are talking about, and there is no reason to measure both fields since the ratio is known to be >fixed.

Everything is known but I repeat that there is no experimental data of simultaneous measurement of E and H in the far zone.
I do not want to convince anyone but I want to stick to the experimental data only. If you keep telling me that "it is known" I will continue to repeat that I want to see a confirmation experiment

>The listed applications for the device include many RF transmission applications. If none of the H-field >measurement devices ever measured any RF fields, people would have noticed.
.......
>Between the fact that these probes work at all, and the many other experimental results (such as >radiation pressure, the simple existence of RF radiation, and the fields inside a charging capacitor) that >are perfectly described by Maxwell's equations, your denial of basic physics is simply unsupported.

you  is back in measures in near zone where the fireflies can become lanterns

> There is no alternative theory that can explain any of these results let alone all of them.

For me the theories must arrive after the experimental facts AND NOT BEFORE ... Mr. Meberbs, I'm willing to say that I'm wrong but I want to say it only after an irrefutable experimental event ... I'm not asking for something extraneous to the basic physical principle that you have to bend everything into physics, unless you belong to the faculty of mathematical philosophy. The basic principle in physics is and remains: only what is measurable is real

[meberbs]

@meberbs

>They are stating right there that the results of your experiment are already obvious assuming you know >what you are talking about, and there is no reason to measure both fields since the ratio is known to be >fixed.

Everything is known but I repeat that there is no experimental data of simultaneous measurement of E and H in the far zone.
I do not want to convince anyone but I want to stick to the experimental data only. If you keep telling me that "it is known" I will continue to repeat that I want to see a confirmation experiment

I have given you confirmation experiments. You are ignoring them. These devices work in the far field. That in itself is a confirmation experiment.

>The listed applications for the device include many RF transmission applications. If none of the H-field >measurement devices ever measured any RF fields, people would have noticed.
.......
>Between the fact that these probes work at all, and the many other experimental results (such as >radiation pressure, the simple existence of RF radiation, and the fields inside a charging capacitor) that >are perfectly described by Maxwell's equations, your denial of basic physics is simply unsupported.

you  is back in measures in near zone where the fireflies can become lanterns

Use of the Narda probes in the far field, measurements of radiation pressure, and the existence of RF radiation are all far field. Not that it matters, since general descriptions like Maxwell's equations hold everywhere, not just in the near or far field.

> There is no alternative theory that can explain any of these results let alone all of them.

For me the theories must arrive after the experimental facts AND NOT BEFORE ...

Not how it works: look up the scientific method. You need to form a hypothesis before you can design a sensible experiment.

https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/science-fair/steps-of-the-scientific-method

Mr. Meberbs, I'm willing to say that I'm wrong but I want to say it only after an irrefutable experimental event

I have given you multiple. You have responded with false claims that they were all done in the near field.

You have given no reason that near field matters either.

Since your attempted refutations are simply false, that demonstrates that the results are irrefutable.

... I'm not asking for something extraneous to the basic physical principle that you have to bend everything into physics, unless you belong to the faculty of mathematical philosophy. The basic principle in physics is and remains: only what is measurable is real

You are being a hypocrite, you have repeatedly attempted to discuss "displacement current" as if it was a physical thing, when it is not a directly measureable thing. It is a mathematical construct and it is only called a current because of historical nomenclature.

[E.Laureti]

@meberbs

Jan Bulli Wilkinson contradicted you in the calibration of the Narda probes of which you said without producing bibliography:
"The Narda probes are calibrated, which is almost certainly done by running a similar test to what you proposed. You can contact them and ask about their calibration procedures if you want. "

The fact that Jan Bulli Wilkinson says that the vacuum impedance is not part of the calibration of the Narda probes does not give the slightest suspicion about a possible sequence of experimental errors about the measurement of H from Displacement Current.
Even if  you presents me with thousands of tests in favor of the magnetic field of the displacement current, I will always ask myself why for more than a century there is no simple measurement of the vacuum impedance E/H = 377 ohm
and because you are in favor of all tests less than the one in a simultaneous measurement of E and H is made in the far zone which would remove any doubt.
I think it's useless to repeat the same things.

[meberbs]

Jan Bulli Wilkinson contradicted you in the calibration of the Narda probes of which you said without producing bibliography:
"The Narda probes are calibrated, which is almost certainly done by running a similar test to what you proposed. You can contact them and ask about their calibration procedures if you want. "

They do a test exactly as I described for the E-field probes, apparently they have a different setup to test the H field probes, probably because it is easier to get a field of the proper strength for the frequency and amplitude range that the H field probes are used for. Doesn't change the fact that they would be bankrupt from the demands for returns if their probes that are spec'd to work in the far field did not perform.

The fact that Jan Bulli Wilkinson says that the vacuum impedance is not part of the calibration of the Narda probes does not give the slightest suspicion about a possible sequence of experimental errors about the measurement of H from Displacement Current.

Did you even read the message? He says directly in it that they use 377 Ohms to convert between power and field strength. Claiming that it is "not part of the calibration" is a lie.

Even if  you presents me with thousands of tests in favor of the magnetic field of the displacement current,

Basically you are saying you were lying when you said that given experimental evidence you would admit to being wrong.

I will always ask myself why for more than a century there is no simple measurement of the vacuum impedance E/H = 377 ohm

There are more and easier ways to determine that quantity, and you are simply ignoring them because you can't admit to being wrong. Not to mention the huge number of modern systems that use loop or coil antennas just like the Narda probes and work exactly as expected, and can only do so if Maxwell's equations are correct.

and because you are in favor of all tests less than the one in a simultaneous measurement of E and H is made in the far zone which would remove any doubt.

And now you are lying about what I said. I have repeatedly told you to go ahead and run your experiment if you want to. I even gave you advice on how to do it, and how to save some money on it. Trying to say that I am against your experiment is wrong.

What I have said is that there already is no doubt, so there is no doubt for your experiment to remove except in your own head.

I think it's useless to repeat the same things.

Yet every time I provide evidence contrary to your claims, you just ignore it and go back to repeating the same claims.

[E.Laureti]

Landed?


Let me start these few info by paraphrasing another event

From: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Pile-1

Compton: The Italian navigator has just landed in the new world.

Conant: Were the natives friendly?


Compton: Everyone landed safe and happy



Incidentally it happened on July 31st 2018 

http://www.ansa.it/canale_scienza_tecnica/notizie/spazio_astronomia/2018/07/30/marte-e-alla-minima-distanza-dalla-terra_b2f52cee-be7e-4af5-8b4c-fd45a2422121.html


In practice, the push of the prototype pnn F432 (powered by a battery and operated by remote control) on a scale of arms with output through optical fiber is largely positive ...
F432 cob cart is a mini spaceship.

Unfortunately, the results are so positive that they are incredible and so we ask the question mark to Landed? or:

New experimental setup proposed by the experimenters, preferably skeptical ... (new experimental setups are ALWAYS at the discretion of the verifiers)

Moreover, the control is completely difficult as there are no tools to store all data quickly and simultaneously. Further info on the F432 cart at www.asps.it/ceo.htm

These are the experimental thrust data with the remote controlled and remote-controlled pnn prototype:

- Power supply between 250 and 300 watts

- Push in about 10 seconds increasing and with final value (at the stop of the amplifier) between 600 milligrams and 1000 milligrams ....

In practice it SEEMS about 4 or 5 times more than I saw before with the power supply NOT to batteries e
reconfirms as previously mentioned in this topic

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43756.0
 where there is a movie of the same type
of the high non-linearity of the inertia law of the pnn system.

For years now I have been talking about this possible law of inertia and no one has ever commented on it even with minimal mathematical hypotheses.

Read what is written in: http://www.calmagorod.org/inerzia-della-pnn/
An event of inertia non-linearity must be seen on the spot and not discussed with words that would not solve anything and therefore as we say biblically: it is better to see with your eyes than to wander with desire.

That further experimental tests speak or do not speak about the violation of the action and reaction principle and the non-linearity of its inertia law ...
and that it is the believers and / or the unbelievers to propose them.

Asps with its collaborators will offer public tests as soon as we are able to organize them in a suitable place and with better means.

I am attaching a photo of the small copper radiator mounted on the amplifier's mosfet.

The other photos show the F432 + Cart system on one side and the counterweight which compresses (within the 60 ranges of the Kern scale) the scale plate through a plastic stick inserted in a small tube in the box (shoe) screen containing the scale kern. The prototype plus cart weighs about 2.5 kg.

The balance scale knife tilts on a titanium disc. Kern electronic scales are not designed to be immersed in a radiative pnn bath 

Greetings to all

[meberbs]

These are the experimental thrust data with the remote controlled and remote-controlled pnn prototype:

- Power supply between 250 and 300 watts

- Push in about 10 seconds increasing and with final value (at the stop of the amplifier) between 600 milligrams and 1000 milligrams ....

In practice it SEEMS about 4 or 5 times more than I saw before with the power supply NOT to batteries e
reconfirms as previously mentioned in this topic

This isn't actually data. It is a very imprecise description. Go take a look at Monomorphic's post history in the emDrive thread to see what actual data looks like.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43756.0
 where there is a movie of the same type
of the high non-linearity of the inertia law of the pnn system.

Translation error? There is no movie in this thread. Lots of pictures that mean nothing though.

For years now I have been talking about this possible law of inertia and no one has ever commented on it even with minimal mathematical hypotheses.

This is just completely false. I have explained that your reduction of inertia with velocity is the exact opposite of what has been predicted and experimentally verified in special relativity. It is impossible to provide any more detailed criticism than that unless you write down what you are claiming in a much more specific format (preferably a mathematical one).

Read what is written in: http://www.calmagorod.org/inerzia-della-pnn/

The external reference integral with the fixed stars observes this acceleration inside the pnn system at least as a variation of acceleration from / dt
(Obviously, temporal variations of order superior to the first are also possible).
So the internal force must be equal to less than a constant ka external one since we are talking about the same force seen by two different references.

And these statements are just nonsensical. "fixed stars" does not actually define a meaningful reference frame. You are starting with an assumption that an object randomly accelerates with no external force applied. This violates the definition of conservation of momentum and is simply inconsistent with every experiment ever and some very generic results such as Noether's theorem. The last sentence simply does not make a logical statement. For it to be true, you need to take "less than" to an extreme and make it 0.

The equation that follows the quoted statement is one that says that the rate of change of acceleration is positively correlated with the acceleration. This does not actually follow from anything you said previously and is obviously not something that would ever happen. You don't actually propose mass (which defines inertia) changing anywhere.

You later mention you "do not know if the masses of equation 1) do not depend on the reference system". Go take an introductory course on special relativity. Mass is dependent on reference frame and inertia increases as you approach the speed of light.

The balance scale knife tilts on a titanium disc. Kern electronic scales are not designed to be immersed in a radiative pnn bath 

This type of measurement setup generates false positive signals quite easily. Experimenters in the emDrive thread found this out the hard way. The remaining experimenters are all using torsion balances for a reason, and even then removing error sources is difficult.

[E.Laureti]

@meberbs

> Translation error? There is no movie in this thread.

I do not understand, there is this link



in page1 of https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43756.0

as I said
And there's only one movie on page 1
....

For the rest mister meberbs, to avoid many words that would serve no purpose, bring his measuring instruments when there will be public tests of the pnn.

If you want to hurry up (i.e. public test of the pnn in which external ASPS  www.asps.it  can do all the experiments on pnn pushing  they want with F432) we could say to us  where we can buy   thrust sensors or an electronic balance of sensitivity equal to at least .01 grams which tolerate at least a maximum load of 3.5 kg and which has the following configuration:
Whether battery powered and controlled from a remote computer, it transmits all data as a function of time to the computer, with only fiber optic connections.
We will take care of the balance or sensor screen. Obviously, I address this request not only to you.
Knowing exactly how far the possible inertial law of the pnn goes is essential to design a pnn engine for a pnn spaceship for Mars or the Moon or elsewhere.

