| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 23 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 52:02:46 |
| Calls: | 583 |
| Files: | 1,139 |
| Messages: | 111,529 |
Envy is a nasty beast; it makes you jealous and clouds your mind.
On Aug 19, 2025, Von Ottone wrote
(in article<54n8ak9iq1pa8cnl33lngo12c2qegdaci8@4ax.com>):
Envy is a nasty beast; it makes you jealous and clouds your mind.
You still canrCOt lift one kilo one meter for one minute.
Note that, according to your own rCyfiguresrCO, if you lifted a working fluid
(water, for instance) and then let it fall past a turbine, the power. generated would exceed the power required to lift the working fluid. ThatrCOs
a perpetual motion machine of the second type. Which is impossible. Your machine simply cannot work, and never will. YourCOre simply a bunch of con artists trying on a scam.
On Aug 19, 2025, Von Ottone wrote
(in article<54n8ak9iq1pa8cnl33lngo12c2qegdaci8@4ax.com>):
Envy is a nasty beast; it makes you jealous and clouds your mind.
You still canAt lift one kilo one meter for one minute.
Note that, according to your own afiguresA, if you lifted a working fluid >(water, for instance) and then let it fall past a turbine, the power. >generated would exceed the power required to lift the working fluid. ThatAs >a perpetual motion machine of the second type. Which is impossible. Your >machine simply cannot work, and never will. YouAre simply a bunch of con >artists trying on a scam.
On Aug 19, 2025, Von Ottone wrote
(in article<54n8ak9iq1pa8cnl33lngo12c2qegdaci8@4ax.com>):
Envy is a nasty beast; it makes you jealous and clouds your mind.
You still canAt lift one kilo one meter for one minute.
Note that, according to your own afiguresA, if you lifted a working fluid >(water, for instance) and then let it fall past a turbine, the power. >generated would exceed the power required to lift the working fluid. ThatAs >a perpetual motion machine of the second type. Which is impossible. Your >machine simply cannot work, and never will. YouAre simply a bunch of con >artists trying on a scam.
On Aug 19, 2025, Von Ottone wrote
(in article<54n8ak9iq1pa8cnl33lngo12c2qegdaci8@4ax.com>):
Envy is a nasty beast; it makes you jealous and clouds your mind.
You still canrCOt lift one kilo one meter for one minute.
Note that, according to your own rCyfiguresrCO, if you lifted a working fluid >(water, for instance) and then let it fall past a turbine, the power. >generated would exceed the power required to lift the working fluid. ThatrCOs >a perpetual motion machine of the second type. Which is impossible. Your >machine simply cannot work, and never will. YourCOre simply a bunch of con >artists trying on a scam.
In article <0001HW.2E54AA9A0031F5CB70000253B38F@news.supernews.com>,
WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:
On Aug 19, 2025, Von Ottone wrote
(in article<54n8ak9iq1pa8cnl33lngo12c2qegdaci8@4ax.com>):
Envy is a nasty beast; it makes you jealous and clouds your mind.
You still canrCOt lift one kilo one meter for one minute.
Note that, according to your own rCyfiguresrCO, if you lifted a working fluid
(water, for instance) and then let it fall past a turbine, the power. >>generated would exceed the power required to lift the working fluid. ThatrCOs
a perpetual motion machine of the second type. Which is impossible. Your >>machine simply cannot work, and never will. YourCOre simply a bunch of con >>artists trying on a scam.
Disclaimer: I don't think this device works at all but if it did. I am >sufficiently confident in the conservation laws that my first question
on seeing it work (after checking for invisible fishing line or cgi)
would be to wonder from what source the motive energy is being drawn.
(It's never tachyons. It would be cool if it was tachyons, except
for the whole "universes with tachyons may not be stable" deal)
In article <0001HW.2E54AA9A0031F5CB70000253B38F@news.supernews.com>,
WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:
On Aug 19, 2025, Von Ottone wrote
(in article<54n8ak9iq1pa8cnl33lngo12c2qegdaci8@4ax.com>):
Envy is a nasty beast; it makes you jealous and clouds your mind.
You still canrCOt lift one kilo one meter for one minute.
Note that, according to your own rCyfiguresrCO, if you lifted a working fluid
(water, for instance) and then let it fall past a turbine, the power. >>generated would exceed the power required to lift the working fluid. ThatrCOs
a perpetual motion machine of the second type. Which is impossible. Your >>machine simply cannot work, and never will. YourCOre simply a bunch of con >>artists trying on a scam.
Disclaimer: I don't think this device works at all but if it did. I am >sufficiently confident in the conservation laws that my first question
on seeing it work (after checking for invisible fishing line or cgi)
would be to wonder from what source the motive energy is being drawn.
(It's never tachyons. It would be cool if it was tachyons, except
for the whole "universes with tachyons may not be stable" deal)
ERROR "unexpected byte sequence starting at index 287: '\xE2'" while decoding:
In article <0001HW.2E54AA9A0031F5CB70000253B38F@news.supernews.com>,
WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:
On Aug 19, 2025, Von Ottone wrote
(in article<54n8ak9iq1pa8cnl33lngo12c2qegdaci8@4ax.com>):
Envy is a nasty beast; it makes you jealous and clouds your mind.
