Newsgroup: it.discussioni.misteri
Titolo: Note about PNN for NASA spaceflight forum

Laureti's reply to NASA spaceflight
from 
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40170.0
 
 
IN CUI  SI PARLA DELLA NUOVA LEGGE DI INERZIA CHE DERIVEREBBE DALLA VIOLAZIONE DEL III
 
 
 
ASPS was founded on June 29th 1979 by myself and an engineer.
 
In our statute is written to pursue the propellantless propulsion as facts demonstrate that through rocketry we can't set and maintain any stable outpost neither on the Moon nor on Mars.
 
Until about 1991 we pursued experimental research on exclusively mechanical prototypes based on the phase shift between action/reaction forces. The goal was not reached because in a mechanical device the action/reaction waves destructively interfere. They interfere just because for them the “Superposition Principle”  is not valid, on the contrary of e.m waves. The prototype didn't thrust.
Here the details: 
http://www.asps.it/Prototipo.htm
 
 
Around 1992 we started researching electromagnetic propulsion.
 
Some ASPS associates want to make a distinction between Mechanical PNN (PNN-M) and Electromagnetic PNN (PNN-E). I don't because mechanical PNN doesn't exist, so there is only the electromagnetic one, PNN for short.
 
Countless has been the tests for researching the phase shift between action and reaction waves of electromagnetic type. Many details are reported on our periodical Nova Astronautica (first number in 1981 - 
www.asps.it/na.htm
)
 
To make it short we started to observe the first experimental results in prototypes tested on ballistic pendulum.
 
Back to our days I've been banned from Nasa space flight forum just for trying to talk about PNN.
 
However 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 and some controversies regarding my reticence could rise.
 
The fundamental point to understand is that PNN is based on the violation of action/reaction principle. It is a well known fact since more than a century (at least since a long time in various Italian physics textbooks) that this Newton's Third principle doesn't make coherent sense in electrodynamics.
 
The only problem is how to proceed at experimental level from a totally abstract theoretical concept .
 
Here 
www.asps.it/azione.htm
 I gave a theoretical base acknowledged by various physicists (in detail Valter Moretti and Elio Fabri). I kindly ask you to distinguish in that link the PNN physics from the “Crusades” (let's say it's an hobby of mine, as I think about them like various Popes of centuries ago thought about “relationships” with Islam. At 
www.asps.it/occc.htm
 are described my beliefs about it).
 
Now because I can't afford to be followed on this road (experimental procedure for the violation of action/reaction principle) I can't give informations about how to proceed because by having few resources I have to proceed slowly and who can understand the fundamentals of what to do, and owns economical resources, could follow me “very rapidly”.
 
 
The road to experimental violation of Newton's Third demanded years and years of researches  and failures to me and ASPS that resulted in PNN of 2004-2005, when we made several road shows both private and public.
 
 
Here 
http://www.asps.it/presentazione.wmv
  PNN is presented by ASPS vice president Massimo Ceccarelli)
 
Here there are some tests, also repeated in a public demonstration at Sheraton Hotel in Rome in 2005 and other roadshows:
www.asps.it/pnn2005.mpg
 
www.asps.it/qct05.mpg
 
http://www.asps.it/Ott05.mpg
 
Admiral Lucio Accardo of Italian navy (V department – R&D)  was also present.
http://www.asps.it/accardo.mpg
 
 
But Italian Navy like any other contacted industries (Alenia Spazio in the first place) wanted the PNN know-how for free so it all came to nothing.
 
At the end we've been founded for just 1 year (a very small funding from an Italian investor). The PNN of the time has been financed only by letting our investor's technical staff to make all the experiment it wanted on the prototype/s of the time. With our PNN demonstrative procedure THROUGH CLOSED BOX no one loses anything. With the closed box one can demonstrate that Newton's Third isn't valid if an investor has a technical team who can understand basic physics.
 
At the end if the investor doesn't fund we don't lose the know-how and no one loses anything.
 
PNN tests with closed box (that is without losing know-how) were conducted following this experimental procedure 
http://www.asps.it/SC2.12.jpg
, also repeated in the ways investor asked for.
 
