Author Topic: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432  (Read 32581 times)

Offline E.Laureti

  • Member
  • Posts: 85
  • Roma - Italia
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #60 on: 07/20/2018 03:28 pm »
@meberbs

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

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

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

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

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


……………….

Gentile Dr. Emidio Laureti,

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

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

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

MPB Srl
Jan Bulli Wilkinson
Direttore Tecnico


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

   



Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1918
  • Liked: 1831
  • Likes Given: 422
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #61 on: 07/20/2018 05:26 pm »
An important part of the communication:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Offline E.Laureti

  • Member
  • Posts: 85
  • Roma - Italia
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #62 on: 07/20/2018 07:25 pm »
@meberbs

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

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

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

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

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

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




Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1918
  • Liked: 1831
  • Likes Given: 422
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #63 on: 07/20/2018 07:44 pm »
@meberbs

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

Everything is known but I repeat that there is no experimental data of simultaneous measurement of E and H in the far zone.
I do not want to convince anyone but I want to stick to the experimental data only. If you keep telling me that "it is known" I will continue to repeat that I want to see a confirmation experiment
I have given you confirmation experiments. You are ignoring them. These devices work in the far field. That in itself is a confirmation experiment.

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

you  is back in measures in near zone where the fireflies can become lanterns
Use of the Narda probes in the far field, measurements of radiation pressure, and the existence of RF radiation are all far field. Not that it matters, since general descriptions like Maxwell's equations hold everywhere, not just in the near or far field.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Meberbs, I'm willing to say that I'm wrong but I want to say it only after an irrefutable experimental event
I have given you multiple. You have responded with false claims that they were all done in the near field.

You have given no reason that near field matters either.

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

... I'm not asking for something extraneous to the basic physical principle that you have to bend everything into physics, unless you belong to the faculty of mathematical philosophy. The basic principle in physics is and remains: only what is measurable is real
You are being a hypocrite, you have repeatedly attempted to discuss "displacement current" as if it was a physical thing, when it is not a directly measureable thing. It is a mathematical construct and it is only called a current because of historical nomenclature.

Offline E.Laureti

  • Member
  • Posts: 85
  • Roma - Italia
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #64 on: 07/20/2018 09:18 pm »
@meberbs

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

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


Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1918
  • Liked: 1831
  • Likes Given: 422
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #65 on: 07/21/2018 12:35 am »
Jan Bulli Wilkinson contradicted you in the calibration of the Narda probes of which you said without producing bibliography:
"The Narda probes are calibrated, which is almost certainly done by running a similar test to what you proposed. You can contact them and ask about their calibration procedures if you want. "
They do a test exactly as I described for the E-field probes, apparently they have a different setup to test the H field probes, probably because it is easier to get a field of the proper strength for the frequency and amplitude range that the H field probes are used for. Doesn't change the fact that they would be bankrupt from the demands for returns if their probes that are spec'd to work in the far field did not perform.

The fact that Jan Bulli Wilkinson says that the vacuum impedance is not part of the calibration of the Narda probes does not give the slightest suspicion about a possible sequence of experimental errors about the measurement of H from Displacement Current.
Did you even read the message? He says directly in it that they use 377 Ohms to convert between power and field strength. Claiming that it is "not part of the calibration" is a lie.

Even if  you presents me with thousands of tests in favor of the magnetic field of the displacement current,
Basically you are saying you were lying when you said that given experimental evidence you would admit to being wrong.

I will always ask myself why for more than a century there is no simple measurement of the vacuum impedance E/H = 377 ohm
There are more and easier ways to determine that quantity, and you are simply ignoring them because you can't admit to being wrong. Not to mention the huge number of modern systems that use loop or coil antennas just like the Narda probes and work exactly as expected, and can only do so if Maxwell's equations are correct.

and because you are in favor of all tests less than the one in a simultaneous measurement of E and H is made in the far zone which would remove any doubt.
And now you are lying about what I said. I have repeatedly told you to go ahead and run your experiment if you want to. I even gave you advice on how to do it, and how to save some money on it. Trying to say that I am against your experiment is wrong.

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

I think it's useless to repeat the same things.
Yet every time I provide evidence contrary to your claims, you just ignore it and go back to repeating the same claims.

Offline E.Laureti

  • Member
  • Posts: 85
  • Roma - Italia
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #66 on: 08/01/2018 09:02 pm »
Landed?


Let me start these few info by paraphrasing another event

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

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

Conant: Were the natives friendly?


Compton: Everyone landed safe and happy



Incidentally it happened on July 31st 2018  :)

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


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

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

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

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

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

- Power supply between 250 and 300 watts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greetings to all


Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1918
  • Liked: 1831
  • Likes Given: 422
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #67 on: 08/04/2018 03:05 pm »
These are the experimental thrust data with the remote controlled and remote-controlled pnn prototype:

- Power supply between 250 and 300 watts

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

In practice it SEEMS about 4 or 5 times more than I saw before with the power supply NOT to batteries e
reconfirms as previously mentioned in this topic
This isn't actually data. It is a very imprecise description. Go take a look at Monomorphic's post history in the emDrive thread to see what actual data looks like.


https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43756.0
 where there is a movie of the same type
of the high non-linearity of the inertia law of the pnn system.
Translation error? There is no movie in this thread. Lots of pictures that mean nothing though.

For years now I have been talking about this possible law of inertia and no one has ever commented on it even with minimal mathematical hypotheses.
This is just completely false. I have explained that your reduction of inertia with velocity is the exact opposite of what has been predicted and experimentally verified in special relativity. It is impossible to provide any more detailed criticism than that unless you write down what you are claiming in a much more specific format (preferably a mathematical one).

Read what is written in: http://www.calmagorod.org/inerzia-della-pnn/
Quote
The external reference integral with the fixed stars observes this acceleration inside the pnn system at least as a variation of acceleration from / dt
(Obviously, temporal variations of order superior to the first are also possible).
So the internal force must be equal to less than a constant ka external one since we are talking about the same force seen by two different references.
And these statements are just nonsensical. "fixed stars" does not actually define a meaningful reference frame. You are starting with an assumption that an object randomly accelerates with no external force applied. This violates the definition of conservation of momentum and is simply inconsistent with every experiment ever and some very generic results such as Noether's theorem. The last sentence simply does not make a logical statement. For it to be true, you need to take "less than" to an extreme and make it 0.

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

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

The balance scale knife tilts on a titanium disc. Kern electronic scales are not designed to be immersed in a radiative pnn bath  :)
This type of measurement setup generates false positive signals quite easily. Experimenters in the emDrive thread found this out the hard way. The remaining experimenters are all using torsion balances for a reason, and even then removing error sources is difficult.

Offline E.Laureti

  • Member
  • Posts: 85
  • Roma - Italia
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #68 on: 08/04/2018 05:08 pm »
@meberbs

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

I do not understand, there is this link



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greetings

Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1918
  • Liked: 1831
  • Likes Given: 422
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #69 on: 08/04/2018 09:05 pm »
@meberbs

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

I do not understand, there is this link
Script blockers hid that link from me.

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

If you want to hurry up (i.e. public test of the pnn in which external ASPS  www.asps.it  can do all the experiments on pnn pushing  they want with F432) we could say to us  where we can buy   thrust sensors or an electronic balance of sensitivity equal to at least .01 grams which tolerate at least a maximum load of 3.5 kg and which has the following configuration:
Go read through some of the history on the emDrive thread. You want to build a torsion balance. If you need assistance with that you can PM Monomorphic or Seeshells for advice, they have both been building some very good setups.

Whether battery powered and controlled from a remote computer, it transmits all data as a function of time to the computer, with only fiber optic connections.
No idea why you would want fiberoptic connections. Wireless makes much more sense, if you did need to have wired connections, something more common than fiberoptics would be preferable. Again, emDrive experimenters can give you advice on this.

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

Offline E.Laureti

  • Member
  • Posts: 85
  • Roma - Italia
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #70 on: 08/04/2018 10:07 pm »
@meberbs

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

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

> Go read through some history on the emDrive thread.

I have no time for this

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

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

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

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

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

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

Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1918
  • Liked: 1831
  • Likes Given: 422
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #71 on: 08/05/2018 12:11 am »
@meberbs

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

I thought the same before ... But if there is violation of the newton III ... the law of inertia is not a uniform linear motion for the pnn but a uniformly accelerated motion with the engines off.
Too difficult to accept theoretically .... ... the only way is the experimental finding. There is no amount of words or mathematics to accept such an event ... it must only start from experimental observation.
I told you before, and I'll say it one last time, go study the scientific method. You need a clear hypothesis that you are testing before you can design a reasonable experiment. If you can't describe what you are expecting to see, then how will you know if you see it?

> Go read through some history on the emDrive thread.

I have no time for this
If you are at all serious about what you are doing, then you should have time. You don't have to read everything. Skip over anything discussing theory (such as most of my posts), mode shapes or anything posted by TheTraveller. Instead look through particularly for the couple posters I mentions and see where they describe their experimental setups. If you want to know specifics of some things and why they are doing them that way ask. I am sure some posters in there could point you to specific past discussions if needed.

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

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

The engineers who help me have advised me to use only a good electronic scale, a pnn prototype powered by batteries and operated with a remote control.
If nothing else, the emDrive thread here has created a group of people with lots of experience with the type you are trying to do. Clearly you did not talk to engineers with the right background in this rather specific area.

My detection request with sensors and fiber optics is based on the fact that in 10 seconds of action I have to check various parameters to avoid faults to the amplifier's mosfet and other problems. The thermal dissipation of the pnn is now only passive in order to avoid faults I do not have to operate anything not exceeding the limit of 10 seconds.
None of that explains a need for fiber optics. Fiber optics are for when you need 1 gigabit/second (Gb/s) speed for multiple kilometers. Alternatively, on shorter distances it can be used for 10 to100 Gb/s. You need neither absurd data rates nor extremely long distances. Standard ethernet (1 Gb/s) is more than good enough, though other things (USB, RF cables, wireless, etc.) may be more appropriate depending on the specifics.

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

In other words, such antirelativistic event is unsustainable even mathematically.
Experiments have already been done that demonstrate that relativity works.

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

Offline E.Laureti

  • Member
  • Posts: 85
  • Roma - Italia
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #72 on: 08/05/2018 08:09 am »
@meberbs

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

Quo fata ferunt

Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1918
  • Liked: 1831
  • Likes Given: 422
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #73 on: 08/05/2018 04:43 pm »
@meberbs

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

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


Offline E.Laureti

  • Member
  • Posts: 85
  • Roma - Italia
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #74 on: 08/05/2018 05:58 pm »

@meberbs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

qff


Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1918
  • Liked: 1831
  • Likes Given: 422
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #75 on: 08/05/2018 06:28 pm »
1) I have warmed up on electronic scales and on other weighing scales of different types: dummy load, structures of various types, etc. etc. Result: Nothing at all heat does not determine the effects observed with F432 and cart
The emDrive threads are full of people who done this and shown significant effects. If you came to any other conclusion, it only shows that you didn't do your experiments well enough. There is a mountain of evidence against you.

2) then there is the speed, the rapidity of variation of the thrust of F432 can not be reached and equaled by any thermal deformation
The video you shared demonstrates the exact opposite of your statement here.

3) If you then assume that there is some magnetic effect ... it just has to show me if a compass needle moves at 432 MHz or the Earth's magnetic field or other magnetic field can simulate the effects that are observed.
Nope, not how it works, there are a lot of more complicated things going on and ways electromagnetism can mess with your experiment. Since you aren't listening anyway, not much point in me going into details.

4) I have always offered to anyone (it happened already in 2005) to show that I am wrong for which someone can only propose an experiment where the aforementioned events or others deceive the electronic scale obviously screened.
Buoyancy, electromagnetic interference, thermal expansion (including direct forces, and shift of center of mass of a balance). All of these are problems emDrive experimenters have demonstrated with a setup like yours.

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

6) I offer to anyone I repeat to engineer a deception of any NEW type with a screened electronic scale.
Again, been done many times in the emDrive thread.

7) I also offer to anyone to bring their own measurement equipment or replace with my own measuring devices
It isn't that hard to build your own torsion balance, basically, you just need some piano wire, a board, and some counterweights.

8) I set no limits to contrary and experimental demonstrations that can repeat the effects measured
You haven't provided enough detail for anyone to replicate your setup, that is a hard limit.

9) I will never convince you, so I have to let it fly ... .. but you will also tell me that there is some hidden helix or mass of outgoing reaction.
I can be convinced by data. Your statement that you will never convince me is true as long as you continue to refuse to share real data, or even a specific description of the effect you are claiming.

10) If with a better and more suitable apparatus I go to Mars and back, you will tell me that it was the Martians  :)
This is just an insulting ad hominem attack, the smiley face at the end does not make it a valid joke. This is one more thing for you to apologize for in addition to the multiple lies that you said and I detailed in a previous post.

Offline Chris Bergin

Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #76 on: 08/05/2018 08:06 pm »
You know, I may not know the first thing about advanced physics, but at least I could get along with a bunch of people in a room. ;D

Guys. Seriously. BE CIVIL.

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

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9176
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 623
  • Likes Given: 339
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #77 on: 08/06/2018 06:05 pm »
You have never explained what your drive is other than pictures of a foil covered box.

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

Solo dicendo.
« Last Edit: 08/09/2018 03:35 pm by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline E.Laureti

  • Member
  • Posts: 85
  • Roma - Italia
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #78 on: 08/06/2018 08:30 pm »


@JohnFornaro

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

Greetings

Offline E.Laureti

  • Member
  • Posts: 85
  • Roma - Italia
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #79 on: 08/23/2018 08:06 am »
Subject:  a my patents that was not well copied years ago by two Japanese


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

And if they are republished on their behalf

Now since a few years if they do well to pay

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


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

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

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

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

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

Gent. mo Prof. Laureti

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

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

Thank you for your attention.

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

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


Tags: