Possibility of PNN replies
Trovato chi replica dei test PNN (PNN replies if my commands are listen!!!!!! )
Cos|4 scrive: rCarCa. American PNN :-) rCa..
For the record I wanted to say that I continue to strongly support ASPS and the PNN drive. I have no desire whatsoever to disprove it.
Because I genuinely want to replicate your results.
In my professional opinion, the ASPS team has already proved that this
works when they demonstrated the battery powered version.
My personal failure to get thrust out of the attempted replication I constructed
does not detract at all from the multiple successes of the ASPS team or the PNN drive technology.
I remain totally convinced it works and am not afraid to tell doubters! rCarCa.
rCarCarCa..
Mie raccomandazioni:
Il mio solo auspicio |? che faccia quello che gli dico di fare e non
si avventuri in varianti, che sono fatte sovente per risparmiare
soldi e tempo.
Le varianti della PNN si iniziano solo dopo che si hanno solide basi sperimentali dei dati basilari per riprodurre la PNN rCa.
Altrimenti il risultato purtroppo |? con alta probabilit|a la rCLKappellarCY
rCa.. ulteriori dettagli in Nova Astronautica n.186
Other info:
Why can the PNN reach and colonize both the Moon and Mars?
Because through the real, not fake, violation of Newton's principle of action and reaction,
PNN thrust increases over time for the same amount of energy used.
This is first demonstrated with a prototype on a ballistic pendulum F432 powered by
an external amplifier https://player.vimeo.com/video/476068648
In the video, the prototype's index, illuminated by the laser, not only moves from left
to right but goes off scale depending on the fact that the
thrust increases over time.
The same is demonstrated by the F432BA prototype (a variant of the previous one) but powered
by batteries and operated with a remote control on
a Kern electronic scale display. Once with upward thrust http://www.asps.it/spintapnnalto.pdf
And then with downward thrust when the prototype is rotated 180
degrees http://www.asps.it/spintapnnbasso.pdf .
Unfortunately, the lithium batteries discharge over a time interval ranging from zero seconds to about 120 to 150 seconds.
Spaceship i.e. Submarine conversion in PNN spaceships http://asps.it/schelet1.jpg
http://asps.it/schelet2.jpg
http://www.asps.it/tron7.jpg
http://www.asps.it/tron15.jpg
http://www.asps.it/tron16.jpg
https://propulsion-revolution.com/en/subspace
On 10/01/2026 6:02 am, E.Laureti wrote:
Possibility of PNN replies
Trovato chi replica dei test PNN (PNN replies if my commands are listen!!!!!! )
Cos|4 scrive: rCarCa. American PNN :-) rCa..
For the record I wanted to say that I continue to strongly support ASPS and the PNN drive. I have no desire whatsoever to disprove it.
That's the whole problem. any scientist needs to be continuously alet to
the possibility of alternative explanations for the effects that they
are seeing. Popper claimed the any real scientific explanation had to be falsifiable.
Because I genuinely want to replicate your results.
The desire to be able to see that the claimed results can be shown to
fit theory that claims to explain them is perfectly natural, but leads
to bad science if it leads you to ignore more prosaic explanations;
In my professional opinion, the ASPS team has already proved that this
works when they demonstrated the battery powered version.
You don't seem to be a professional experimental scientist - or a least
not a very competent one.
My personal failure to get thrust out of the attempted replication I constructed
does not detract at all from the multiple successes of the ASPS team or the PNN drive technology.
I remain totally convinced it works and am not afraid to tell doubters! rCarCa.
So you are a gullible twit. If you can't reproduce the effects they
probably aren't real, and you don't have any rational reason to promote
them as real.
rCarCarCa..
Mie raccomandazioni:
Il mio solo auspicio |? che faccia quello che gli dico di fare e non
si avventuri in varianti, che sono fatte sovente per risparmiare
soldi e tempo.
Le varianti della PNN si iniziano solo dopo che si hanno solide basi sperimentali dei dati basilari per riprodurre la PNN rCa.
Altrimenti il risultato purtroppo |? con alta probabilit|a la rCLKappellarCY
rCa.. ulteriori dettagli in Nova Astronautica n.186
Other info:
Why can the PNN reach and colonize both the Moon and Mars?
Because through the real, not fake, violation of Newton's principle of action and reaction,
PNN thrust increases over time for the same amount of energy used.
The proposition that effects that you can't reproduce are violations of Newton's principle of action and reaction is pure wishful thinking.
This is first demonstrated with a prototype on a ballistic pendulum F432 powered by
an external amplifier https://player.vimeo.com/video/476068648
In the video, the prototype's index, illuminated by the laser, not only moves from left
to right but goes off scale depending on the fact that the
thrust increases over time.
The environment gets hotter and the convection currents that I
hypothesise to be creating the observed effect would get stronger.
The same is demonstrated by the F432BA prototype (a variant of the previous one) but powered
by batteries and operated with a remote control on
a Kern electronic scale display. Once with upward thrust http://www.asps.it/spintapnnalto.pdf
And then with downward thrust when the prototype is rotated 180
degrees http://www.asps.it/spintapnnbasso.pdf .
Unfortunately, the lithium batteries discharge over a time interval ranging from zero seconds to about 120 to 150 seconds.
A zero second discharge would be catastrophic if it actually happened;
Spaceship i.e. Submarine conversion in PNN spaceships http://asps.it/schelet1.jpg
http://asps.it/schelet2.jpg
http://www.asps.it/tron7.jpg
http://www.asps.it/tron15.jpg
http://www.asps.it/tron16.jpg
https://propulsion-revolution.com/en/subspace
Nobody has demonstrated that the effect exists in an evacuated test
space, let alone outer space.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> posted:
On 10/01/2026 6:02 am, E.Laureti wrote:
Possibility of PNN replies
Trovato chi replica dei test PNN (PNN replies if my commands are listen!!!!!! )
Cos|4 scrive: rCarCa. American PNN :-) rCa..
For the record I wanted to say that I continue to strongly support ASPS and >>> the PNN drive. I have no desire whatsoever to disprove it.
That's the whole problem. any scientist needs to be continuously alert to
the possibility of alternative explanations for the effects that they
are seeing. Popper claimed the any real scientific explanation had to be
falsifiable.
2000 years ago, the Romans built bridges using empirical procedures
without theories.
Everything that seems apparently right to you testifiesModern astronautics is very much about finding out more about the more convenient parts of the solar system. Colonising them is strictly
to an arthritic astronautica with farts that colonizes nothing.
The PNN was built with empirical physical procedures, just like the
Roman bridges of 2000 years ago, which are still in use while modern
ones often don't even last 200 years.
You use Popper to escape from any experiment that could disprove you.
On 10/01/2026 6:56 pm, E.Laureti wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> posted:
On 10/01/2026 6:02 am, E.Laureti wrote:
Possibility of PNN replies
Trovato chi replica dei test PNN (PNN replies if my commands are listen!!!!!! )
Cos|4 scrive: rCarCa. American PNN :-) rCa..
For the record I wanted to say that I continue to strongly support ASPS and
the PNN drive. I have no desire whatsoever to disprove it.
That's the whole problem. any scientist needs to be continuously alert to >> the possibility of alternative explanations for the effects that they
are seeing. Popper claimed the any real scientific explanation had to be >> falsifiable.
2000 years ago, the Romans built bridges using empirical procedures
without theories.
The scientific method was developed after their civilisation had fallen apart. It's a scheme that lets you avoid a lot of false starts. You need
to learn about it.
Everything that seems apparently right to you testifiesModern astronautics is very much about finding out more about the more convenient parts of the solar system. Colonising them is strictly
to an arthritic astronautica with farts that colonizes nothing.
science fiction - we don't know enough about the possible destinations
to make any even faintly realistic plans to colonise any of them.
The PNN was built with empirical physical procedures, just like the
Roman bridges of 2000 years ago, which are still in use while modern
ones often don't even last 200 years.
The Romans didn't know enough to risk making their bridges as cheaply as they could have done.
The testing of your imagined reactionless parodies empirical physical procedures. You leave out any sort of control of whether the effects you
are seeing might come from any effects other than the ones you are
looking for.
You use Popper to escape from any experiment that could disprove you.
I'm not in a position to repeat your experiments, let alone set up
variants which might provide useful information - which would take even
more money and time.
If your experiments had been rather better designed, there are people
like me who might have been motivated to get together to refine them,
but the nonsense you are peddling pretty much rules out any such effort.
I'm not fond of Popper's theory of science - Polyani comes closer to the mark - but Popper does emphasise one aspect of science which is
important here, and you clearly haven't grasped.
I'm not fond of Popper's theory of science - Polyani comes closer to the
mark - but Popper does emphasise one aspect of science which is
important here, and you clearly haven't grasped.
Bill Sloman, Sydney l--
In article <10jtdai$33pqc$1@dont-email.me>,
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
<SNIP>
I'm not fond of Popper's theory of science - Polyani comes closer to the
mark - but Popper does emphasise one aspect of science which is
important here, and you clearly haven't grasped.
Right on! Popper considers experiments in isolation. In my view that is metaphysical thinking.
The scientific view is that the combination of all possible probabilities (read "certainties") of outcome of all observations leads to the most probable
correct worldview.
First law of dialectical realism, the world is a whole, and is to be considered
as a whole.
For example.
Before discovering the neutrino leak, astrophysics were confronted with
a most unprobable outcome. No physicist was inclined to tear down quantum mechanics or astronomy, however. They sought (and found) an explanation
in the existing frame work.
And, dear Popper, how do you do repeatable experiments in astrophysics?
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> posted:
On 10/01/2026 6:56 pm, E.Laureti wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> posted:
On 10/01/2026 6:02 am, E.Laureti wrote:
Possibility of PNN replies
Trovato chi replica dei test PNN (PNN replies if my commands are listen!!!!!! )
Cos|4 scrive: rCarCa. American PNN :-) rCa..
For the record I wanted to say that I continue to strongly support ASPS and
the PNN drive. I have no desire whatsoever to disprove it.
That's the whole problem. any scientist needs to be continuously alert to >>>> the possibility of alternative explanations for the effects that they
are seeing. Popper claimed the any real scientific explanation had to be >>>> falsifiable.
2000 years ago, the Romans built bridges using empirical procedures
without theories.
The scientific method was developed after their civilisation had fallen
apart. It's a scheme that lets you avoid a lot of false starts. You need
to learn about it.
Everything that seems apparently right to you testifies
to an arthritic astronautica with farts that colonizes nothing.
Modern astronautics is very much about finding out more about the more
convenient parts of the solar system. Colonising them is strictly
science fiction - we don't know enough about the possible destinations
to make any even faintly realistic plans to colonise any of them.
The PNN was built with empirical physical procedures, just like the
Roman bridges of 2000 years ago, which are still in use while modern
ones often don't even last 200 years.
The Romans didn't know enough to risk making their bridges as cheaply as
they could have done.
The testing of your imagined reactionless parodies empirical physical
procedures. You leave out any sort of control of whether the effects you
are seeing might come from any effects other than the ones you are
looking for.
You use Popper to escape from any experiment that could disprove you.
I'm not in a position to repeat your experiments, let alone set up
variants which might provide useful information - which would take even
more money and time.
If your experiments had been rather better designed, there are people
like me who might have been motivated to get together to refine them,
but the nonsense you are peddling pretty much rules out any such effort.
I'm not fond of Popper's theory of science - Polyani comes closer to the
mark - but Popper does emphasise one aspect of science which is
important here, and you clearly haven't grasped.
The fact that you speaks out against the PNN and fails my PNN tests is because you does
not want your assumptions to be disproved.
You hates simple experimental evidence and wants
it to be complicated (the usual costly vacuum chamber, completely useless for PNN thrust) just
because in the complication he finds elements to say that my PNN tests are fake.
No one has been able to explain these basic PNN tests on a scale (PNN prototypes with batteries and remote control),
and so to defend yourselves you use tricks like forgers. Or more simply, you run away or are deaf.
In fact, you yourself does not even talk about it.
I repeat what has already been said and has received no response.
PNN once with upward thrust http://www.asps.it/spintapnnalto.pdf
And then with downward thrust when the prototype is rotated 180
degrees http://www.asps.it/spintapnnbasso.pdf
And why doesn't he talk about it? Because it shows how, by running away, he sticks to generic criticism.
These are tests that can be translated into English.
To anyone who makes a criticism due to thermal effects or wind or ghosts favorable to PNN
(upward thrust and downward thrust with the prototype rotated 180 degrees), I suggest putting a small battery-powered heater on the scale at 30 amperes, turning it on and off (for about 2 minutes) with a remote,
and seeing if the heater behaves like the F432BA prototype in upward thrust and downward thrust. :-)
I repeat that, like others, you don't want to see the
PNN tests that prove you wrong.
http://www.asps.it/spintapnnalto.pdf
http://www.asps.it/spintapnnbasso.pdf
I repeat, you do not want to see what disproves you because you don't want
to change your paradigm and understand that with rockets you will never colonize anything.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 19:03:51 |
| Calls: | 742 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| D/L today: |
5 files (8,203K bytes) |
| Messages: | 184,913 |
| Posted today: | 1 |