To that group I experimentally demonstrated that PNN (even if back then through a very small thrust) was a real thing and not a dream.  
http://www.asps.it/mdpnn.mpg
 
 
Then it took me about ten years for a successive improvement.
 
The problems? Mainly technicals: I had to change experimental collaborators (technicians) for unreliability (information leak has always been a problem), then excessive prototype overheatings, preamplifiers and amplifiers in VHF and UHF that often can't bear the required power and performances. Problems that one can't solve with few money and without the aid of people skilled at solid state physics who must be paid.
 
To all of this it must be added the information leak regarding one of my patent deposit copied by two Japanese. Here's the info:
 
 
I perform the trace of my patent filed in Italy on April 22nd, 1998
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=1&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19991022&CC=IT&NR=RM980250A1&KC=A1
 
There is an article on Nova Astronautica  where the patent was copied by two Japanese a few years later and reissued in their name. Informations that I don't want to spread online.
 
I got the information about the copy of a patent of mine from a physicist from Pisa University practically 12 years later the patent deposit!
http://www.asps.it/apensar.htm
  (in italian)
More information on Nova Astronautica and informational materials that, I repeat,  I can not spread on the net to prevent further copying.
 
Now let's come back to action/reaction principle and to an event (A NEW KIND OF INERTIA LAW) which is to me is more important than the thrust itself: the changing of inertia law by the system that violates the action/reaction principle.
Now our new ballistic pendulum, that someone would like me to spread over the network for free along with F242, not only detects the pressure from F242 but also the new law of inertia.
 
Recently I came to know about this fantastic correlation:
 
EmDrive experimentally verified that "Thrust signals even after the electrical power was turned off" (from 
http://www.sciencealert.com/independent-scientists-confirm-that-the-impossible-em-drive-produces-thrust
)
The same occurs with more grandeur and evidence for F242
https://neolegesmotus.wordpress.com/2016/04/24/f242-is-now-at-2-56-grams-of-thrust/
 
http://www.asps.it/assettof242.htm
 
For me "Thrust signals even after the electrical power was turned off" is not a measurement error and agrees with findings in F242, in the sense that the violation of Newton's Third principle involves a change of the law of inertia and therefore the law of inertia for systems that violate the third principle (PNN and Emdrive) is a uniformly accelerated motion!
 
Who says I don't use mathematics simply must go at 
http://www.calmagorod.org/inerzia-della-pnn/
 [English at 
https://neolegesmotus.wordpress.com/2015/10/01/as-if-one-wasnt-enough-pnn-breaks-another-law/
 - Sergio] and tell me if in his opinion the violation of action/reaction principle doesn't imply a change in inertia law. I only mathematically defined an hypothesis completely theoretical about the inertia deriving from violation of action/reaction principle.
 
One salient characteristic of the system that changes inertia law is that when the power supply is turned off the motion isn't uniform and linear anymore but uniformly accelerated, thus the mass of the movable object must decrease when speed increases in order to conserve the energy. It's like if a force was still present.
 
Now this “seems” it has been observed also with the EmDrive.
 
With F242 I'm observing several times this phenomenon with more grandeur on my new ballistic pendulum (not patented)
 
 
To recap, in my opinion the violation of Newton's Third (which for me it occurs also in the EmDrive) implies:
 
1.	the impulse conservation (momentum) through electrodynamic field (also Moretti says this in 
www.asps.it/azione.htm
)
2.	the thrust increase for the same energy used: F242 increases the thrust for the same energy used and I'm observing this experimentally through the new kind of ballistic pendulum
3.	I specify: when powered the prototype progressively increases its inclination.. but I can't increase too much the thrust duration due to thermal issues (since the thrust can't convert itself in kinetic energy on the ballistic pendulum it convert itself in thermal energy)
4.	the most important fact: only by violating the Third and by changing the inertia law (in the one I mathematically defined it's even exponential!) the moving object accelerate even with engine turned off. What does it mean? That moving object mass must decrease when speed increases in order to conserve the total energy. On Reddit one immediately said to me: then it doesn't work! But I didn't reply him that Relativity has NOTHING to do with the sum of all non-null internal forces of a mass. What do I want to say? That in physics the concepts are valid only with the procedures used to define them and NOT with those they HAVEN'T BEEN defined with. In my opinion only by changing the law of inertia one can face interstellar travel.
 
Note about the displacement current:
 
With a few other physicists I'm fighting for years a battle about the nonexistence of the displacement current. Nonexistence in which many physicists from the past haVE believed as it lacks any measurement of its fatal magnetic field.
 
From 
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.205.6223
 
One can read in the abstract:
Physics literature on the displacement current from Maxwell to the present day is reviewed with the intention of clarifying the concept. Two major traditions of interpretation are identified, one deriving from Maxwell which maintains that the displacement current is electromagnetically equivalent to an electric current and one deriving from Lorentz which denies that there is any displacement current. The article attempts to resolve various outstanding ambiguities and it concludes with an assessment of the present status of both traditions of interpretation. The appropriateness or otherwise of introducing the concept of a 'displacement current ' to undergraduates is also discussed briefly. 1. The controversy Maxwell's displacement current, first introduced in 1862, has been the subject of both admiration and controversy for more than a century. To-day, important questions still remain unresolved, most notably whether or not it represents an electric current in some real sense, whether it produces a magnetic field and whether or not all currents are closed--all closely related issues. Why does the controversy continue? Not, I believe, because of unrecognized physical principles, or because of insufficient conceptual effort by physicists. .............. 
 
and there is also a certain H.A.Lorentz,  who denied any physical consistency to the fatal magnetic field by displacement current.
In addition to the never remembered enough contradiction that Maxwell, as known, introduced the "displacement current" because he believed the ether existed. From:  
http://www.jpier.org/PIER/pier144/30.13111501.pdf
 
Ether is given as nonexistent ... but the displacement current as formally existent :-).
 
 
So denying the orthodoxy any will to make a measurement (in the far field, not the near, of the fatal magnetic field of displacement current) I offered a pnn propulsion system that worked with it.
 
Probably they already went to Mars with it without me knowing.  :-)
 
What is described at 
www.calmagorod.org
 is written on purpose for physics orthodoxy which does not want to take note since CENTURIES that in that field Maxwell's equations are wrong and that in free space only the electrical component propagates, not the so-called electromagnetic wave.
 
But I wrote that site mainly for a la Japanese PNN  cheaters! In the sense that I want to decide what they have to copy and I also filed a patent to make the bait more tempting.
 
I have written several times about this Nova Astronautics for many years... and I can't report everything now. Also if you want the issue to me is in these terms FORMAL:
 
If one day the official physics will recognize that the displacement current and its magnetic field does not exist I'll say that what is described at 
www.calmagorod.org
 (read: PNN CAPACITORS THRUSTER) IS WRONG.
If they won't recognize its nonexistence, should read that Maxwell's equations must be rewritten, I'll always say that what is in the site is the PNN thrust procedure.
 
Since Calmagorod is online no orthodox physicist told me that the above description is wrong, because if they did they should say that Maxwell's equations are wrong!
 
I know in experimental way that the displacement current is an hallucination that is massacring electrodynamics since centuries and makes derail the real physical perception of the electrodynamic field. PNN is another thing and it works just because through it I managed to avoid Maxwell's interpretive and experimental disasters (Maxwell was a mathematician, not a physicist) regarding the real propagation procedure of the electrodynamic field.


RISCRIVO X DON SKIZZY che arragliava che non avevo mai parlato di nuova legge di inerzia su Nasaspaceflight!!!!
 
...............
 
Now let's come back to action/reaction principle and to an event (A NEW KIND OF INERTIA LAW) which is to me is more important than the thrust itself: the changing of inertia law by the system that violates the action/reaction principle. 
Now our new ballistic pendulum, that someone would like me to spread over the network for free along with F242, not only detects the pressure from F242 but also the new law of inertia. 
 
Recently I came to know about this fantastic correlation: 
 
EmDrive experimentally verified that "Thrust signals even after the electrical power was turned off" (from 
http://www.sciencealert.com/independent-scientists-confirm-that-the-impossible-em-drive-produces-thrust
) 
The same occurs with more grandeur and evidence for F242 
https://neolegesmotus.wordpress.com/2016/04/24/f242-is-now-at-2-56-grams-of-thrust/
 
http://www.asps.it/assettof242.htm
 
For me "Thrust signals even after the electrical power was turned off" is not a measurement error and agrees with findings in F242, in the sense that the violation of Newton's Third principle involves a change of the law of inertia and therefore the law of inertia for systems that violate the third principle (PNN and Emdrive) is a uniformly accelerated motion! 
 
..................
 
from 
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40170.0
 
 
 
E.Laureti
 
 
 

At the end if the investor doesn't fund we don't lose the know-how and no one loses anything.
 
This, probably, fails to take into account the investor's view. Presumably, the investor decides not to fund
further developments when he doesn't believe they're going to pan out and get a usable result; that is after
all what "invest" means. Even angel investors have to pay bills, after all.
 
Usually, at this point the investor's sudden lack of interest is promptly deemed unexplainable and varyingly
attributed to personal conflicts, subtle threats, likely blackmail, and - in the words of John Belushi -, an
earthquake, a terrible flood and locusts.
 
Leonardo
-- 
 
A terrible beauty is born.
                                     - W. B. Yeats, Easter 1916

                                      - W. B. Yeats, Easter 1916
 
a terrible non cappella is born.
 
                                         E.Laureti 2017

Se cito le fonti, la posso proporre come prolusione al corso di propulsione spaziale a Pisa?
 
:-)
 
-- 
GiOvAnNi


barney potete fare quel che ecatzo vi pare...
 
l'unica mia difesa , almeno per ora, è di NON farvi mettere le chele su un prototipo pnn :-)
 
... cmq..cmq... con tutti i ragli che ci sono in Usenet sulla pnn si potrebbe affabulare in kazzate deformi per anni.:-)
 
Allora Barney dimmi quando ci sarà il corso .... che mi metterò tra il pubblico (ovviamente maskerato) ...
mi voglio scompisciare a sentirmi "interpretato" :-)
 
 

:-)
 
Diamine. Mi raccomando Sant'Anselmo, eh: so che lui ci teneva.
 
E se qualcuno davvero mette su un razzo a difluoruro di diossigeno e metilmercurio, voglio
esserne avvisato con un sei mesetti d'anticipo - con questo mercato immobiliare, dubito di
riuscire a vender casa e traslocare in Tasmania più in fretta di così.


 NUOVA LEGGE DI INERZIA CHE
 
si, sono ANNI che blateri delle stesse cose e, non contento, sei andato
a spalmarle anche su reddit e sul forum di NASAspaceflight; risultato ?
 
Beh, dopo l'iniziale "parliamone" e dopo le tue sclerate da pazzoide,
ti hanno bollato come un povero idiota fuffaro e, l'unica attenzione
che ti è stata dedicata è stata quella di chi voleva farsi una risata o
di coloro che, non sapendo chi eri, hanno voluto informarsi in modo da
capire, grazie alle tue stesse parole, che razza di ciarlatano sei.
 
Dopotutto, il fatto che dagli anni '80 ad oggi sei ancora allo *stesso*
punto dovrebbe farti riflettere, se fossi un ricercatore serio.
 
Che altro... ah SI, già; fammi mettere un ROTFLMAO !! Vedi un tizio che
pensa che il fatto che i moderatori di ISF non gli abbiano segato il
post sia una "approvazione" merita sghignazzamenti a non finire e nulla
d'altro
 
 

 tutto accettabile Serni ..se non per alcuni dettagli micidiali...
 
ROTFL !!! Fantastico, hai una padronanza della lingua inglese pari a
quella che hai dell'etrusco (cit.)
 
Che coglione, risponde senza capire, ROTFL !
 


quello che hai scritto mi ricorda un po' il comportamento di altri
troll e sceMziatari a perdere.
 
Su IDM era il comportamento, ad esempio, del vecchio maco : se nessuno
gli rispondeva, per esso significava che "automaticamente" gli si dava
ragione. O anche di trumino, che vabbè.. lasciamo perdere chi è serva
cervello, per passare poi a S.M. con le sue giravoltole per darsi
ragGione addosso. 
 
Su FISF c'era il caso di quello che spacciava per "nuova fisica"
qualsiasi cosa avesse anche lontanamente a che fare con una cicloide
(anche se IMHO non avrà mai capito le caratteristiche di tale curva).
Su ISM ce ne era un altro, ricordo, che "tunzava" con una
"matekazzica" tutta sua.
 
Ora invece c'è il duo-in-uno Laureti-Ottone che, se ci hai fatto caso
qualche volta in random-mode, "isponde" (=raglia) ad un tizio
qualunque su FISF e poi manda QUI il suo post senza né capo e né coda
e viceversa : forse vuole spargere il su' falso verbo ovunque pur di
rimediare du' adesioni o du' abbonamentini alla su' rimbambita
associazioncina o "pensa" che ragliando (come un asino prima che con
la su' pelle ci facciano le membrane pei tamburi) qualche fesso di
sendo-di-credo gli dia un po' di spiccioli?? Mah!
 
Marco C.
 
--
<<Il tutto fa tornare in mente il mitico Laureti, e la sua "propulsione post newtoniana".
 Una decina di anni fa sosteneva di essere riuscito a produrre un motore del genere, ma
 chiedeva una barcata di soldi per poterlo anche solo esaminare, ed insultava pesantemente
 chiunque chiedesse prove. Non ne ho saputo più niente.>>
 
 da un commento del 10/8/2014 di G. Comoretto su 
http://tinyurl.com/zsatm66
 



Ah dimenticavo... non ho postato i links rilevanti relativi a reddit ed
ai forum di NSF, ma ci vuol poco a farlo, e ci vuole altrettanto poco,
per chiunque (al contrario di te) capisca l'inglese a capire che tipo
di opinione si siano fatti su di te
 
ciarlatano
 

 
 
 
 
30.000.000 secondi dotto' (arraglia bek yrr) e non si "irrrrrritissccaaaaa"
Se so' scappati quattro zeri dalla tastiera per 
 i secondi e per la velocita'!!!!!!!! 
 
 
Ho discusso in passato con pietropaolo, e avrete notato che da un po' si 
guarda bene dal parlare di moti perpetui 
http://www.asps.it/bekperpetuo.jpg
 
 
:    il deficiente di un pietropaolo in arte centromix e poi marco c. esibisce cappelle continue sui calcoli della velocità della luce : 
“…..per te  la velocità della luce è 29,4 Km/sec!  dato che hai scritto non solo 
3000 secondi ma pure 50 minuti!!!! …”  
http://www.asps.it/verme.htm
 
e inoltre  ( DICE ALESSANDRO89) questi  pseudo insegnanti alla marco c. la sanno la matematica? 
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=IT#!topic/it.discussioni.misteri/kFGFb18QpgA
 
buahhhaaahh
  Pare che non sappiano neppure risolvere un semplice integrale!! 
 
dal girone infernale 
http://www.asps.it/gotha.htm
 
 

perchè uno che posta sul forum, fa dei proclami senza fondamento 
 
 
 
falso c'è la procedura di superamento del III  di newton con tanto di grafici 
 
...procedura risottolineo TEORICA 
 
che i moderatori di It.Scienza.Fisica  , CHE SONO FISICI E NON ANALFABETI COME TE E BECCHETTO , hanno visto e approvato 
 
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=IT#!topic/it.scienza.fisica/Csp0nh9Evu4
 
 
 ma non tu e bekketto e tutta la mandria di rosicanti falsari imbecilli e falliti  col botto  in 
 
www.asps.it/gotha.htm
 
 
 
 
e chissà perchè  perchè :-)))) 
 
 
 
Insomma che gli americani  si rompano il culo a sperimentare se vogliono capire meglio :-) 
 
 
 
Insomma se proprio non capiscono un kazzo ci sono pure altri posti dove trovare qualcosa 
 
 
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=5&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19991022&CC=IT&NR=RM980250A1&KC=A1#
 
 
 
from:   
http://www.asps.it/chiodo17.htm
 
http://www.asps.it/sak17.htm
 
 
E.Laureti
and more
Posted on  22 February 2017 by sergioz82 
 
From : 
 
https://neolegesmotus.wordpress.com/2017/02/22/how-to-violate-newtons-third-asps-early-method/
 

 John Belushi -, an earthquake, a terrible flood and locusts.
 
