-
Non Newtonian Propulsion System (PNN) - Related to Space Flight Applications by rfmwguy on 28 Apr, 2016 16:39
-
This is a (perhaps temporary) thread to scientifically discuss claims made by an inventor team in Italy lead by Emidio Laureti whose website is:
http://www.asps.it
It is mainly in Italian but there are some English links there. Whether or not this is a valid technology can be discussed here like adults, in other words:
Off-topic remarks not involving its Theory of Operation, Test Results or Design will be removed. This will be a scientific approach to new propellantless propulsion claims by the Italian team whose product is called F242.
This thread will absolutely not be part of a fundraising effort.
F242 under wraps prior to a public test to be conducted in May of 2016
-
#1 by SergioZ82 on 29 Apr, 2016 08:28
-
I'm the author of PNN blog Neo Leges Motus (in English).
I posted a reply about Non Newtonian Propulsion, that's what PNN stands for in Italian, on EmDrive topic as it seems your wish to keep e.m thruster discussions in a single thread, if you have questions I will gladly answer them there, if I can.
I must specify that ASPS is not asking money from any of you (no fundrasing) because the prototype is ready for patenting. The Association is looking for a solid investor (aerospace companies) that can validate with its own scientific team (this is a very important step required by ASPS) all the claims, to share a patent deposit and then starting a collaboration for selling PNN thrusters.
-
#2 by rfmwguy on 29 Apr, 2016 10:36
-
Hi sergio, I have started this thread to allow polite conversation on PNN here at NSF. I will remove any off-topic posts. It is difficult to unblock an ip address and suggest you post on the inventors behalf. These topics on nsf must contain specific technical, theory and test information. I closed another thread because of off-topic discussions and lack of specific answers to specific questions. While nsf is open to New Physics discussion, it must be discussed from a scientific perspective. Basically, claims must have strong proof for our readership to participate.
You are welcome to post non-advertising or fundraising PNN here. Moderators, myself included, will address any problems usually associated with a common social media forum, which you experienced elsewhere. I am an emdrive builder, so my participation here will be minimal. Best of luck. - Dave -
#3 by SergioZ82 on 29 Apr, 2016 12:13
-
thank you Dave,
I'm surely looking for a polite discussion.
As I've already specified in EmDrive thread I'm not a physician (and I'm not involved in PNN development) so unfortunately It'll be difficult for me to provide you all the info you rightly need. However I'll do my best in replying on Laureti behalf for more specific questions, at least if/until IP ban issue will be solved.
The core of PNN functioning is, by inventor decision, outlimit for safety reasons. Instead he's looking forward people (scientists) who are willing to attend experimental roadshows: during the demonstration they'll be allowed to take any measurements they want to assess ASPS claims but until a patent won't be granted the thruster enclosure can't be opened.
At the moment ASPS is preparing a business plan to be submitted to aerospace companies. For all these reasons I can assure you ASPS is not here (online) for fundrising.
-
#4 by rfmwguy on 29 Apr, 2016 13:08
-
thank you Dave,
Thank you Sergio for your volunteer work on their behalf. I would start by posting details (as much as can be allowed) about the history of the thruster. Suggest maybe a little background as to what lead Mr Laureti to this field of research. Shorter posts with focused information is the best way to introduce someone and the concept.
I'm surely looking for a polite discussion.
As I've already specified in EmDrive thread I'm not a physician (and I'm not involved in PNN development) so unfortunately It'll be difficult for me to provide you all the info you rightly need. However I'll do my best in replying on Laureti behalf for more specific questions, at least if/until IP ban issue will be solved.
The core of PNN functioning is, by inventor decision, outlimit for safety reasons. Instead he's looking forward people (scientists) who are willing to attend experimental roadshows: during the demonstration they'll be allowed to take any measurements they want to assess ASPS claims but until a patent won't be granted the thruster enclosure can't be opened.
At the moment ASPS is preparing a business plan to be submitted to aerospace companies. For all these reasons I can assure you ASPS is not here (online) for fundrising.
Each post can then be addressed separately by our readership before moving on to the next post, such as some details about the initial experimentation. Overall theory can be take much time to understand and discuss, so my thoughts are present the technical information more as a time-line of events; such as what designs failed? what designs showed results? How were the results measured? More of a Technical Summary since the PNN is totally new to most of the readership. Best wishes - Dave -
#5 by SergioZ82 on 29 Apr, 2016 17:19
-
You're welcome Dave.
ASPS is a DIY Association. In Italian it's the acronym for Association for Space Propulsion Development, that was founded in Rome in 1979. They always had clear in mind that for a revolution in space transportation mankind should find a way to work around action/reaction principle in order to avoid the unbearable constraint of fuel as reaction mass. They believe rocketry and in general astronautics, although great achievements, has proven unable to give a real access to space to mankind. In fact, since 1969 we have no stable outpost even on our Moon.
In the beginning (80s) they focused on mechanical violation of action/reaction principle. The idea was to delay the appearance of reaction force after the action force. This way the reaction was still present but during the delay the system would have been able to move. After lot of experimental setups they created a mechanical cylinder (SC23/a) which can produce a small delay between a/r forces through the movement of internal masses.
SC23/a
Action/Reaction delay
Unfortunately ASPS discovered that, as mechanical system, SC23/a does not comply with superposition principle, hence it was unusable as practical thruster.
EDIT - reply from Laureti: in mechanics the superposition principle isn't the same valid for e.m waves. Mechanical action/reaction waves destructively interacts. However this is PNN prehistory.
After this experience they decided to move to electrodynamics, where superposition is applicable. They deepened a concept that is briefly outlined in Italian physics books: Newton's third law isn't always true in electrodynamics.
The example they make is the following (the images are drawn by me)
A and B are capacitor plates
A is positively charged (red) while B is not charged. This means that B is immersed in A electric field (red)
When B is filled with negative charges (blue), they immediately endure A influence and become attracted toward A. However B electric field(blue) has not reached A charges yet: in this very moment, an action force Fa is existing but the reaction force induced in A charges by B electric field not yet.
the charges in A are removed but B is still immersed in rapidly fading A electric field, so Fa is still present. At this point, there are no free charges in A where B electric field could generate an hypothetical Fb reaction force!
Apparently they found the way to exploit this trick. Because they worked with capacitors they soon had the need to take measurements of displacement current and they discovered that this event is almost taken for granted but very few people have actually tried to measure it. In fact, after more than 150 years since its postulation, there isn't a unequivocal measure. This led ASPS to invent his own measurement procedure and discovered that the theory is fundamentally wrong. This is where the secret behind PNN starts.
Here:
https://neolegesmotus.wordpress.com/2015/06/12/the-electromagnetic-non-newtonian-propulsion-or-pnn-e/
you can find the list of the PNN-E (electrical) prototypes since 2001
I forwarded your last questions to Laureti, I'll update the post as soon as I get the answers.
-
#6 by Rodal on 29 Apr, 2016 21:24
-
QUESTION 1: are you referring to this displacement current ?Hello everybody,
Sergio, welcome to this very long topic.
I'm Sergio, the author of PNN blog Neo Leges Motus. I'm writing here on behalf of Emidio Laureti, because he can't access the forum and asked me for support: apparently his IP results banned from this site and he can't register. If moderators can solve this problem he would be glad to partecipate in the discussion.
For the moment, if you like, I can try to answer some questions if I can (I'm not a physicist).
I had a look at the scheme posted by Rodal (very helpful btw). I think PNN should stay outside the Q-Thruster set, because the inventor has always stated that PNN works because there is a fault in electrodynamics - the displacement current concept - that can be exploited to generate thrust without reaction.
In fact, he always distanced himself from quantum/gravitic hypothesis to explain e.m propulsion.
Could you please elaborate a bit more on the part I highlighted in red?
It is a rather daring statement and I would like to understand why you would say that there is a "fault in electrodynamics" ?
Hi Flyby, thank you.
I wrote a bit about it in the thread dedicated to PNN. The "faulty" part is the displacement current.
I cut/past part of a post I wrote on my blog:
Given the nature of the PNN engine, which works by exploiting Lorentz forces generated in a capacitor, it was unavoidable that ASPS would have had the need to take tests and measurements regarding the effects of the displacement current in the system operation. Its conclusion is simply baffling: such phenomenon does not exist!
Association’s theory in fact is the following: “only something similar to the electric field propagates in the vacuum and when it hits a conductive material it makes its charges to oscillate, thus generating the magnetic field“.
For a brief recap: if for Maxwell the magnetic field inside a capacitor is generated by the moving charges of a dielectric material, for ASPS it’s generated by the oscillation of the charges in the conductive material stimulated by the electric field.
I know it is a daring statement but for what I understood if displacement current was true, PNN couldn't work. Laureti has always repeated that since the postulation of displacement current more than 150 years ago there has been very few attempts to experimentally measure it because everyone took it for granted (and the measurements methods are questionable for ASPS). The road to e.m propulsion for ASPS lies beneath the displacement current concept. There is something else happening between a capacitor plates that remained hidden for all this time and mainly because displacement current hasn't been practically experimented enough. In PNN thread there is an example of how to exploit a capacitor to generate a force without its reaction counterpart
where the permittivity ε = ε0 εr,
εr is the relative permittivity of the dielectric and
ε0 is the electric constant
and E is the electric field intensity.
It seems that your device may be explained as a Woodward "Mach Lorentz Thruster" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect#Test_devices):
QUESTION 2: Has ASPS (or others) analyzed Prof. Woodward's Mach Effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect vis-a-vis your PNN device and attempted to reconcile your experimental results with Prof. Woodward's theory (which is based on Mach's effect as applied to General Relativity) ?
_______________
PS: Prof. Woodward rejects the Quantum Vacuum as an explanation for the hypothetical effect named after him -
#7 by SergioZ82 on 30 Apr, 2016 07:20
-
QUESTION 1: are you referring to this displacement current ?Hello everybody,
Sergio, welcome to this very long topic.
I'm Sergio, the author of PNN blog Neo Leges Motus. I'm writing here on behalf of Emidio Laureti, because he can't access the forum and asked me for support: apparently his IP results banned from this site and he can't register. If moderators can solve this problem he would be glad to partecipate in the discussion.
For the moment, if you like, I can try to answer some questions if I can (I'm not a physicist).
I had a look at the scheme posted by Rodal (very helpful btw). I think PNN should stay outside the Q-Thruster set, because the inventor has always stated that PNN works because there is a fault in electrodynamics - the displacement current concept - that can be exploited to generate thrust without reaction.
In fact, he always distanced himself from quantum/gravitic hypothesis to explain e.m propulsion.
Could you please elaborate a bit more on the part I highlighted in red?
It is a rather daring statement and I would like to understand why you would say that there is a "fault in electrodynamics" ?
Hi Flyby, thank you.
I wrote a bit about it in the thread dedicated to PNN. The "faulty" part is the displacement current.
I cut/past part of a post I wrote on my blog:
Given the nature of the PNN engine, which works by exploiting Lorentz forces generated in a capacitor, it was unavoidable that ASPS would have had the need to take tests and measurements regarding the effects of the displacement current in the system operation. Its conclusion is simply baffling: such phenomenon does not exist!
Association’s theory in fact is the following: “only something similar to the electric field propagates in the vacuum and when it hits a conductive material it makes its charges to oscillate, thus generating the magnetic field“.
For a brief recap: if for Maxwell the magnetic field inside a capacitor is generated by the moving charges of a dielectric material, for ASPS it’s generated by the oscillation of the charges in the conductive material stimulated by the electric field.
I know it is a daring statement but for what I understood if displacement current was true, PNN couldn't work. Laureti has always repeated that since the postulation of displacement current more than 150 years ago there has been very few attempts to experimentally measure it because everyone took it for granted (and the measurements methods are questionable for ASPS). The road to e.m propulsion for ASPS lies beneath the displacement current concept. There is something else happening between a capacitor plates that remained hidden for all this time and mainly because displacement current hasn't been practically experimented enough. In PNN thread there is an example of how to exploit a capacitor to generate a force without its reaction counterpart
where the permittivity ε = ε0 εr,
εr is the relative permittivity of the dielectric and
ε0 is the electric constant
and E is the electric field intensity.
It seems that your device may be explained as a Woodward "Mach Lorentz Thruster" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect#Test_devices):
QUESTION 2: Has ASPS (or others) analyzed Prof. Woodward's Mach Effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect vis-a-vis your PNN device and attempted to reconcile your experimental results with Prof. Woodward's theory (which is based on Mach's effect as applied to General Relativity) ?
_______________
PS: Prof. Woodward rejects the Quantum Vacuum as an explanation for the hypothetical effect named after him
Question 1:
I prefer to refer to displacement current from Id point of view because for ASPS the problem is the current itself, not really the dielectric characteristics but yes, that's the displacement current I'm talking about.
Question 2:
I didn't know Woodward's Mach Effect. It is not related with PNN, because there is no moving mass inside the thruster. In general I noticed ASPS avoids to use theories/hypothesis outside electrodynamics to explain PNN. Maybe (but this is a very personal opinion) Mach Effect could have inadvertently exploited PNN effect in a less efficient way (given that the measured 50uN thrust wasn't a measurement error due by electrical interference).
I attach a couple of papers from ASPS website written by William Miller regarding displacement current
Laureti told me he's preparing something more detailed about PNN (matter of days).
He points out how that he has been banned from the forum last year just because he tried to talk about PNN and now whatever link to the forum he opens he receives an error message. Isn't really possible to remove the ban?
-
#8 by 1 on 30 Apr, 2016 08:12
-
A question then, to pass on.
A is positively charged (red) while B is not charged. This means that B is immersed in A electric field (red)
Ok.Quote
When B is filled with negative charges (blue), they immediately endure A influence and become attracted toward A. However B electric field(blue) has not reached A charges yet: in this very moment, an action force Fa is existing but the reaction force induced in A charges by B electric field not yet.
Here's the problem. How, exactly, is B filled with negative charge? Where does it come from? There are two issues with this.
1) By bringing in charge from an outside area, the example is now an open system. Within an open system (often a conveniently chosen subset of a closed system) we can create all sorts of apparent conservation law violations. Not because the laws are actually violated, but simply because the resolution to those apparent violations is outside of our immediate view. We've simply allowed ourselves to become distracted. And since we've never seen large quantities of a single charge spontaneously pop into existence...
2) these negative charges must be moving extremely fast to feel the effects of the positive charges before the positive charges can feel the effects of the negative. Specifically, it would require the negative charges to move at superluminal velocities. This is more easily seen in the next image.Quote
the charges in A are removed but B is still immersed in rapidly fading A electric field, so Fa is still present. At this point, there are no free charges in A where B electric field could generate an hypothetical Fb reaction force!
If the positive charges are sitting there, with an electric field propagating towards them, the only way they'll avoid feeling the effects of that field is if they out-run it; and since changes to an EM field propagate at lightspeed, you're going to have a very difficult time doing that. If you can't outrun the EM field, then Fb WILL be generated at some point; though that point may be far off screen.
So the question that I'd like you to pass on is, can we get a better description on what's going on with the transport of the positive and negative charges in this example? Phrases like "filled with charge" and "charges are removed" have some very physics-breaking assumptions built into them and these steps really need a formal, structured definition to move forward.
Also, one must understand that with a universal speed limit of 'c' in play, all action-reaction events that aren't located at a single point MUST have a finite delay between action and reaction. Technically, in this setup, you have two action-reaction events; one at plate B and one at plate A. Remember, E&M fields can impart momentum and energy all on their own; and photons are called "force-carrier" particles for good reason! That the setup you mentioned measured such a delay speaks well of the capabilities of those who performed the test, but it doesn't necessarily mean that there's an inherent flaw in any of the laws of physics.QuoteApparently they found the way to exploit this trick. Because they worked with capacitors they soon had the need to take measurements of displacement current and they discovered that this event is almost taken for granted but very few people have actually tried to measure it. In fact, after more than 150 years since its postulation, there isn't a unequivocal measure. This led ASPS to invent his own measurement procedure and discovered that the theory is fundamentally wrong. This is where the secret behind PNN starts.
To say a theory is wrong doesn't actually have much meaning. We already know that most, if not all, theories aren't completely right. None of our (currently falsifiable) theories describe the entirety of the universe as we know it. As such, we therefore know that our theories are at worst completely wrong (unlikely); or at best, simply incomplete (very likely). The various thrusters discussed in this forum will fill in some of the gaps in our knowledge; though it remains to be seen whether they will do so via new physics or better error analysis.
And this is an excellent forum to discuss such devices. Regardless of Laureti's status on the site or the status of PNN in general, I think it'd be worth your while to backtrack through some of the EM drive threads. There's a LOT of good info in there; can make for a good read on a lazy afternoon. -
#9 by X_RaY on 30 Apr, 2016 11:26
-
You're welcome Dave.
OK what kind of charged particles is related to the plus sign in your pic? Till now I understand the charge of such capacitor in the way that there are only one kind of charged particles in this case called electrons.
ASPS is a DIY Association. In Italian it's the acronym for Association for Space Propulsion Development, that was founded in Rome in 1979. They always had clear in mind that for a revolution in space transportation mankind should find a way to work around action/reaction principle in order to avoid the unbearable constraint of fuel as reaction mass. They believe rocketry and in general astronautics, although great achievements, has proven unable to give a real access to space to mankind. In fact, since 1969 we have no stable outpost even on our Moon.
In the beginning (80s) they focused on mechanical violation of action/reaction principle. The idea was to delay the appearance of reaction force after the action force. This way the reaction was still present but during the delay the system would have been able to move. After lot of experimental setups they created a mechanical cylinder (SC23/a) which can produce a small delay between a/r forces through the movement of internal masses.
SC23/a
Action/Reaction delay
Unfortunately ASPS discovered that, as mechanical system, SC23/a does not comply with superposition principle, hence it was unusable as practical thruster.
EDIT - reply from Laureti: in mechanics the superposition principle isn't the same valid for e.m waves. Mechanical action/reaction waves destructively interacts. However this is PNN prehistory.
After this experience they decided to move to electrodynamics, where superposition is applicable. They deepened a concept that is briefly outlined in Italian physics books: Newton's third law isn't always true in electrodynamics.
The example they make is the following (the images are drawn by me)
A and B are capacitor plates
A is positively charged (red) while B is not charged. This means that B is immersed in A electric field (red)
When B is filled with negative charges (blue), they immediately endure A influence and become attracted toward A. However B electric field(blue) has not reached A charges yet: in this very moment, an action force Fa is existing but the reaction force induced in A charges by B electric field not yet.
the charges in A are removed but B is still immersed in rapidly fading A electric field, so Fa is still present. At this point, there are no free charges in A where B electric field could generate an hypothetical Fb reaction force!
Apparently they found the way to exploit this trick. Because they worked with capacitors they soon had the need to take measurements of displacement current and they discovered that this event is almost taken for granted but very few people have actually tried to measure it. In fact, after more than 150 years since its postulation, there isn't a unequivocal measure. This led ASPS to invent his own measurement procedure and discovered that the theory is fundamentally wrong. This is where the secret behind PNN starts.
Here:
https://neolegesmotus.wordpress.com/2015/06/12/the-electromagnetic-non-newtonian-propulsion-or-pnn-e/
you can find the list of the PNN-E (electrical) prototypes since 2001
I forwarded your last questions to Laureti, I'll update the post as soon as I get the answers.
At one of the capacitor plates plates are much electrons while at the other are less. This leads to different electrical potentials at the two plates.
Next point is your quote in the emdrive thread:..snip..
For a brief recap: if for Maxwell the magnetic field inside a capacitor is generated by the moving charges of a dielectric material, for ASPS it’s generated by the oscillation of the charges in the conductive material stimulated by the electric field.
Under the line this explanation looks similar to Maxwell. Call the effect like you want.
Think about a cap with vacuum as the dielectric(εr=1). The plates are coupled by electric fields.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elektromagnetische_Wechselwirkung
wiki translation:QuoteIn the area of the smallest particles, the electromagnetic interaction is described by the quantum electrodynamics. The electromagnetic potentials to be construed in a field operators, through this, the photons interaction particles of the electromagnetic interaction, created or destroyed. Clearly, this means that the interaction between charged particles, ie the exchange of momentum and energy, the result of the exchange of photons between these particles.
At the moment I dont understand the very difference in this two points of view.
-
#10 by SergioZ82 on 30 Apr, 2016 12:15
-
@1
The capacitor example is theoretical (it's a direct translation from an excerpt on Calmagorod website).
I think ASPS found a way to make it real. To be more specific I also think that you can't shift charges fast enough because, as you pointed out, everything happens at light speed. However, if you place a secondary independent circuit between the plates you can synchronize both circuits in a way the work similarly to the example.
In this image from TDS1-VF2 patent (the top of PNN thrusters):
the action force is generated inside the coil wrapped around the central plate, not in the plate itself, so the practical application of the example is not as "simple" as the theory.
Also, in this video http://www.asps.it/qct05.mpg of a PNN test in 2005 there is this interesting passage (translated from Italian):
- 1:10 "Capacitors charging"
- 1:15 "Switch off"
- 1:19 "5 seconds to the field"
PNN works using AC, which means a repeated charge/discharge cycle in the capacitors (usually in VHF/UHF) but it seems that before engaging the thrust the cycle must start with the capacitor fully charged in DC.
I'm sorry I can't be more specific (also I don't want to write anything wrong). Nevertheless I'm going to forward your doubts to Laureti, so I can post you a better reply.
I agree with you in this passage:
We already know that most, if not all, theories aren't completely right. None of our (currently falsifiable) theories describe the entirety of the universe as we know it. As such, we therefore know that our theories are at worst completely wrong (unlikely); or at best, simply incomplete (very likely). The various thrusters discussed in this forum will fill in some of the gaps in our knowledge; though it remains to be seen whether they will do so via new physics or better error analysis.
So for the moment I should replace the word wrong with faulty because it better gives the idea of something that works fine for almost everything, apart a very specific area (displacement current). -
#11 by Rodal on 30 Apr, 2016 13:42
-
...
Concerning your statement
Question 2:
I didn't know Woodward's Mach Effect. It is not related with PNN, because there is no moving mass inside the thruster. In general I noticed ASPS avoids to use theories/hypothesis outside electrodynamics to explain PNN. Maybe (but this is a very personal opinion) Mach Effect could have inadvertently exploited PNN effect in a less efficient way (given that the measured 50uN thrust wasn't a measurement error due by electrical interference).
I attach a couple of papers from ASPS website written by William Miller regarding displacement current
...Quote from: SergioZ82I didn't know Woodward's Mach Effect. It is not related with PNN, because there is no moving mass inside the thruster.
is fallacious, unless you have absolutely nothing inside your PNN device.
This is so because any and all real materials have a finite modulus of elasticity (E < ∞) (modulo di elasticità) (*). There is no material in the whole Universe that is infinitely rigid. Thus, all real materials will exhibit some strain (deformazione) when acted by a stress (sforzo), as the strain is related to the stress via the constitutive equations of the material, comprising elastic modulii (modulo di elasticità) and Poisson's ratio (coefficiente di Poisson). Perhaps you could discount the significance of Woodward's Mach Effect for the PNN on other grounds, as for example a) that you may think that there is no Woodward effect in Nature, for any real material, because you think that Woodward's theory is flawed, or b) you could argue that you do not have electromagnetic elements inside your PNN device that can act as capacitors and dielectrics, such that a Woodward effect is not possible inside the PNN, (but such an argument contradicts the following drawing that shows otherwise:)or c) that the piezoresistive properties of the materials used in the PNN are such that Woodward's effect would be much smaller than what you report in experiments.
But you cannot reject Woodward's effect for the PNN device solely on the basis that "there is nothing moving inside the PNN device", because that would imply that the materials used in the PNN device are infinitely rigid, which is impossible. Or otherwise implies that you have absolutely nothing inside your PNN device, which does not make sense, and it contradicts your drawing.
(*) La deformazione è la conseguenza di uno sforzo applicato a un materiale. Lo sforzo ci dice con quanta forza vengono allontanati o avvicinati gli atomi in un dato punto di un solido, la deformazione di quanto vengono allontanati o avvicinati, vale a dire in che proporzione i legami interatomici - e il materiale stesso - vengono allungati o compressi.He points out how that he has been banned from the forum last year just because he tried to talk about PNN and now whatever link to the forum he opens he receives an error message. Isn't really possible to remove the ban?
Such questions should be posed directly to the NSF Moderators, preferably in a NSF Personal Message (See link above under "My Messages"), because NSF Moderators are the only ones with the power to ban and remove bans from individuals. rfmwguy is the Moderator that opened this thread, so a Personal Message to rfmwguy is suggested. -
#12 by SergioZ82 on 30 Apr, 2016 19:25
-
@Rodal
I never read ASPS discussions mentioning Woodward's effect or taking into account space bending and negative mass theories. For them the e.m thrust phenomenon is purely electrodynamics.
About this excerpt from wikipedia page you linked:
In the first tests, Woodward simply used a capacitor between two stacks of PZT disks. The capacitor, while being electrically charged to change its internal energy density, is shuttled back and forth between the PZT actuators. Piezoelectric materials can also generate a measurable voltage potential across their two faces when pressed.
Maybe I misinterpreted it but it says that in the test device a capacitor swings forth and back through the use of actuators. In their assessment procedure ASPS openly declares that there are no moving masses inside the thruster. This is what I intended with "it is not related with Woodward's effect". PNN at is point is more similar (to me) to Mach-Lorentz variant like Harold Ensle's engine (see attached patent)
-
#13 by Rodal on 30 Apr, 2016 21:04
-
@Rodal
Thank you for your kind response.
I never read ASPS discussions mentioning Woodward's effect or taking into account space bending and negative mass theories. For them the e.m thrust phenomenon is purely electrodynamics.
About this excerpt from wikipedia page you linked:
In the first tests, Woodward simply used a capacitor between two stacks of PZT disks. The capacitor, while being electrically charged to change its internal energy density, is shuttled back and forth between the PZT actuators. Piezoelectric materials can also generate a measurable voltage potential across their two faces when pressed.
Maybe I misinterpreted it but it says that in the test device a capacitor swings forth and back through the use of actuators. In their assessment procedure ASPS openly declares that there are no moving masses inside the thruster. This is what I intended with "it is not related with Woodward's effect". PNN at is point is more similar (to me) to Mach-Lorentz variant like Harold Ensle's engine (see attached patent)
Yes, Wikipedia is not a scholarly work written by experts, but a communal effort of volunteers. There is a lot of good stuff in Wikipedia but there are also imperfections. If the above sentence conveys that Woodward's experiments involve mechanically shuttling rigid masses back and forth, that sentence in Wikipedia is incorrect and needs to be changed. Instead, the response involves strains and stresses, involving piezoresistive or piezoelectric effects.
For example, Prof. Woodward interprets NASA's positive EM Drive results with a polymer insert as a manifestation of his Mach effect, even though there is certainly no polymer being mechanically shuttled back and forth as a rigid object in NASA's EM Drive experiments. Similarly for Woodward's many experiments. Instead the displacement in Woodward's experiments can be Piezoresistive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piezoresistive_effect, or piezoelectric https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piezoelectricity and electrostrictive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ElectrostrictionQuoteElectrostriction is a property of all dielectric materials, and is caused by a slight displacement of ions in the crystal lattice upon being exposed to an external electric field. Positive ions will be displaced in the direction of the field, while negative ions will be displaced in the opposite direction. This displacement will accumulate throughout the bulk material and result in an overall strain (elongation) in the direction of the field.
For a more recent reference see Heidi Fearn et.al.:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283007333_Theory_of_a_Mach_Effect_Thruster_II -
#14 by SergioZ82 on 01 May, 2016 21:53
-
I attach a letter from Emidio Laureti about PNN and the displacement current issue.
It's 5 pages long, so I think it's better if I don't copy it in a post because it would be too long
-
#15 by Rodal on 02 May, 2016 03:35
-
I attach a letter from Emidio Laureti about PNN and the displacement current issue.
Has the Italian Association for Space Propulsion Development (ASPS) ever run the PNN device powered by batteries, self-integrated in the same moving platform as the PNN?
It's 5 pages long, so I think it's better if I don't copy it in a post because it would be too long
Or have all the PNN tests been conducted with a power cord supplying the power from an external power supply that is stationary with respect to the moving PNN device? -
#16 by E.Laureti on 02 May, 2016 05:08
-
Hi
My english is very bad
more it's better if I don't write on your forum because I couldn't say anything more than what I'm doing right now (SergioZ Translate for you a my "Note about PNN for NASA spaceflight forum " for this forum)
Greetings for all -
#17 by SergioZ82 on 02 May, 2016 05:37
-
I attach a letter from Emidio Laureti about PNN and the displacement current issue.
Has the Italian Association for Space Propulsion Development (ASPS) ever run the PNN device powered by batteries, self-integrated in the same moving platform as the PNN?
It's 5 pages long, so I think it's better if I don't copy it in a post because it would be too long
Or have all the PNN tests been conducted with a power cord supplying the power from an external power supply that is stationary with respect to the moving PNN device?
It's the second one, the power supply is stationary and external to the thruster. Laureti said that PNN is very demanding in term of current. In fact, for him the best solution would be a nuclear power reactor. As far as I know they've never mentioned a battery powered prototype.
EDIT: Laureti confirmed, no batteries. -
#18 by rfmwguy on 02 May, 2016 13:13
-
Thank you both for answering direct questions! This is what will make this topic thread succeed. We will also make sure it remains an adult conversation without unnecessary, emotional language and drama.
-
#19 by Rodal on 02 May, 2016 13:45
-
I attach a letter from Emidio Laureti about PNN and the displacement current issue.
Has the Italian Association for Space Propulsion Development (ASPS) ever run the PNN device powered by batteries, self-integrated in the same moving platform as the PNN?
It's 5 pages long, so I think it's better if I don't copy it in a post because it would be too long
Or have all the PNN tests been conducted with a power cord supplying the power from an external power supply that is stationary with respect to the moving PNN device?
It's the second one, the power supply is stationary and external to the thruster. Laureti said that PNN is very demanding in term of current. In fact, for him the best solution would be a nuclear power reactor. As far as I know they've never mentioned a battery powered prototype.
EDIT: Laureti confirmed, no batteries.
Please be aware of the issues associated with conducting tests with a power cord going to a device on a pendulum. A spacecraft in space cannot have a power cord going to it from the Earth. There are many issues associated with electromagnetic Lorentz forces from the power cords, thermal expansion of the power cord producing forces on the tested device and there are conservation of energy issues when you have power flowing from a stationary device not mounted on the pendulum.
Prof. Yang in China just falsified (in a 2016 report) her prior claimed results for the EM Drive, upon using batteries to supply power to her EM Drive on a torsional pendulum instead of using power from a stationary supply.
Prior to that Brito, Marini and Galian in Argentina falsified their decades long work on propellant-less propulsion also by using batteries to supply power to their device on a torsional pendulum instead of supplying power from a stationary power source. Marini and Galian have an article in the Journal of Propulsion of Power of the AIAA detailing the nullification of Brito's prior results using power from a stationary power source. -
#20 by SergioZ82 on 02 May, 2016 17:37
-
I attach a letter from Emidio Laureti about PNN and the displacement current issue.
Has the Italian Association for Space Propulsion Development (ASPS) ever run the PNN device powered by batteries, self-integrated in the same moving platform as the PNN?
It's 5 pages long, so I think it's better if I don't copy it in a post because it would be too long
Or have all the PNN tests been conducted with a power cord supplying the power from an external power supply that is stationary with respect to the moving PNN device?
It's the second one, the power supply is stationary and external to the thruster. Laureti said that PNN is very demanding in term of current. In fact, for him the best solution would be a nuclear power reactor. As far as I know they've never mentioned a battery powered prototype.
EDIT: Laureti confirmed, no batteries.
Please be aware of the issues associated with conducting tests with a power cord going to a device on a pendulum. A spacecraft in space cannot have a power cord going to it from the Earth. There are many issues associated with electromagnetic Lorentz forces from the power cords, thermal expansion of the power cord producing forces on the tested device and there are conservation of energy issues when you have power flowing from a stationary device not mounted on the pendulum.
Prof. Yang in China just falsified (in a 2016 report) her prior claimed results for the EM Drive, upon using batteries to supply power to her EM Drive on a torsional pendulum instead of using power from a stationary supply.
Prior to that Brito, Marini and Galian in Argentina falsified their decades long work on propellant-less propulsion also by using batteries to supply power to their device on a torsional pendulum instead of supplying power from a stationary power source. Marini and Galian have an article in the Journal of Propulsion of Power of the AIAA detailing the nullification of Brito's prior results using power from a stationary power source.
On behalf of Laureti:
There are 3 different and convergent methods to avoid this ambiguity and they all require time and experimental application for the due verifications:
1 ) to make a ballistic pendulum whose oscillation isn't perturbed by any thermal dilatation (and our new kind of pendulum is made that way).
2) to measure with a thermal camera the temperature in the zones in which the thermal perturbation that produces the possible thrust error occurs. Practically one does a double test, one with the prototype and one with an heater in place of the prototype
The heater must provide the same thermal gradients of the prototype coaxial cable
Conclusions: the heater obviously mustn't have any propulsive effect on the ballistic pendulum unlike the prototype.
3) to do tests also with the prototype rotated 180° on ballistic pendulum: that is to have thrusts in two different directions. -
#21 by rfmwguy on 12 May, 2016 18:41
-
Locking for lack of interest.
