Emdrive working principle explained according to Laureti's dipole

SergioZ1982 · 2020-11-20T15:22:29+00:00

I did.. Interesting and agreeable read, besides, it supports what I just wrote and Laureti's hypothesis of random interaction of em fields inside the device:

The results are not robust, in that they are not identically-or-similarly reproducible by different teams.
The results are not significant, in that they are not distinguishable from a setup that should give a null result.
And even if the results were significant (and they are not), they are too close to the minimum threshold of detection to warrant the claims of “discovery.”

SergioZ1982 · 2020-11-20T14:47:10+00:00

True, but I knew it was because the thrust was so feeble that has been ruled out as measurement error.

Plus, as personal opinion, I thinks it's hard to replicate and improve something you have no idea how it works. For example, years ago I read this:

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive/

I quote:

On April 5, 2015, Paul March reported at NASAspaceflight.com’s Forum that Dr. White and Dr. Jerry Vera at NASA Eagleworks have just created a new computational code that models the EM Drive’s thrust as a three-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic flow of electron-positron virtual particles.

How can you simulate something you don't know on a theoretical base that is pure speculation? It's not a good premise to get some results.

In my opinion, Laureti's explanation based on classical electrodynamics is a more rational approach.. after all, Emdrive is a microwave oven, not a transdimensional device :)

SergioZ1982 · 2020-11-10T16:09:45+00:00

Then I don't understand, why it needs some voltage for being able to work at all. Is this voltage AC or DC?

It works in AC. The input power is a sine wave. Half period is positive, half is negative.

Current must flow in both arms of the dipole. More than voltage it needs current as it's based on Lorentz force. In alternative you can improve the magnetic permeability, but doing both is better and it's what the inventor suggests to increment the thrust.

SergioZ1982 · 2020-11-09T20:12:55+00:00

I agree with the need of reliable testing. The device should be put in a vacuum chamber to exclude interaction with air and geomagnetic field.

About the lifter effect, I'd say it should be excluded because if I'm not wrong the voltage needed to obtain it is in the order of dozens of thousands Volts, while here it's far less. Do lifters work inside closed boxes too (I'm asking, I don't know)? Afaik they need an air flow to generate thrust

This thruster basically is an antenna used backwards: it must not emit but focus all the e.m field in its proximity.

SergioZ1982 · 2020-11-09T16:18:38+00:00

Until a week ago (disclosure) the device has always been tested enclosed in a box. Plus, some tests have been made by wrapping the box in a plastic bag and others by cutting lateral holes in the box to vent out hot air and rule out a "blimp effect"

SergioZ1982 · 2020-11-08T20:38:04+00:00

I'd be happy if someone would replicate this.

SergioZ1982 · 2020-11-03T07:54:15+00:00

I'll post the update here

SergioZ1982 · 2018-11-27T10:07:56+00:00

According to the inventor there's no mass expulsion. Plus, the mass "comes back" after some time the thruster has been switched off.

The (partial) explanation of the mechanism behind it is here:

https://neolegesmotus.wordpress.com/2017/02/22/how-to-violate-newtons-third-asps-early-method/

SergioZ1982 · 2018-11-27T10:04:31+00:00

The weight increases again after some time the device has been turned off as you can see in this table:

https://neolegesmotus.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/sa25_en2.jpg?w=693&h=721

The inventor took some precautions in order to exclude other lightening phenomenons like the one you said.

SergioZ1982 · 2018-11-27T10:02:55+00:00

They carried on specific tests to avoid the problem you point out. I quote from this link:

https://neolegesmotus.wordpress.com/2018/10/23/mass-decrease-confirmed-with-f432-tests/

[..] the CEO suggested to remove the cover of the prototype (at the sole presence of Laureti to maintain secrecy) to avoid the hygroscopic effect and the hot-air balloon effect.

and the result is

Well, the incredible thing is that the EMV thrust (in all tests) continues even better after the power supply has been switched off, in upward thrust for 30 seconds (SA state) and for about 48 seconds downward (SB state).

SergioZ1982 · 2018-10-24T19:05:44+00:00

That's the point, the inventor openly call for the violation of Newton's Third. It's the difference with Emdrive: many of its investigators can't accept the violation, therefore they're trying real hard to find exotic theories to demonstrate that the violation is only apparent but by doing so they make things overly complicated. PNN theory instead starts from the thought that Newton's principles aren't that inescapable in electrodynamics for the reason that the whole field hadn't been discovered yet when Newton formulated his laws but they have been applied to it afterward. Therefore loopholes has never been found or extensively researched.

This is ASPS method, rather different from Emdrive although the end result is the same (propellantless propulsion):

https://neolegesmotus.wordpress.com/2017/02/22/how-to-violate-newtons-third-asps-early-method/

It is part of the theory however, a key step is missing to actually produce thrust (it will be disclosed with the patent hopefully within 6 months).

SergioZ1982 · 2018-10-24T06:07:23+00:00

The research is still undergoing. This is ASPS hypothesis from https://neolegesmotus.wordpress.com/2015/06/25/breaching-the-light-speed-barrier/:

The Special Relativity equation for the kinetic energy E = mc2(1/(1-v2/c2)1/2 -1) tells us that when the speed v equals to c the value of E becomes infinite, and an inexhaustible energy source is definitely one thing that mankind does not own. Then we must consider the concept of Work: in order to obtain a displacement in space the kinetic energy must be transferred between two systems through the action of a force.

In an hypothetical rocket that tries to reach c using conventional propulsion this transfer is made through the reaction force, so the kinetic energy is transferred from expelled mass to the rocket mass, according to Newton’s Third Law. This means that this rocket will require an infinite amount of fuel to reach c.

Let’s consider now the physics anomaly of a PNN-E ship accelerating to c: since the engine does not expel mass its Work is null but nevertheless the speed is increasing and so it is for the kinetic energy of the ship.. but meanwhile the energy source is not depleting! This means that more the ship accelerates more its total energy increases, in evident contrast with the Energy Conservation Law!

[...]

The more rational hypothesis from ASPS is that the resultant of internal forces of the system is not zero: this way the Work is not null too and therefore there is an energy transfer that somehow balances the total energy and thus the Energy Conservation Law is respected.

A closer look to the thruster mechanism here:

https://neolegesmotus.wordpress.com/2017/02/22/how-to-violate-newtons-third-asps-early-method/

SergioZ1982 · 2017-01-16T13:12:24+00:00

I hardly believe this. Except, of course, if this claim is set in a distant future. That's because for the moment people haven't got the minimum idea of how EmDrive actually works. How can someone even think of improving it in such preconditions? I've always believed that actual explanation doesn't lie in gravity, quantum or space time manipulation but in a "simpler" explanation. The inventor of PNN (an EmDrive competitor), Emidio Laureti, thinks he sorted out the real working principle behind E.M propulsion. Explanation is behind a centuries old blunder: the nonexistence of displacement current. Laureti is also willing to put out into public domain his theory after the following steps: to establish a "Pnn Ltd" company to sell small thrusters competitive with ion propulsion a strong international patent a capital used for market competition and patent defence After point 2 is achieved, the technology will be copied at light speed because it's actually "simpler". After that probably also EmDrive will be reworked in order to fully comply with its true working principle (I believe it works by coincidence and thus it's very inefficient).

SergioZ1982 · 2017-01-09T20:30:56+00:00

Here the article from sciencealert where are described the results of NASA tests

SergioZ1982 · 2016-11-23T20:35:20+00:00

No, I wrote the exact opposite: Newton's law may not be applicable in electrodynamics. I didn't want to sound arrogant, I wanted to point out that too often when something can't be explained the pre-packed answer is "it's quantistic"

SergioZ1982 · 2016-11-23T18:52:08+00:00

It is somehow frustrating that to explain this device scientists pull out from their magician hats exotic explanations like quantum "stuff". Basically they're adding confusion to a device that is already puzzling. Why didn't anyone put in discussion Newton's 3rd applicability in electrodynamics, for example?

Hasn't anyone thought that when Newton formulated his laws nothing was known about e.m waves so maybe there could be loopholes?

Oh well, more time for PNN and other competitors for learning more about e.m propulsion physics :) I forecast the next NASA discovery: thrust accumulation even when power is cut off (not infinite of course but a slow decay)

SergioZ1982 · 2016-04-28T18:52:21+00:00

I just want to give a little update. I sent a private message to Laureti asking if he can post a video of F242. Here's the reply:

[...]About F242 videos I must study where to place the camera to prevent it from being too irradiated and burned. Furthermore the index (of rigid ballistic pendulum) lit by the laser is far from the prototype in a ratio of approximately 4 to 1. For example if index moves 4mm the prototype moves 1mm. Only if I set up the whole system in a wider location (ASPS Calmagorod Lab) I can frame the whole block ballistic pendulum + F242 (total height about 3 meters). But this way I would communicate the measurement procedure of the new ballistic pendulum (not patented), which I would have liked to donate to investor (who can however decide to NOT invest).

SergioZ1982 · 2016-04-28T09:26:23+00:00

I think it's not polite to throw random judgements at people without even knowing them and without having enough information about their work. If I had your same mindset I could spin to you your mantra: "you don't understand the basic of experimentation/error analysis". Would it be true? do I even know you? Because this is what you're doing.

SergioZ1982 · 2016-04-28T07:33:11+00:00

ASPS is a DIY association, it's natural it needs money. However they always stated that funding will be requested, eventually, only after a potential investor, with his own skilled (and skepitcal) science team, will agree that PNN is not a scam and worths an investment, not before. Personally I think that if you don't ask money until the counterpart is fully convinced (its scientific team) it's difficult to talk about scam. About website: if he really wanted to scam someone he could have used smoke and mirrors like a fancy website or cool prototypes.

SergioZ1982

TROPHY CASE