### Author Topic: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432  (Read 54945 times)

#### meberbs

• Senior Member
• Posts: 3096
• Liked: 3379
• Likes Given: 776
##### Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #20 on: 06/29/2018 10:42 pm »

@meberbs

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

• Member
• Posts: 85
• Roma - Italia
• Liked: 2
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #21 on: 06/30/2018 12:42 am »

@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

• Member
• Posts: 85
• Roma - Italia
• Liked: 2
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #22 on: 06/30/2018 06:14 am »

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

• Senior Member
• Posts: 3096
• Liked: 3379
• Likes Given: 776
##### Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #23 on: 06/30/2018 07:57 am »
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

• Member
• Posts: 85
• Roma - Italia
• Liked: 2
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #24 on: 07/04/2018 10:31 pm »

PNN in progress

#### E.Laureti

• Member
• Posts: 85
• Roma - Italia
• Liked: 2
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #25 on: 07/05/2018 04:02 pm »
@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

• Senior Member
• Posts: 3096
• Liked: 3379
• Likes Given: 776
##### Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #26 on: 07/05/2018 05:18 pm »
@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

• Member
• Posts: 85
• Roma - Italia
• Liked: 2
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #27 on: 07/05/2018 07:33 pm »

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

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

#### meberbs

• Senior Member
• Posts: 3096
• Liked: 3379
• Likes Given: 776
##### Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #28 on: 07/05/2018 07:58 pm »

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
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

• Member
• Posts: 85
• Roma - Italia
• Liked: 2
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #29 on: 07/05/2018 08:48 pm »

@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

• Senior Member
• Posts: 3096
• Liked: 3379
• Likes Given: 776
##### Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #30 on: 07/05/2018 10:01 pm »
@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

• Member
• Posts: 85
• Roma - Italia
• Liked: 2
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #31 on: 07/09/2018 02:20 pm »
@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

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

• Senior Member
• Posts: 3096
• Liked: 3379
• Likes Given: 776
##### Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #32 on: 07/09/2018 03:23 pm »
@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

• Member
• Posts: 85
• Roma - Italia
• Liked: 2
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #33 on: 07/09/2018 04:54 pm »
@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

• Senior Member
• Posts: 3096
• Liked: 3379
• Likes Given: 776
##### Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #34 on: 07/09/2018 05:21 pm »
@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

• Member
• Posts: 85
• Roma - Italia
• Liked: 2
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #35 on: 07/09/2018 06:55 pm »

@meberbs

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

• Senior Member
• Posts: 3096
• Liked: 3379
• Likes Given: 776
##### Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #36 on: 07/09/2018 07:18 pm »

@meberbs

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

• Member
• Posts: 85
• Roma - Italia
• Liked: 2
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #37 on: 07/09/2018 08:45 pm »

@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

• Senior Member
• Posts: 3096
• Liked: 3379
• Likes Given: 776
##### Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #38 on: 07/09/2018 08:50 pm »
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

• Member
• Posts: 85
• Roma - Italia
• Liked: 2
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #39 on: 07/09/2018 10:02 pm »
@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

Tags: