-
#80 by E.Laureti on 23 Aug, 2018 08:10
-
#81 by meberbs on 23 Aug, 2018 14:52
-
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
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.
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 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. -
#82 by E.Laureti on 27 Aug, 2018 08:21
-
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
-
#83 by E.Laureti on 27 Aug, 2018 08:37
-
#84 by meberbs on 27 Aug, 2018 11:02
-
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. -
#85 by E.Laureti on 27 Aug, 2018 13:05
-
>> 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.
-
#86 by meberbs on 27 Aug, 2018 14:42
-
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. -
#87 by E.Laureti on 27 Aug, 2018 16:29
-
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
-
#88 by meberbs on 27 Aug, 2018 17:10
-
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." -
#89 by E.Laureti on 29 Aug, 2018 19:23
-
Hurra!
PNN F432 in progress
-
#90 by 1 on 30 Aug, 2018 02:21
-
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.
-
#91 by E.Laureti on 30 Aug, 2018 05:41
-
>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.
-
#92 by meberbs on 30 Aug, 2018 05:56
-
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.
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.)
Because in the end it is only the experiment and not the theory that judges. -
#93 by E.Laureti on 30 Aug, 2018 06:15
-
@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
-
#94 by meberbs on 30 Aug, 2018 14:12
-
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.
@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
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? -
#95 by 1 on 30 Aug, 2018 19:16
-
>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.QuoteAnd 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." -
#96 by E.Laureti on 01 Sep, 2018 23:43
-
@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
-
#97 by meberbs on 02 Sep, 2018 00:47
-
@1
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.
Unfortunately you keeps talking about Maxwell, who is completely useless for the pnn (the pnn mainly uses only Hertz and Lorentz) .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.