ROTFLMAO !!!!!
 

 [...ruttone...]


:
 
 
 
https://www.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/comments/4gssa6/a_message_for_mister_rodal_i_dont_know/
 
 
http://idu.altervista.org/proview.php?id=94
 
 
http://www.serni.org/utils/timer/
 
 
 
rosica Emmì, rosica
 
ROTFL
 

 
 
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42239.0
 
 
 con più di 1700 letture in pochi giorni ... 
 
 
UN CHIODO IN PIU’ SULLE PALLE  PER IL FALSARIO DIFFAMATORE  Anonimo Sargassenn 
 
 
 
Dopo aver  zittito gli americani che non capiscono un kazzo circa la violabilità 
 del principio di azione e reazione con un  mio post su Nasaspaceflight 
 
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42239.0
 
 
 con più di 1700 letture in pochi giorni ... 


 con più di 1700 letture in pochi giorni ... 
 
Di cui 700 negli ultimi sei minuti, pare di capire?
 
(Che poi sono _accessi_, non letture).
 
Be', sono ammirato, perché come tutti sanno, un gran numero di accessi
è indicativo di post profondi, concettosi, di ampio impatto.
 
Mica come questo cacatua che scorreggia [1].
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4XKtm4fUJw
 
 
Leonardo
 
[1] non credevo che esistesse un filmato simile... sospetto che sia un
    corollario della regola 34.


 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4XKtm4fUJw
 
 
121,546 views 
 
Azz !
 
 

 è indicativo di post profondi, concettosi, di ampio impatto.
 
 
Beh in questo senso nessuno batte il tuo compagno di merende Arne Saknussemm 
Bhisma

    corollario della regola 34.
 
Marco C.



A proposito...
 
https://www.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/comments/4gssa6/a_message_for_mister_rodal_i_dont_know/
 
 
e... ROTFL !
 
 

Azz !
 
No, no: quella è una unità di misura fuorviante.
 
La Commissione Internazionale per i Pesi e le Misure sta valutando l'introduzione di
una nuova unità di misura all'interno del Sistema Internazionale, ovvero il CNPDFDSS
(ChiodoNellePalleDelFalsarioDiffamatoreSbrocSbroc) - simbolo: proot - equivalente ad
esattamente 1700 delle view registrate nella Sala di Metrologia a Sèvres.
 
Questa andrà a sostituire il betullasecondo (1.926 m^3 di betulla trentina di almeno
tre anni, pulita, deramata e privata di foglie, rosicchiata a puntino in trucioli di
grammatura 20S con umidità < 40%), che non trova (fortunatamente) più applicazione.
 
Leonardo


On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 17:02:18 +0100, Arne Saknussemm

ma porcaputt! :-)))
--
ROTFL, anche qui viene cazziato lo SCEMziatO de' guera e che 
caduta in basso!!
 
https://www.reddit.com/user/LauretiEmidio
 
 
https://www.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/comments/4gssa6/a_message_for_mister_rodal_i_dont_know/
 
 

:: On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 17:20:40 +0100
:: (it.discussioni.misteri)
:: <af8bbc5gv22js4dfc...@L.Serni>

/ME defunge, resuscita, ri-defunge, resuscita ...
 


UN CHIODO IN PIU’ SULLE PALLE  PER IL FALSARIO DIFFAMATORE  Anonimo Sargassenn 
 
 
 
Dopo aver  zittito gli americani che non capiscono un kazzo circa la violabilità 
 del principio di azione e reazione con un  mio post su Nasaspaceflight 
 
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42239.0
 
 
 con più di 1700 letture in pochi giorni ... 
 
 
 


 A terrible ascesso is born.