 Mr. President Trump said he would like to go to Mars.
As I said, I address this request also to American readers who do not want to oppose the desire of their President Trump to go to Mars:
https://www.wired.it/scienza/spazio/2017/03/22/trump-usa-marte/

Notice I'm not asking for money but only where we can find some instruments for pnn experimental test.

Once all the pnn thrust tests are adequate for the target of a pnn spaceship, we will find on our account the updated equivalent of the Queen of Spain for this trip. 

Greetings

[meberbs]

@meberbs

> Translation error? There is no movie in this thread.

I do not understand, there is this link

Script blockers hid that link from me.

Anyway, the video of a video you are doing is strange, without a view of what is actually happening it is meaningless, but your mention of thermal issues combined with the type of balance you have makes it clear that you are measuring an error source, probably thermal related. If you were generating a real force, the characteristic of the measurements would not be continuously increasing. This is an expected result if you have thermal issues such as thermal expansion or buoyancy.

If you want to hurry up (i.e. public test of the pnn in which external ASPS  www.asps.it  can do all the experiments on pnn pushing  they want with F432) we could say to us  where we can buy   thrust sensors or an electronic balance of sensitivity equal to at least .01 grams which tolerate at least a maximum load of 3.5 kg and which has the following configuration:

Go read through some of the history on the emDrive thread. You want to build a torsion balance. If you need assistance with that you can PM Monomorphic or Seeshells for advice, they have both been building some very good setups.

Whether battery powered and controlled from a remote computer, it transmits all data as a function of time to the computer, with only fiber optic connections.

No idea why you would want fiberoptic connections. Wireless makes much more sense, if you did need to have wired connections, something more common than fiberoptics would be preferable. Again, emDrive experimenters can give you advice on this.

Mr. President Trump said he would like to go to Mars.

First, this is off topic. Second he redirected NASA to focus on the moon in the near term. Third, in America talking about "wanting to oppose the desire of the president" is backwards. The president is supposed to be a representative of the people. If he doesn't do that, he will get voted out of office. How well the current president represents the people is very, very, very off topic.

[E.Laureti]

@meberbs

> If you were generating a real force, the characteristic of the measurements would not be continuously
> increasing.

I thought the same before ... But if there is violation of the newton III ... the law of inertia is not a uniform linear motion for the pnn but a uniformly accelerated motion with the engines off.
Too difficult to accept theoretically .... ... the only way is the experimental finding. There is no amount of words or mathematics to accept such an event ... it must only start from experimental observation.

> Go read through some history on the emDrive thread.

I have no time for this

> You want to build a torsion balance. If you need assistance with that you can PMMonomorphic or
> Seeshells for advice, they have both been building some very good setups.

Well Monomorphic and Seeshells if they want can bring their experimental setup to public pnn tests and they will be welcome.

The engineers who help me have advised me to use only a good electronic scale, a pnn prototype powered by batteries and operated with a remote control.

My detection request with sensors and fiber optics is based on the fact that in 10 seconds of action I have to check various parameters to avoid faults to the amplifier's mosfet and other problems. The thermal dissipation of the pnn is now only passive in order to avoid faults I do not have to operate anything not exceeding the limit of 10 seconds.
Knowing how the thrust increases as a function of time with the same amount of energy delivered allows the theoretical level to determine the moment of take-off.
This  is unacceptable too at the theoretical level so the only validation is experimental. Furthermore, the worst is not even this at the theoretical level.

If we want to save energy conservation, the only possibility is that the mass of the pnn spaceship will decrease with increasing speed and thrust. A very antirelativistic event and therefore usually we must start from the experimental observation to accept it.

In other words, such antirelativistic event is unsustainable even mathematically.

[meberbs]

@meberbs

> If you were generating a real force, the characteristic of the measurements would not be continuously
> increasing.

I thought the same before ... But if there is violation of the newton III ... the law of inertia is not a uniform linear motion for the pnn but a uniformly accelerated motion with the engines off.
Too difficult to accept theoretically .... ... the only way is the experimental finding. There is no amount of words or mathematics to accept such an event ... it must only start from experimental observation.

I told you before, and I'll say it one last time, go study the scientific method. You need a clear hypothesis that you are testing before you can design a reasonable experiment. If you can't describe what you are expecting to see, then how will you know if you see it?

> Go read through some history on the emDrive thread.

I have no time for this

If you are at all serious about what you are doing, then you should have time. You don't have to read everything. Skip over anything discussing theory (such as most of my posts), mode shapes or anything posted by TheTraveller. Instead look through particularly for the couple posters I mentions and see where they describe their experimental setups. If you want to know specifics of some things and why they are doing them that way ask. I am sure some posters in there could point you to specific past discussions if needed.

> You want to build a torsion balance. If you need assistance with that you can PMMonomorphic or
> Seeshells for advice, they have both been building some very good setups.

Well Monomorphic and Seeshells if they want can bring their experimental setup to public pnn tests and they will be welcome.

Look up their posts. You can on this site click on a user's name and ee their past posts. Look at the posts that have pictures of their setups. These are not things you can just pick up and fly to another continent. If you want others to test your device, you will have to bring the device to the test setup, not the other way around. A good test setup will always be larger than the device.

The engineers who help me have advised me to use only a good electronic scale, a pnn prototype powered by batteries and operated with a remote control.

If nothing else, the emDrive thread here has created a group of people with lots of experience with the type you are trying to do. Clearly you did not talk to engineers with the right background in this rather specific area.

My detection request with sensors and fiber optics is based on the fact that in 10 seconds of action I have to check various parameters to avoid faults to the amplifier's mosfet and other problems. The thermal dissipation of the pnn is now only passive in order to avoid faults I do not have to operate anything not exceeding the limit of 10 seconds.

None of that explains a need for fiber optics. Fiber optics are for when you need 1 gigabit/second (Gb/s) speed for multiple kilometers. Alternatively, on shorter distances it can be used for 10 to100 Gb/s. You need neither absurd data rates nor extremely long distances. Standard ethernet (1 Gb/s) is more than good enough, though other things (USB, RF cables, wireless, etc.) may be more appropriate depending on the specifics.

If we want to save energy conservation, the only possibility is that the mass of the pnn spaceship will decrease with increasing speed and thrust. A very antirelativistic event and therefore usually we must start from the experimental observation to accept it.

In other words, such antirelativistic event is unsustainable even mathematically.

Experiments have already been done that demonstrate that relativity works.

Your last statement reads to me as an admission that your concept is completely illogical and wrong.

[E.Laureti]

@meberbs

If it transmits at least 5 push data in a second on a computer, I am oriented to choose these types of scales
https://www.andweighing.com.au/products-service/scientific-balances/gx-a-balances
but I have to hear the engineers who are helping me first

Quo fata ferunt

[meberbs]

@meberbs

If it transmits at least 5 push data in a second on a computer, I am oriented to choose these types of scales
https://www.andweighing.com.au/products-service/scientific-balances/gx-a-balances
but I have to hear the engineers who are helping me first

Quo fata ferunt

Did you even read what I wrote? It doesn't sound like it. If you seriously want to do measurements of your device, you want to put it on a torsion balance. Electronic scales like what you linked are vulnerable to too many unavoidable error sources such as thermal expansion. If you build some mechanism that translates force from the device to the scale, then that mechanism will be vulnerable to thermal expansion or other problems.

[E.Laureti]

@meberbs

1) I have warmed up on electronic scales and on other weighing scales of different types: dummy load, structures of various types, etc. etc. Result: Nothing at all heat does not determine the effects observed with F432 and cart

2) then there is the speed, the rapidity of variation of the thrust of F432 can not be reached and equaled by any thermal deformation

3) If you then assume that there is some magnetic effect ... it just has to show me if a compass needle moves at 432 MHz or the Earth's magnetic field or other magnetic field can simulate the effects that are observed.

4) I have always offered to anyone (it happened already in 2005) to show that I am wrong for which someone can only propose an experiment where the aforementioned events or others deceive the electronic scale obviously screened.

5) I also offer the possibility to check the validity of my scale shielding

6) I offer to anyone I repeat to engineer a deception of any NEW type with a screened electronic scale.

7) I also offer to anyone to bring their own measurement equipment or replace with my own measuring devices

I set no limits to contrary and experimental demonstrations that can repeat the effects measured

9) I will never convince you, so I have to let it fly ... .. but you will also tell me that there is some hidden helix or mass of outgoing reaction.

10) If with a better and more suitable apparatus I go to Mars and back, you will tell me that it was the Martians 

qff

[meberbs]

1) I have warmed up on electronic scales and on other weighing scales of different types: dummy load, structures of various types, etc. etc. Result: Nothing at all heat does not determine the effects observed with F432 and cart

The emDrive threads are full of people who done this and shown significant effects. If you came to any other conclusion, it only shows that you didn't do your experiments well enough. There is a mountain of evidence against you.

2) then there is the speed, the rapidity of variation of the thrust of F432 can not be reached and equaled by any thermal deformation

The video you shared demonstrates the exact opposite of your statement here.

3) If you then assume that there is some magnetic effect ... it just has to show me if a compass needle moves at 432 MHz or the Earth's magnetic field or other magnetic field can simulate the effects that are observed.

Nope, not how it works, there are a lot of more complicated things going on and ways electromagnetism can mess with your experiment. Since you aren't listening anyway, not much point in me going into details.

4) I have always offered to anyone (it happened already in 2005) to show that I am wrong for which someone can only propose an experiment where the aforementioned events or others deceive the electronic scale obviously screened.

Buoyancy, electromagnetic interference, thermal expansion (including direct forces, and shift of center of mass of a balance). All of these are problems emDrive experimenters have demonstrated with a setup like yours.

5) I also offer the possibility to check the validity of my scale shielding

OK, please mail it to me so I can do so. Or maybe actually show something that describes your full setup including inside the "black box" of your thruster. Otherwise no one can check the validity. If you refuse any of these options, than your offer is not true.

6) I offer to anyone I repeat to engineer a deception of any NEW type with a screened electronic scale.

Again, been done many times in the emDrive thread.

7) I also offer to anyone to bring their own measurement equipment or replace with my own measuring devices

It isn't that hard to build your own torsion balance, basically, you just need some piano wire, a board, and some counterweights.

I set no limits to contrary and experimental demonstrations that can repeat the effects measured

You haven't provided enough detail for anyone to replicate your setup, that is a hard limit.

9) I will never convince you, so I have to let it fly ... .. but you will also tell me that there is some hidden helix or mass of outgoing reaction.

I can be convinced by data. Your statement that you will never convince me is true as long as you continue to refuse to share real data, or even a specific description of the effect you are claiming.

10) If with a better and more suitable apparatus I go to Mars and back, you will tell me that it was the Martians 

This is just an insulting ad hominem attack, the smiley face at the end does not make it a valid joke. This is one more thing for you to apologize for in addition to the multiple lies that you said and I detailed in a previous post.

[Chris Bergin]

You know, I may not know the first thing about advanced physics, but at least I could get along with a bunch of people in a room.

Guys. Seriously. BE CIVIL.

You can tell someone they are wrong without sobbing all over the thread.
You can point out someone isn't listening to the feedback without calling them a liar.
You can let a thread die if you don't keep responding after the above hasn't worked.

[JohnFornaro]

You have never explained what your drive is other than pictures of a foil covered box.

I noticed that too.  Neither have I noticed a presentation of the math behind the propulsion principle.

Solo dicendo.

[E.Laureti]

@JohnFornaro

Mathematics reveals pnn principle of propulsion and I do not currently have the money to defend the patent of the pnn for its industrial development.
The timing of external communication of pnn know-how now depends on my collaborators.
I will not do more controversy in this forum.

Greetings

[E.Laureti]

Subject:  a my patents that was not well copied years ago by two Japanese


As already mentioned a few years ago in Nova Astronautica n.143 www.asps.it/na.htm , 2 Japanese have copied my 1998 patent on the pnn http://www.asps.it/apensar.htm

And if they are republished on their behalf

Now since a few years if they do well to pay

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/%28SICI%291520-6432%28200004%2983:4%3C31::AID-ECJB4%3E3.0.CO; 2-B / abstract


to mitigate in part the thing I have republished for some years their (bad) copied here

http://www.asps.it/article2.pdf

The original thrust procedure, as well as the Nova Astronautica official organ of Asps, has also been published here
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42239.0

where there is the description of the thrust of two mid-wave propellantless dipoles facing the opposite sides of a rectangle.
This was the email that informed me on 20/06/2010 of the patent copied

------------------------

Gent. mo Prof. Laureti

I send you an article:
Noriaki Obara, Mamoru Baba, Electronics and Communications in Japan, part 2, 83 (4), 31.2000

My name is Gianluca, I graduated in Pisa in theoretical physics and I did my doctorate in Texas on complex systems, abnormal diffusion processes and furor systems with thermodynamic equilibrium.
Through his website, I am aware of the project conducted by the ASPS on PNN since 1997.
Even if you do not respond to this email I highly recommend reading the attached article and let me know. Incredible, but I expect an answer from her.

Thank you for your attention.

Gianluca
-----------------

As I told Gianluca we must learn to copy well and always find "good" the missing parts :-) of the copied as the devil is in the details.
... because because because if you like it you find yourself building something like the emdrive of which you will unfortunately not understand anything.

[E.Laureti]

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/%28SICI%291520-6432%28200004%2983%3A4%3C31%3A%3AAID-ECJB4%3E3.0.CO%3B2-B

[meberbs]

As already mentioned a few years ago in Nova Astronautica n.143 www.asps.it/na.htm , 2 Japanese have copied my 1998 patent on the pnn http://www.asps.it/apensar.htm

And if they are republished on their behalf

Now since a few years if they do well to pay


https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/%28SICI%291520-6432%28200004%2983%3A4%3C31%3A%3AAID-ECJB4%3E3.0.CO%3B2-B

to mitigate in part the thing I have republished for some years their (bad) copied here

http://www.asps.it/article2.pdf

The paper you are referring to is describing well known electromagnetic phenomena, which describing some aspects in detail that most do not bother going into. They are using 2 oscillating dipoles as sources. While individually they would radiate symmetrically, when placed apart by an appropriate distance they form a phased array antenna, which emits directional radiation. This is simply nothing more than a photon rocket, with the same cap on its force/power ratio of 1/c. It is actually worse in this case because the directionality is not very good. This is a useful model system to show how radiation pressure calculated from far field can also be calculated using the near field as interactions between the charges generating the fields.

The same exact type of effect has been brought up on this forum in multiple threads. I can provide you some links if you would like.

It seems that you somehow think they stole this idea from you. They didn't , it is simply a well known phenomenon that they have analyzed in more detail than others had.

If this is at all representative of the concept behind your thruster, you can go read that paper in more detail, see that they conclude that near field and far field make the same predictions, and therefore any such drive has the limitations of a photon rocket. Once you see this, you can then move on and stop wasting your time on this dead end.

[E.Laureti]

Object: Calculation of push (optimistic) on a half-wave dipole and new bibliography. The 2 dipoles face the opposite sides of a rectangle


The setup of the dipoles is what I have already talked about in
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42239.0

And specifically I refer to fig. 1 [1]
and to the configuration fig. 4 [1] published ibidem which determines a thrust in the same direction and towards. The push is given only to Lorentz's strength:

 F = i l B

since the photonic boost is over 1000 times lower than that of the Lorentz force.
In our setup i is the current in rms in the dipole arms, l is the length of the dipole or 16 cm and B is the optimistic calculation of the magnetic field of a dipole in the feedpoint of the other 8 cm distant dipole
The calculation is optimistic in the sense that it only serves to understand the amount of basic force that is in place.

The current i that flows in the dipoles is optimistically given to 4 Amp rms. As mentioned, the dipole arm along l is a 16 cm long segment of the circuit. For the calculation of B the last formula in this link should be used
http://www.roma1.infn.it/people/luci/libro/Campo_magnetico.pdf below on p. 833
where the limits of integration are no longer + - infinite but the extremes of the dipole is -8 cm and + 8 cm. To realize the amount of thrust in play we positively admit that the dipole of which we want to find the field B at a distance of 8 cm in the feedpoint is subject to the same field in all points of the dipole. That is, that field B is on the whole dipole the one that is at the center of the dipole in front of the one for which the magnetic field is to be found.

The setup with which to do the test are two vertical dipoles hanging in front of one another, 16 cm long and 8 cm apart, in the figure Setupd.

 The two parallel dipoles are distant ¼ of a wave. The push detection is performed with 1 or more lasers on ballistic pendulum, lenses, etc .. We recommend using at least one power divider and a phase shifter in addition to a good power supply resistant to inevitable mismatch.
The calculation of force F offers a thrust of .454 milligrams or even half a milligram!

With these thrusts one could ask how electric motors work, actually magnetic motors, in common use. Actually in the motors the windings are much, much longer than 16 cm, stator and rotor are much closer and above all the whole is super boosted by magnetic masses with magnetic permeability much greater than 1 and top of the top do not work around the lethal frequency of 432 MHz and related phase problems :-)

With F432 I managed to increase these effects by about 100 times (even with a lower current) ... but it's still not enough for take-off.

I must also add a very important fact in my opinion that has always played against the thrust of open circuits:
In several Italian tests all the authors explicitly say that open circuits violate clearly the principle of action and reaction and solve the thing saying that in practice these forces do not exist or that the electromagnetic forces of Lorentz exist only between closed circuits as mentioned in the figure Amaldi ( General Physics II)

From what has been said, it is clear what determines the definition of non-existent for such potentially violent electrodynamic forces Newton III: the baseness of thrust beyond the difficulty of the experimental setup that requires a well-equipped experimental electrodynamic lab ... apart from the fact that in secula seculorum nobody went to investigate this event specifically despite someone who wanted the opposite (in the end we will say who he is).

But things are changing my opponents on the third of Newton or they seem to be changing opinion.
Here are some:

In the thread on free.it.scienza.fisica from the title
The 3 dynamic principle sometimes does not apply?

From: https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=IT#!topic/free.it.scienza.fisica/eUUCW9P6NVA
On 27/04/16 20:00, G. Pasore wrote:

Interesting. It increases (Pastore says) the personal statistics of people who should
know it and do not know it (about the violation of the III principle of dynamics).
And many graduates in physics seem to ignore it (or
have forgotten it if they have known it in the past).
Your post confirms that this is a widespread gap.
I also add that the electromagnetic case is not the only one.
Not valid for apparent forces.
Not valid for the situation of forces not attributable to sums of
couple interactions.

Giorgio Pastore (professor of the University of Trieste)
............ ..
... while Prof Elio Fabri, former lecturer of the University of Pisa with whom I have had countless polemics for many years (over 15 years) about the violation of the Newton III principle recently at least in Italy has become the best academic propagandist of the violation in electrodynamics of the principle of action and reaction
Here is what he wrote against me:

E.Fabri said in 2006 in the thread: "Per Elio Fabri"
by Piccolachimica

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=IT#!searchin/it.scienza.fisica/fissato$20$20che$20ci$20sia$20il$20modo$20di$20violare$20la$20terza$20legge$20della $ 20dinamica% 7Csort: dates / it.scienza.fisica / pba9hbOaxyE / ZXc_pLh_qZ8J

 he wrote:


> Can you tell me something about the activity of asps (asks Piccolachimica to Elio Fabri)?



From my long studies in Latin (Fabri says) , I remember saying "longum est"
to intend "it would be too long"
But I really do not want to disappoint you, so here's a summary
summary (and certainly partial, in the sense of "partisan" ...).
Laureti is dichara graduate in Physics in Rome, and seems to teach in
a secondary school in the city.
For several years he has taken it upon himself to discover a means of
propulsion that exceeds the traditional ones of astronautics, and yes
fixed that there is a way to violate the third law of dynamics.
That's why he talks about PNN, which means "propulsion not
Newtonian ".
In the early days it has held with improbable mechanical devices, gods
which gave fanciful theoretical justifications. To those who did
to notice the numerous errors of his "reasonings" has always responded
with the style you know: insults and escapes for the bribe.
In the end he was convinced that the mechanical system was not working (now
he says it himself, but then, woe to tell him ...) and he jumped up
an electromagnetic system, just as unfounded as the previous one.
..................... ..
........................ ..
   
-
Elio Fabri

(related links http://www.asps.it/2pesi2misure.htm     www.asps.it/contesto.htm )

One comment: as I have already said several times to the deaf Elio Fabri with the pnn are preserved both the qdm (momentum) that the energy but must renounce the fact that the pnn can be reached through relativity.

Now with a 180 degree turnaround E.Fabri says this in July 2018 :-)

Title: Third Principle and Field e.m.

E.Fabri writes:
"For the purpose of demonstrating that in the context of e.m. the third principle of dynamics
not valid, the following situation is considered "....

mathematical proof of E.Fabri of violation of Newton's III in electrodynamics

http://www.sagredo.eu/varie/terzopr-em.pdf

from:

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=IT#!topic/it.scienza.fisica/bywUcjCN47U
The professor. Fabri has not yet made amends for all the lies that he previously said against me since unfortunately supporting hard-line ideas that go against the mainstream are almost always received insults. Here a collection that is a library and is almost completely Italian www.asps.it/gotha.htm :-)
.............
To conclude as I said in the forum in

 http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42239.0


The first who went to think about interactions between open circuits such as the above dipoles (and with an implicit invitation to study the thing well before constructing mathematical bans), was J.C. Maxwell.

He explicitly tells pag.163 Vol.2 of his Treatise:

... ..NO EXPERIMENTS ON THE MUTUAL ACTION OF UNCLOSED CIRCUITS HAVE BEEN MADE ... ..

And I must add that in his time it was almost impossible to do these experiments.

I have been experimenting with Maxwell for many years and I have discussed it for the first time in n.84 Vol.20 2000 of Nova Astronautica pp.3-9. I think that his fellow countryman of the emdrive Roger Shawyer never picked up this invitation. :-)

There is nothing else to add if you do not read for free Nova Astronautica Official Organ of the Space Propulsion Development Association (ASPS) at the National Library of Florence http://www.asps.it/novafiorenza.htm for further details.

Greetings
E.Laureti

[E.Laureti]

In

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

there is some more details

[meberbs]

So that was a lot of words from you that basically boils down to "yes you are talking about oscillating dipoles a fixed distance  from each other.

since the photonic boost is over 1000 times lower than that of the Lorentz force.

No clue where you got that number from, but the way an emitted photon pushes on the antenna it is emitted from is through electromagnetic forces, so your sentence has a false dichotomy. If your number is based on experiment, I have already pointed that your experiments are subject to errors. If your number is from some calculation, then you made a mistake somewhere, which is not surprising, because it is non-trivial to calculate the power required in a situation like what you are describing.

I went and did a quick search and pulled up some old threads where I had previously explained how this works, why it does not violate momentum conservation, and that it has a Force/Power ratio less than 1/c, so it is not useful.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43278.msg1698343#msg1698343
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1670235#msg1670235
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40704.0
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39063.msg1482167#msg1482167

Unless you have something different to add, we can ask the mods to lock the thread and you can move on to doing something else.

[E.Laureti]

>> since the photonic boost is over 1000 times lower than that of the Lorentz force.

The total momentum p when the dipole is delivered E = 100 joules
is p = E / c = 3.32 * 10 ^ -7 Nt * sec

In a second a thrust equal to 3.32 * 10 ^ -7 Nt

Let us assume that all this force can be distributed on the lateral surface of a cylinder with a diameter of 160 mm, having a half-wave dipole 160 mm long per axis.

Let's assume that the dipole that receives the photonic boost offers an area equal to
16 cm * .5 cm
The perimeter to 8 cm from the dipole is equal to 50.24 cm. Of that impulse the dipole intercepts
only .5 / 50,24 ...
The total photonic thrust Ff will not exceed Ff = 3.31 * 10 ^ -9 Newton.

Now at 4 amps rms the thrust of Lorentz Fl as mentioned is equal to Fl = 4.54 * 10 ^ -6 Newton

In this case Fl / Ff = 1371 or as said, the photonic boost is more 1000 times lower than Lorentz force.

The enormous advantage of the Lorentz force compared to the photonic one is that, with the same energy, lowering the impedance, the current increases and that, moreover, the Lorentz force  goes like the square of the current.

[meberbs]

Not even remotely close to a valid calculation.

The second half of calculations you did does not come close to a valid calculation of the forces. The wire can be assumed to have an arbitrarily small diameter, and this would not significantly change the forces from radiated photons. The area you calculated has nothing to do with the actual forces.

Your Lorentz force calculation is wrong, because it is clear you did not even begin to consider the fact that both fields and currents are variable in space and time. Absolutely nothing is uniform by definition in this situation, and you need to add up the magnitude and direction of all forces including the electric ones.

You also made no attempt to calculate the energy required for 4 Amps of current through this setup. It is nontrivial to calculate because it is driven by radiation back reaction, so there is no connecting point between your (both incorrect) variations of force calculations. They aren't even being done on the same situation.

[E.Laureti]

Lorentz's forces have been studied and mathematized in the static and almost static case ... I mean that I have never read something about them that brings 1 Mhz closer ... ..

But having someone never done these tests under safe mathematical guidance the only way is the experimental way ...

In practice we return to a different level to what happened in the good old times when the first laws of electrodynamics were formulated.

And then it is not even remotely imagined the complexity that is generated when trying to upgrade the Lorentz force through dielectrics, ferrites and abatement of impedance.

I could promise  something to NSF , but it's better not because it does not bring luck .... And the destruction of my amplifiers and other devices with which I have always lived forces me to fly low.

Quo fata  ferunt

[meberbs]

Lorentz's forces have been studied and mathematized in the static and almost static case ... I mean that I have never read something about them that brings 1 Mhz closer ... ..

All electrodynamic forces are fully captured in Maxwell's electrodynamics. You don't need to use some quasistatic approximation. To get the right answers you need to use the full details and go through the calculus.

Also I have no idea what you mean by "brings 1 Mhz closer."

[E.Laureti]

Hurra!

PNN F432 in progress

[1]

The setup of the dipoles is what I have already talked about in
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42239.0

And specifically I refer to fig. 1 [1]
and to the configuration fig. 4 [1] published ibidem which determines a thrust in the same direction and towards. The push is given only to Lorentz's strength:

 F = i l B

I see where your misunderstanding is coming from. You're applying circuit-theory approximations to antenna elements, where they're not valid.

In a circuit, you can say that applying an electric field induces a constant current proportional to the field strength. But in an antenna, this is not the case. When your conductivity is high enough that free charge can keep up with changes to the external electric field; then charge only moves until the the electric field is nullified inside the region in question. Then, charge stops flowing. This is where the common saying of "there is no electric field inside a conductor" comes from.

Look at your drawing, 'fase 2'. In this drawing, you have a current flowing through dipole 2 at the midpoint of the wave. In actuality, there would be no current at this point in time because charge has displaced as far as it needs to.

Step back to before the midpoint of the wave, when the incident pulse begins to arrive. As the electric field begins to pass through dipole 2, then charge will begin to displace. This will appear to cause a current in the direction as you specify. Charge will continue to displace as the electric field increases. But once the field reaches maximum strength, then charge will no longer flow. And once the electric field begins to decrease, as the wave moves past the dipole, then your charges will flow back towards where they were before the field arrived. In essence, current travels in the opposite direction during the second half of the pulse. The net result of this is that the force you show will only materialize during the leading half of each waveform. The trailing half will cause a force in the opposite direction, resulting in a net force of zero for each cycle. And since the speed of light is much, much greater than the speed of sound, this won't actually result in a displacement of the setup at all; it'll only materialize as a slight jitter in your valence electrons.

This situation repeats for fase 6, and a variation of it exists for fases 4 and 8 and so on. And since this current reversal will occur regardless of waveform shape, we can say with confidence that no form of waveform allow a lorentzian force to act on itself. A second object, which effectively serves as a reaction mass, is needed to get a force greater than a photon rocket to materialize.

[E.Laureti]

>1

As I said in this thread: “In practice we return to a different level to what happened in the good old times when the first laws of electrodynamics were formulated.

And then it is not even remotely imagined the complexity that is generated when trying to upgrade the Lorentz force through dielectrics, ferrites and abatement of impedance.”

In other words, the Lorentz forces also exist for the antennas.
One has only to patiently perform experimental tests on ballistic pendulum or structures with a milligram scale. You should not only do them but also repeat them using the phase shifter well. When one tells me that I do not have to do the tests because the theory predicts everything or almost I have great suspicions about such advice.
Because in the end it is only the experiment and not the theory that judges.

[meberbs]

And then it is not even remotely imagined the complexity that is generated when trying to upgrade the Lorentz force through dielectrics, ferrites and abatement of impedance.”

But all of those things are just simplifications so that you don't have to individually model more than 10^23 individual charges. The basic laws still completely apply.

In other words, the Lorentz forces also exist for the antennas.

And the net result when you add everything up is at best a photon rocket.

One has only to patiently perform experimental tests on ballistic pendulum or structures with a milligram scale. You should not only do them but also repeat them using the phase shifter well. When one tells me that I do not have to do the tests because the theory predicts everything or almost I have great suspicions about such advice.
Because in the end it is only the experiment and not the theory that judges.

You can spend all of the time you want running experiments to test laws that have been more thoroughly tested in more extreme of conditions, but there isn't a reason to. You are only doing the tests to begin with because you made incorrect theoretical calculations. Since your mistakes have been pointed out what reason do you have to do the experiment? (Other than refusal to admit that you are wrong even in the face of direct evidence, which in itself is evidence that you aren't being objective or scientific, increasing the likelihood that you will just ignore flaws in your experiment, intentionally or subconsciously.)

[E.Laureti]

@meberbs

i promised myself
I will not be so controversy in this forum.
So you just has to convince my scales that measure the thrust 

[meberbs]

@meberbs

i promised myself
I will not be so controversy in this forum.

I am not sure what this is supposed to mean, the sentence doesn't make sense. It sounds like you are simply ignoring things that you find inconvenient, which is no way to have a discussion or do science.

So you just has to convince my scales that measure the thrust 

As far as I can tell from your descriptions, your setup is one that is known to be very susceptible to a variety of error sources. You have admitted to thermal issues which are known to cause incorrect thrust signals in even well designed experimental setups. You have been given evidence of all of this, and where to find instructions for building a better setup, yet you apparently have no interest in doing so. Given this evidence you should realize that your setup has never measured any real thrust (and you certainly have never provided any actual thrust data.)

The theory that was your original motivation for building your device has been shown to be wrong. Whatever forces you have measured have been shown to be due to your experimental setup being vulnerable to errors (to the extent it is possible to show this with the minimal information you have provided.) There is no logical reason left for you continue spending your time on something that obviously doesn't work, so again, why? Is it just because you can't bear to admit that you were wrong?

[1]

>1

As I said in this thread: “In practice we return to a different level to what happened in the good old times when the first laws of electrodynamics were formulated.

In other words, the Lorentz forces also exist for the antennas.

All you've done with these sentences is contradict yourself. For starters, my comments about electric fields displacing current in a metal object are valid in the electrostatic regime. You don't need Maxwells equations to explain them; so they're already valid in your "different level". Your force diagrams are wrong on the "different level" as well. This is an indication that you're not understanding the precursors to Maxwell's equations either.

Secondly, neither the concept of antennas nor that of self propagating EM waves existed before Maxwell's equations were formulated. This is not an opinion, it's objective fact. To "return to a different level" is literally meaningless if you're going to use either concept, and your own drawing uses both. Your own statements are inconsistent.

And then it is not even remotely imagined the complexity that is generated when trying to upgrade the Lorentz force through dielectrics, ferrites and abatement of impedance.”

And this sentence is meaningless in all circumstances.

By all means, run your experiment; but to quote the man in black, "get used to disappointment."

[E.Laureti]

@1

Unfortunately you keeps talking about Maxwell, who is completely useless for the pnn (the pnn mainly uses only Hertz and Lorentz) . I am unfortunately obliged to make this comparison.
 Individually, you have the same position as Augusto Righi who contrasted Marconi because he did not respect the formalisms you attribute to electrodynamics.

In fact in http://www.radiomarconi.com/marconi/da_i4cdh_lodovico_gualandi.html
he (Augusto Righi) could not offer any contribution because, based on his scientific knowledge, he considered the work of Marconi impossible. In fact, in the book published in 1903 he still expressed judgments that did not match the results obtained by Marconi.
As I said in the past you do not know many details of the pnn (I have not deposited for safety any F432 patent) considers it impossible to use Lorentz forces for propellantless propulsion. Unfortunately, you will have to wait as long as I have the money and the help of my engineers to defend my patent.
Once the construction details are known, it is practically certain that those who have a good electrodynamic lab in NSF will be able to reproduce the work done by ASPS well and separate thermal effects from thrust effects.

As I have already said for years and years on Nova Astronautica unfortunately only the PNN will allow the realization of permanent human outposts on the Moon and on Mars, or industrialize these habitats and mitigate the demographic pressure on the Earth.

Greetings

[meberbs]

@1

Unfortunately you keeps talking about Maxwell, who is completely useless for the pnn (the pnn mainly uses only Hertz and Lorentz) .

You are not making any sense here. Maxwell's equations fully encompass Lorentz forces. Hertz's contribution to electrodynamics involves experimental proving the predictions of Maxwell's equations. You can't say that you are using "Lorentz and Hertz" but not "Maxwell." Also, if a system has multiple terms contributing to forces, some which may cancel others, and you only consider some terms, you obviously will get the wrong answer.

As I said in the past you do not know many details of the pnn (I have not deposited for safety any F432 patent) considers it impossible to use Lorentz forces for propellantless propulsion. Unfortunately, you will have to wait as long as I have the money and the help of my engineers to defend my patent.

You have already provided a link to a paper that you claim operates on the same principle as your device. It was shown that if you bothered to read the paper, it demonstrates that such a device can never generate useful force it is just a photon rocket at best. This is a fundamental aspect of electrodynamics, which has been confirmed by many people who, unlike you, actually understand the relevant math. Any result with force generation greater than a photon rocket is simply inconsistent with everything we know about electrodynamic forces.

Once the construction details are known, it is practically certain that those who have a good electrodynamic lab in NSF will be able to reproduce the work done by ASPS well and separate thermal effects from thrust effects.

You seem absolutely certain in yourself despite the fact that this thread has demonstrated that you neither understand electrodynamics, nor are you willing to even listen to advice on how to build a decent force measurement system.