You still can|o-C-Ot lift one kilo one meter for one minute.
Note that, according to your own |o-C-yfigures|o-C-O, if you lifted a working fluid
(water, for instance) and then let it fall past a turbine, the power. >generated would exceed the power required to lift the working fluid. That|o-C-Os
a perpetual motion machine of the second type. Which is impossible. Your >machine simply cannot work, and never will. You|o-C-Ore simply a bunch of con
artists trying on a scam.
Disclaimer: I don't think this device works at all but if it did. I am sufficiently confident in the conservation laws
that my first question
on seeing it work (after checking for invisible fishing line or cgi)
would be to wonder from what source the motive energy is being drawn.
(It's never tachyons. It would be cool if it was tachyons, except
for the whole "universes with tachyons may not be stable" deal)
WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> posted:
On Aug 19, 2025, Von Ottone wrote
(in article<54n8ak9iq1pa8cnl33lngo12c2qegdaci8@4ax.com>):
Envy is a nasty beast; it makes you jealous and clouds your mind.
You still canrCOt lift one kilo one meter for one minute.
Note that, according to your own rCyfiguresrCO, if you lifted a working fluidImbeciles, rockets lift tons but return like this http://www.asps.it/artemisback.jpg
(water, for instance) and then let it fall past a turbine, the power. generated would exceed the power required to lift the working fluid. ThatrCOs
a perpetual motion machine of the second type. Which is impossible. Your machine simply cannot work, and never will. YourCOre simply a bunch of con artists trying on a scam.
they return in pieces and like
an iron to brake. :-) Endless laughter.
We can prove everything at the scale of the resources we have.
With Musk's money, we would already be on Mars!
You only show drool and, being incompetent,
you understand nothing about physics http://www.sagredo.eu/varie/terzopr-em.pdf
On Aug 19, 2025, E.Laureti wrote
(in article <1081trc$3i1bv$1@dont-email.me>):
WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> posted:
On Aug 19, 2025, Von Ottone wroteImbeciles, rockets lift tons but return like this
(in article<54n8ak9iq1pa8cnl33lngo12c2qegdaci8@4ax.com>):
Envy is a nasty beast; it makes you jealous and clouds your mind.
You still canAt lift one kilo one meter for one minute.
Note that, according to your own afiguresA, if you lifted a working
fluid
(water, for instance) and then let it fall past a turbine, the power.
generated would exceed the power required to lift the working fluid.
ThatAs
a perpetual motion machine of the second type. Which is impossible. Your >> > machine simply cannot work, and never will. YouAre simply a bunch of con >> > artists trying on a scam.
http://www.asps.it/artemisback.jpg
they return in pieces and like
an iron to brake. :-) Endless laughter.
We can prove everything at the scale of the resources we have.
With Musk's money, we would already be on Mars!
You only show drool and, being incompetent,
you understand nothing about physics
http://www.sagredo.eu/varie/terzopr-em.pdf
you havenAt thought through the implications of your own adeviceA. if
it works, it can be used to set up a perpetual motion machine, as the power >generated by running a working fluid (water, air, powdered coal dust, >powdered rock, iron fillings, whatever) past a turbine would be more than the >power the adeviceA uses to lift the working fluid. itAs right in your >afiguresA.
And you _still_ canAt lift onr kilo one meter for one minute, and never >will. thatAs why you have so much time to waste yammering on USENET instead >of building your adeviceA.
In article<0001HW.2E54AA9A0031F5CB70000253B38F@news.supernews.com>,
WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:
On Aug 19, 2025, Von Ottone wrote
(in article<54n8ak9iq1pa8cnl33lngo12c2qegdaci8@4ax.com>):
Envy is a nasty beast; it makes you jealous and clouds your mind.
You still canrCOt lift one kilo one meter for one minute.
Note that, according to your own rCyfiguresrCO, if you lifted a working fluid
(water, for instance) and then let it fall past a turbine, the power. generated would exceed the power required to lift the working fluid. ThatrCOs
a perpetual motion machine of the second type. Which is impossible. Your machine simply cannot work, and never will. YourCOre simply a bunch of con artists trying on a scam.
Disclaimer: I don't think this device works at all but if it did. I am sufficiently confident in the conservation laws that my first question
on seeing it work (after checking for invisible fishing line or cgi)
would be to wonder from what source the motive energy is being drawn.
(It's never tachyons. It would be cool if it was tachyons, except
for the whole "universes with tachyons may not be stable" deal)
jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) posted:
ERROR "unexpected byte sequence starting at index 287: '\xE2'" while decoding:
In article <0001HW.2E54AA9A0031F5CB70000253B38F@news.supernews.com>,
WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:
On Aug 19, 2025, Von Ottone wrote
(in article<54n8ak9iq1pa8cnl33lngo12c2qegdaci8@4ax.com>):
Envy is a nasty beast; it makes you jealous and clouds your mind.
You still canr??t lift one kilo one meter for one minute.
Note that, according to your own r??figuresr??, if you lifted a working fluid
(water, for instance) and then let it fall past a turbine, the power.
generated would exceed the power required to lift the working fluid. Thatr??s
a perpetual motion machine of the second type. Which is impossible. Your >> >machine simply cannot work, and never will. Your??re simply a bunch of con >> >artists trying on a scam.
Disclaimer: I don't think this device works at all but if it did. I am
sufficiently confident in the conservation laws
usi il traduttore .
Il dettaglio essenziale che non nota * che le leggi di conservazione newoniane >sono state elaborate senza conoscere la forza di Lorentz su cui si basa la PNN.
E poi dimentica che la fisica ha origini sperimentali
e tutto si deve piegare SEMPRE all'esperimento.
Ho sempre detto che le leggi di conservazione di Newton vanno poi >interpretate con l'inserimento dell'elettrodinamica che Newton neppure conosceva.
E' un compito che lascio ad altri
Mi occupo di fare BENE solo gli esperimenti e di mostrarli agli increduli. >L'uso ossessivo della meccanica newtoniana per la propulsione in astronautica >ci preclude ogni colonizzazione dello spazio come la reata finora dimostra brutalmente.
"use the translator. The essential detail that you do not notice is that Newtonian conservation
laws were developed without knowing the Lorentz force on which PNN is based.
And then you forget that physics has experimental origins and that >everything must always bend to the experiment.
I have always said that Newton's conservation laws must then be interpreted
with the inclusion of electrodynamics, which Newton did not even know.
It is a task
that I leave to others. I focus on doing experiments WELL and showing them to the skeptics.
The obsessive use of Newtonian mechanics for propulsion in astronautics precludes
any colonization of space, as reality has so far brutally demonstrated.
that my first question
on seeing it work (after checking for invisible fishing line or cgi)
would be to wonder from what source the motive energy is being drawn.
(It's never tachyons. It would be cool if it was tachyons, except
for the whole "universes with tachyons may not be stable" deal)
On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 14:51:18 -0400, WolfFan<akwolffan@zoho.com>
wrote:
On Aug 19, 2025, E.Laureti wrote
(in article <1081trc$3i1bv$1@dont-email.me>):
WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> posted:
On Aug 19, 2025, Von Ottone wrote
(in article<54n8ak9iq1pa8cnl33lngo12c2qegdaci8@4ax.com>):
Envy is a nasty beast; it makes you jealous and clouds your mind.
You still canrCOt lift one kilo one meter for one minute.
Note that, according to your own rCyfiguresrCO, if you lifted a working fluidImbeciles, rockets lift tons but return like this http://www.asps.it/artemisback.jpg
(water, for instance) and then let it fall past a turbine, the power. generated would exceed the power required to lift the working fluid. ThatrCOs
a perpetual motion machine of the second type. Which is impossible. Your
machine simply cannot work, and never will. YourCOre simply a bunch of con
artists trying on a scam.
they return in pieces and like
an iron to brake. :-) Endless laughter.
We can prove everything at the scale of the resources we have.
With Musk's money, we would already be on Mars!
You only show drool and, being incompetent,
you understand nothing about physics http://www.sagredo.eu/varie/terzopr-em.pdf
you havenrCOt thought through the implications of your own rCydevicerCO. if it works, it can be used to set up a perpetual motion machine, as the power generated by running a working fluid (water, air, powdered coal dust, powdered rock, iron fillings, whatever) past a turbine would be more than the
power the rCydevicerCO uses to lift the working fluid. itrCOs right in your rCyfiguresrCO.
And you _still_ canrCOt lift onr kilo one meter for one minute, and never will. thatrCOs why you have so much time to waste yammering on USENET instead
of building your rCydevicerCO.
You forget that perpetual motion machines don't exist and cannot
exist.
On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 14:41:27 GMT, E.Laureti <user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) posted:
ERROR "unexpected byte sequence starting at index 287: '\xE2'" while decoding:
In article<0001HW.2E54AA9A0031F5CB70000253B38F@news.supernews.com>, WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:
On Aug 19, 2025, Von Ottone wrote
(in article<54n8ak9iq1pa8cnl33lngo12c2qegdaci8@4ax.com>):
Envy is a nasty beast; it makes you jealous and clouds your mind.
You still can|o??t lift one kilo one meter for one minute.
Note that, according to your own |o??figures|o??, if you lifted a working
fluid
(water, for instance) and then let it fall past a turbine, the power. generated would exceed the power required to lift the working fluid. That|o??s
a perpetual motion machine of the second type. Which is impossible. Your
machine simply cannot work, and never will. You|o??re simply a bunch of con
artists trying on a scam.
Disclaimer: I don't think this device works at all but if it did. I am sufficiently confident in the conservation laws
usi il traduttore .
Il dettaglio essenziale che non nota |? che le leggi di conservazione newoniane
sono state elaborate senza conoscere la forza di Lorentz su cui si basa la PNN.
E poi dimentica che la fisica ha origini sperimentali
e tutto si deve piegare SEMPRE all'esperimento.
Ho sempre detto che le leggi di conservazione di Newton vanno poi interpretate con l'inserimento dell'elettrodinamica che Newton neppure conosceva.
E' un compito che lascio ad altri
Mi occupo di fare BENE solo gli esperimenti e di mostrarli agli increduli. L'uso ossessivo della meccanica newtoniana per la propulsione in astronautica
ci preclude ogni colonizzazione dello spazio come la reat|a finora dimostra brutalmente.
That is,
"use the translator. The essential detail that you do not notice is that Newtonian conservation
laws were developed without knowing the Lorentz force on which PNN is based.
No, the Lorentz force is quite consistent with Newtonian dynamics. And Newtonian conservation laws were derived from first principles by Emmy Noether some time after special relativity was developed.
And then you forget that physics has experimental origins and that everything must always bend to the experiment.
But experiment must be consistent with previously verified theory.
I have always said that Newton's conservation laws must then be interpreted with the inclusion of electrodynamics, which Newton did not even know.
Which led to relativity, not perpetual motion machines or whatever
you're trying to do.
It is a task
that I leave to others. I focus on doing experiments WELL and showing them to the skeptics.
The obsessive use of Newtonian mechanics for propulsion in astronautics precludes
any colonization of space, as reality has so far brutally demonstrated.
So because you want to travel through space, Newtonian mechanics
*must* be wrong?
that my first question
on seeing it work (after checking for invisible fishing line or cgi) would be to wonder from what source the motive energy is being drawn.
(It's never tachyons. It would be cool if it was tachyons, except
for the whole "universes with tachyons may not be stable" deal)
On Aug 19, 2025, E.Laureti wrote
(in article <1081trc$3i1bv$1@dont-email.me>):
WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> posted:
On Aug 19, 2025, Von Ottone wrote
(in article<54n8ak9iq1pa8cnl33lngo12c2qegdaci8@4ax.com>):
Envy is a nasty beast; it makes you jealous and clouds your mind.
You still canrCOt lift one kilo one meter for one minute.
Note that, according to your own rCyfiguresrCO, if you lifted a working fluidImbeciles, rockets lift tons but return like this http://www.asps.it/artemisback.jpg
(water, for instance) and then let it fall past a turbine, the power. generated would exceed the power required to lift the working fluid. ThatrCOs
a perpetual motion machine of the second type. Which is impossible. Your machine simply cannot work, and never will. YourCOre simply a bunch of con
artists trying on a scam.
they return in pieces and like
an iron to brake. :-) Endless laughter.
We can prove everything at the scale of the resources we have.
With Musk's money, we would already be on Mars!
You only show drool and, being incompetent,
you understand nothing about physics http://www.sagredo.eu/varie/terzopr-em.pdf
you havenrCOt thought through the implications of your own rCydevicerCO. if it works, it can be used to set up a perpetual motion machine, as the power generated by running a working fluid (water, air, powdered coal dust, powdered rock, iron fillings, whatever) past a turbine would be more than the
power the rCydevicerCO uses to lift the working fluid. itrCOs right in your rCyfiguresrCO.
And you _still_ canrCOt lift onr kilo one meter for one minute, and never will. thatrCOs why you have so much time to waste yammering on USENET instead
of building your rCydevicerCO.
WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> posted:
On Aug 19, 2025, E.Laureti wrote
(in article <1081trc$3i1bv$1@dont-email.me>):
WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> posted:
On Aug 19, 2025, Von Ottone wrote
(in article<54n8ak9iq1pa8cnl33lngo12c2qegdaci8@4ax.com>):
Envy is a nasty beast; it makes you jealous and clouds your mind.
You still canrCOt lift one kilo one meter for one minute.
Note that, according to your own rCyfiguresrCO, if you lifted a working fluidImbeciles, rockets lift tons but return like this http://www.asps.it/artemisback.jpg
(water, for instance) and then let it fall past a turbine, the power. generated would exceed the power required to lift the working fluid. ThatrCOs
a perpetual motion machine of the second type. Which is impossible. Your
machine simply cannot work, and never will. YourCOre simply a bunch of con
artists trying on a scam.
they return in pieces and like
an iron to brake. :-) Endless laughter.
We can prove everything at the scale of the resources we have.
With Musk's money, we would already be on Mars!
You only show drool and, being incompetent,
you understand nothing about physics http://www.sagredo.eu/varie/terzopr-em.pdf
you havenrCOt thought through the implications of your own rCydevicerCO. if
it works, it can be used to set up a perpetual motion machine, as the power
generated by running a working fluid (water, air, powdered coal dust, powdered rock, iron fillings, whatever) past a turbine would be more than the
power the rCydevicerCO uses to lift the working fluid. itrCOs right in your
rCyfiguresrCO.
And you _still_ canrCOt lift onr kilo one meter for one minute, and never will. thatrCOs why you have so much time to waste yammering on USENET instead
of building your rCydevicerCO.
People who do not understand PNN have mental fixations, the funniest of which
is perpetual motion.:-)
I observe that only by feeding the Aliena prototype (which is not for sale in
http://www.asps.it/vol45.htm)
does its thrust increase over time as shown in this graph http://www.asps.it/trustgra1.jpg
and it can reach even half a kilogram if fed for more than 1 hour with
a coaxial cable through which electric energy passes in UHF.
But there is a risk of failures in the power supply devices since
they are basically toys made for antenna technicians.
And then, when the thrust exceeds the weight,
I could disconnect the coaxial cable but would lose the prototype.
The victory (autonomous flight) is to lose the prototype beyond any
Earth orbit. I have no control systems to stop it and bring it
back to me if I release it from control like a kite.
Think what you want.
On Aug 19, 2025, Von Ottone wrote
(in article<a6j9ak15jg3q6mep54glpjq975ug75ojj3@4ax.com>):
On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 14:51:18 -0400, WolfFan<akwolffan@zoho.com>
wrote:
On Aug 19, 2025, E.Laureti wrote
(in article <1081trc$3i1bv$1@dont-email.me>):
WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> posted:
On Aug 19, 2025, Von Ottone wroteImbeciles, rockets lift tons but return like this
(in article<54n8ak9iq1pa8cnl33lngo12c2qegdaci8@4ax.com>):
Envy is a nasty beast; it makes you jealous and clouds your mind.
You still canAt lift one kilo one meter for one minute.
Note that, according to your own afiguresA, if you lifted a working
fluid
(water, for instance) and then let it fall past a turbine, the power. >> > > > generated would exceed the power required to lift the working fluid. >> > > > ThatAs
a perpetual motion machine of the second type. Which is impossible. Your
machine simply cannot work, and never will. YouAre simply a bunch of con
artists trying on a scam.
http://www.asps.it/artemisback.jpg
they return in pieces and like
an iron to brake. :-) Endless laughter.
We can prove everything at the scale of the resources we have.
With Musk's money, we would already be on Mars!
You only show drool and, being incompetent,
you understand nothing about physics
http://www.sagredo.eu/varie/terzopr-em.pdf
you havenAt thought through the implications of your own adeviceA. if
it works, it can be used to set up a perpetual motion machine, as the power
generated by running a working fluid (water, air, powdered coal dust,
powdered rock, iron fillings, whatever) past a turbine would be more than >> > the
power the adeviceA uses to lift the working fluid. itAs right in your
afiguresA.
And you _still_ canAt lift onr kilo one meter for one minute, and never
will. thatAs why you have so much time to waste yammering on USENET
instead
of building your adeviceA.
You forget that perpetual motion machines don't exist and cannot
exist.
which is one reason why your adeviceA will never work. your on
afiguresA show that if it worked it could be used as the core of a
perpetual motion machine of the second type. which is impossible. which means >that your own figures prove that your adeviceA will never, ever, work.
On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 14:41:27 GMT, E.Laureti ><user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) posted:
ERROR "unexpected byte sequence starting at index 287: '\xE2'" while decoding:
In article <0001HW.2E54AA9A0031F5CB70000253B38F@news.supernews.com>,
WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:
On Aug 19, 2025, Von Ottone wrote
(in article<54n8ak9iq1pa8cnl33lngo12c2qegdaci8@4ax.com>):
Envy is a nasty beast; it makes you jealous and clouds your mind.
You still canr??t lift one kilo one meter for one minute.
Note that, according to your own r??figuresr??, if you lifted a working fluid
(water, for instance) and then let it fall past a turbine, the power.
generated would exceed the power required to lift the working fluid. Thatr??s
a perpetual motion machine of the second type. Which is impossible. Your >>> >machine simply cannot work, and never will. Your??re simply a bunch of con
artists trying on a scam.
Disclaimer: I don't think this device works at all but if it did. I am
sufficiently confident in the conservation laws
usi il traduttore .
Il dettaglio essenziale che non nota * che le leggi di conservazione newoniane
sono state elaborate senza conoscere la forza di Lorentz su cui si basa la PNN.
E poi dimentica che la fisica ha origini sperimentali
e tutto si deve piegare SEMPRE all'esperimento.
Ho sempre detto che le leggi di conservazione di Newton vanno poi >>interpretate con l'inserimento dell'elettrodinamica che Newton neppure conosceva.
E' un compito che lascio ad altri
Mi occupo di fare BENE solo gli esperimenti e di mostrarli agli increduli. >>L'uso ossessivo della meccanica newtoniana per la propulsione in astronautica
ci preclude ogni colonizzazione dello spazio come la reata finora dimostra brutalmente.
That is,
"use the translator. The essential detail that you do not notice is that Newtonian conservation
laws were developed without knowing the Lorentz force on which PNN is based.
No, the Lorentz force is quite consistent with Newtonian dynamics. And >Newtonian conservation laws were derived from first principles by Emmy >Noether some time after special relativity was developed.
And then you forget that physics has experimental origins and that >>everything must always bend to the experiment.
But experiment must be consistent with previously verified theory.
I have always said that Newton's conservation laws must then be interpreted >>with the inclusion of electrodynamics, which Newton did not even know.
Which led to relativity, not perpetual motion machines or whatever
you're trying to do.
It is a task
that I leave to others. I focus on doing experiments WELL and showing them to the skeptics.
The obsessive use of Newtonian mechanics for propulsion in astronautics precludes
any colonization of space, as reality has so far brutally demonstrated.
So because you want to travel through space, Newtonian mechanics
*must* be wrong?
that my first question
on seeing it work (after checking for invisible fishing line or cgi)
would be to wonder from what source the motive energy is being drawn.
(It's never tachyons. It would be cool if it was tachyons, except
for the whole "universes with tachyons may not be stable" deal)
On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 12:22:01 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 14:41:27 GMT, E.Laureti ><user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) posted:
ERROR "unexpected byte sequence starting at index 287: '\xE2'" while decoding:
In article <0001HW.2E54AA9A0031F5CB70000253B38F@news.supernews.com>,
WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:
On Aug 19, 2025, Von Ottone wrote
(in article<54n8ak9iq1pa8cnl33lngo12c2qegdaci8@4ax.com>):
Envy is a nasty beast; it makes you jealous and clouds your mind.
You still canr??t lift one kilo one meter for one minute.
Note that, according to your own r??figuresr??, if you lifted a working fluid
(water, for instance) and then let it fall past a turbine, the power. >>> >generated would exceed the power required to lift the working fluid. Thatr??s
a perpetual motion machine of the second type. Which is impossible. Your
machine simply cannot work, and never will. Your??re simply a bunch of con
artists trying on a scam.
Disclaimer: I don't think this device works at all but if it did. I am >>> sufficiently confident in the conservation laws
usi il traduttore .
Il dettaglio essenziale che non nota * che le leggi di conservazione newoniane
sono state elaborate senza conoscere la forza di Lorentz su cui si basa la PNN.
E poi dimentica che la fisica ha origini sperimentali
e tutto si deve piegare SEMPRE all'esperimento.
Ho sempre detto che le leggi di conservazione di Newton vanno poi >>interpretate con l'inserimento dell'elettrodinamica che Newton neppure conosceva.
E' un compito che lascio ad altri
Mi occupo di fare BENE solo gli esperimenti e di mostrarli agli increduli. >>L'uso ossessivo della meccanica newtoniana per la propulsione in astronautica
ci preclude ogni colonizzazione dello spazio come la reata finora dimostra brutalmente.
That is,
"use the translator. The essential detail that you do not notice is that Newtonian conservation
laws were developed without knowing the Lorentz force on which PNN is based.
No, the Lorentz force is quite consistent with Newtonian dynamics. And >Newtonian conservation laws were derived from first principles by Emmy >Noether some time after special relativity was developed.
And then you forget that physics has experimental origins and that >>everything must always bend to the experiment.
But experiment must be consistent with previously verified theory.
I have always said that Newton's conservation laws must then be interpreted
with the inclusion of electrodynamics, which Newton did not even know.
Which led to relativity, not perpetual motion machines or whatever
you're trying to do.
It is a task
that I leave to others. I focus on doing experiments WELL and showing them to the skeptics.
The obsessive use of Newtonian mechanics for propulsion in astronautics precludes
any colonization of space, as reality has so far brutally demonstrated.
So because you want to travel through space, Newtonian mechanics
*must* be wrong?
that my first question
on seeing it work (after checking for invisible fishing line or cgi)
would be to wonder from what source the motive energy is being drawn. >>>
(It's never tachyons. It would be cool if it was tachyons, except
for the whole "universes with tachyons may not be stable" deal)
Bhuahahahahahahaha
You are so fun!
You think that you know more than Laureti about PNN...
Von Ottone <pnn@pnn.org> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 12:22:01 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 14:41:27 GMT, E.Laureti
<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) posted:
ERROR "unexpected byte sequence starting at index 287: '\xE2'" while decoding:
In article <0001HW.2E54AA9A0031F5CB70000253B38F@news.supernews.com>,
WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:
On Aug 19, 2025, Von Ottone wrote
(in article<54n8ak9iq1pa8cnl33lngo12c2qegdaci8@4ax.com>):
Envy is a nasty beast; it makes you jealous and clouds your mind.
You still canr??t lift one kilo one meter for one minute.
Note that, according to your own r??figuresr??, if you lifted a working fluid
(water, for instance) and then let it fall past a turbine, the power. >> >>> >generated would exceed the power required to lift the working fluid. Thatr??s
a perpetual motion machine of the second type. Which is impossible. Your
machine simply cannot work, and never will. Your??re simply a bunch of con
artists trying on a scam.
Disclaimer: I don't think this device works at all but if it did. I am >> >>> sufficiently confident in the conservation laws
usi il traduttore .
Il dettaglio essenziale che non nota * che le leggi di conservazione newoniane
sono state elaborate senza conoscere la forza di Lorentz su cui si basa la PNN.
E poi dimentica che la fisica ha origini sperimentali
e tutto si deve piegare SEMPRE all'esperimento.
Ho sempre detto che le leggi di conservazione di Newton vanno poi
interpretate con l'inserimento dell'elettrodinamica che Newton neppure conosceva.
E' un compito che lascio ad altri
Mi occupo di fare BENE solo gli esperimenti e di mostrarli agli increduli. >> >>L'uso ossessivo della meccanica newtoniana per la propulsione in astronautica
ci preclude ogni colonizzazione dello spazio come la reata finora dimostra brutalmente.
That is,
"use the translator. The essential detail that you do not notice is that Newtonian conservation
laws were developed without knowing the Lorentz force on which PNN is based.
No, the Lorentz force is quite consistent with Newtonian dynamics. And
Newtonian conservation laws were derived from first principles by Emmy
Noether some time after special relativity was developed.
And then you forget that physics has experimental origins and that
everything must always bend to the experiment.
But experiment must be consistent with previously verified theory.
I have always said that Newton's conservation laws must then be interpreted
with the inclusion of electrodynamics, which Newton did not even know.
Which led to relativity, not perpetual motion machines or whatever
you're trying to do.
It is a task
that I leave to others. I focus on doing experiments WELL and showing them to the skeptics.
The obsessive use of Newtonian mechanics for propulsion in astronautics precludes
any colonization of space, as reality has so far brutally demonstrated.
So because you want to travel through space, Newtonian mechanics
*must* be wrong?
that my first question
on seeing it work (after checking for invisible fishing line or cgi)
would be to wonder from what source the motive energy is being drawn. >> >>>
(It's never tachyons. It would be cool if it was tachyons, except
for the whole "universes with tachyons may not be stable" deal)
Bhuahahahahahahaha
You are so fun!
You think that you know more than Laureti about PNN...
It seems everyone here knows enough about Laureti's claims that they
don't believe him. That's more than Laureti knows about it.
Technical flaws were pointed out in Laureti's theory and practice. He
was unable to respond coherently. Meanwhile he thrashes about erraticly, >wondering why his machine doesn't work.
The "invention" has always been ridiculed on Usenet, and ignored in RL. >Always will be.
On Aug 19, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrote
(in article<4ij9aklhcdektihdnr6k6ou9gpg3n1rm5b@4ax.com>):
So because you want to travel through space, Newtonian mechanics
*must* be wrong?
thatrCOs it, right there.
Von Ottone <pnn@pnn.org> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 12:22:01 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 14:41:27 GMT, E.Laureti ><user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) posted:
ERROR "unexpected byte sequence starting at index 287: '\xE2'" while decoding:
In article <0001HW.2E54AA9A0031F5CB70000253B38F@news.supernews.com>, >>> WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:
On Aug 19, 2025, Von Ottone wrote
(in article<54n8ak9iq1pa8cnl33lngo12c2qegdaci8@4ax.com>):
Envy is a nasty beast; it makes you jealous and clouds your mind. >>> >You still can|o??t lift one kilo one meter for one minute.
Note that, according to your own |o??figures|o??, if you lifted a working fluid
(water, for instance) and then let it fall past a turbine, the power. >>> >generated would exceed the power required to lift the working fluid. That|o??s
a perpetual motion machine of the second type. Which is impossible. Your
machine simply cannot work, and never will. You|o??re simply a bunch of con
artists trying on a scam.
Disclaimer: I don't think this device works at all but if it did. I am >>> sufficiently confident in the conservation laws
usi il traduttore .
Il dettaglio essenziale che non nota |? che le leggi di conservazione newoniane
sono state elaborate senza conoscere la forza di Lorentz su cui si basa la PNN.
E poi dimentica che la fisica ha origini sperimentali
e tutto si deve piegare SEMPRE all'esperimento.
Ho sempre detto che le leggi di conservazione di Newton vanno poi >>interpretate con l'inserimento dell'elettrodinamica che Newton neppure conosceva.
E' un compito che lascio ad altri
Mi occupo di fare BENE solo gli esperimenti e di mostrarli agli increduli.
L'uso ossessivo della meccanica newtoniana per la propulsione in astronautica
ci preclude ogni colonizzazione dello spazio come la reat|a finora dimostra brutalmente.
That is,
"use the translator. The essential detail that you do not notice is that Newtonian conservation
laws were developed without knowing the Lorentz force on which PNN is based.
No, the Lorentz force is quite consistent with Newtonian dynamics. And >Newtonian conservation laws were derived from first principles by Emmy >Noether some time after special relativity was developed.
And then you forget that physics has experimental origins and that >>everything must always bend to the experiment.
But experiment must be consistent with previously verified theory.
I have always said that Newton's conservation laws must then be interpreted
with the inclusion of electrodynamics, which Newton did not even know.
Which led to relativity, not perpetual motion machines or whatever
you're trying to do.
It is a task
that I leave to others. I focus on doing experiments WELL and showing them to the skeptics.
The obsessive use of Newtonian mechanics for propulsion in astronautics precludes
any colonization of space, as reality has so far brutally demonstrated.
So because you want to travel through space, Newtonian mechanics
*must* be wrong?
that my first question
on seeing it work (after checking for invisible fishing line or cgi) >>> would be to wonder from what source the motive energy is being drawn. >>>
(It's never tachyons. It would be cool if it was tachyons, except
for the whole "universes with tachyons may not be stable" deal)
Bhuahahahahahahaha
You are so fun!
You think that you know more than Laureti about PNN...
It seems everyone here knows enough about Laureti's claims that they
don't believe him. That's more than Laureti knows about it.
Technical flaws were pointed out in Laureti's theory and practice. He
was unable to respond coherently. Meanwhile he thrashes about erraticly, wondering why his machine doesn't work.
The "invention" has always been ridiculed on Usenet, and ignored in RL. Always will be.
Rufus Ruffian <ru@ru.ru> posted:
Von Ottone <pnn@pnn.org> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 12:22:01 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 14:41:27 GMT, E.Laureti ><user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) posted:
ERROR "unexpected byte sequence starting at index 287: '\xE2'" while decoding:
In article <0001HW.2E54AA9A0031F5CB70000253B38F@news.supernews.com>, >>> WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:
On Aug 19, 2025, Von Ottone wrote
(in article<54n8ak9iq1pa8cnl33lngo12c2qegdaci8@4ax.com>):
Envy is a nasty beast; it makes you jealous and clouds your mind. >>> >You still can|o??t lift one kilo one meter for one minute.
Note that, according to your own |o??figures|o??, if you lifted a working fluid
(water, for instance) and then let it fall past a turbine, the power.
generated would exceed the power required to lift the working fluid. That|o??s
a perpetual motion machine of the second type. Which is impossible. Your
machine simply cannot work, and never will. You|o??re simply a bunch of con
artists trying on a scam.
Disclaimer: I don't think this device works at all but if it did. I am
sufficiently confident in the conservation laws
usi il traduttore .
Il dettaglio essenziale che non nota |? che le leggi di conservazione newoniane
sono state elaborate senza conoscere la forza di Lorentz su cui si basa la PNN.
E poi dimentica che la fisica ha origini sperimentali
e tutto si deve piegare SEMPRE all'esperimento.
Ho sempre detto che le leggi di conservazione di Newton vanno poi >>interpretate con l'inserimento dell'elettrodinamica che Newton neppure conosceva.
E' un compito che lascio ad altri
Mi occupo di fare BENE solo gli esperimenti e di mostrarli agli increduli.
L'uso ossessivo della meccanica newtoniana per la propulsione in astronautica
ci preclude ogni colonizzazione dello spazio come la reat|a finora dimostra brutalmente.
That is,
"use the translator. The essential detail that you do not notice is that Newtonian conservation
laws were developed without knowing the Lorentz force on which PNN is based.
No, the Lorentz force is quite consistent with Newtonian dynamics. And >Newtonian conservation laws were derived from first principles by Emmy >Noether some time after special relativity was developed.
And then you forget that physics has experimental origins and that >>everything must always bend to the experiment.
But experiment must be consistent with previously verified theory.
I have always said that Newton's conservation laws must then be interpreted
with the inclusion of electrodynamics, which Newton did not even know.
Which led to relativity, not perpetual motion machines or whatever >you're trying to do.
It is a task
that I leave to others. I focus on doing experiments WELL and showing them to the skeptics.
The obsessive use of Newtonian mechanics for propulsion in astronautics precludes
any colonization of space, as reality has so far brutally demonstrated.
So because you want to travel through space, Newtonian mechanics
*must* be wrong?
that my first question
on seeing it work (after checking for invisible fishing line or cgi) >>> would be to wonder from what source the motive energy is being drawn.
(It's never tachyons. It would be cool if it was tachyons, except
for the whole "universes with tachyons may not be stable" deal)
Bhuahahahahahahaha
You are so fun!
You think that you know more than Laureti about PNN...
It seems everyone here knows enough about Laureti's claims that they
don't believe him. That's more than Laureti knows about it.
Technical flaws were pointed out in Laureti's theory and practice. He
was unable to respond coherently. Meanwhile he thrashes about erraticly, wondering why his machine doesn't work.
The "invention" has always been ridiculed on Usenet, and ignored in RL. Always will be.
In the meantime, they must also laugh at the Italian society that properly
filed my patent F432BA and at those from the EPO (European Patent Office)
who granted it to me. But this WO2022264177 -
ELECTROMAGNETIC PROPULSION SYSTEM FOR SPACECRAFT MOVEMENT WITHOUT
THE EMISSION OF REACTION MASS https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2022264177 they never examine, they prefer, like all envious, worthless trolls,
anonymous defamation.
You laugh and you will be destroyed by yourselves, believers in a
fake astronautics that won't even colonize the Moon.
Astronautics
led by the top of the idiots found in NASA, ESA, and Mr. Musk,
the rich donkey in physics. A genius of bluster with his comical flying
suppositories. After all, you give credit to a maxim that fully reflects your way of thinking in believing in missile astronautics:
Vulgus vult decipi,
ergo decipiatur.
Not to mention the null colonizing fruits for decades
that they show even with the billions of dollars they possess.
The motto is evangelical and says: you will recognize them by their fruits. Finally, you are not even capable of repeating the simple experiment
that is at the basis of the PNN and that you carefully avoid experimenting
http://www.asps.it/impnn4.jpg
from
https://neolegesmotus.com/2020/11/02/field-self-interaction-electromagnetic-thruster/
Rufus Ruffian <ru@ru.ru> posted:
Technical flaws were pointed out in Laureti's theory and practice. He
was unable to respond coherently. Meanwhile he thrashes about erraticly, wondering why his machine doesn't work.
The "invention" has always been ridiculed on Usenet, and ignored in RL. Always will be.
In the meantime, they must also laugh at the Italian society that properly
filed my patent F432BA and at those from the EPO (European Patent Office)
who granted it to me. But this WO2022264177 -
ELECTROMAGNETIC PROPULSION SYSTEM FOR SPACECRAFT MOVEMENT WITHOUT
THE EMISSION OF REACTION MASS https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2022264177 they never examine, they prefer, like all envious, worthless trolls,
anonymous defamation.
E.Laureti <user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Rufus Ruffian <ru@ru.ru> posted:
Technical flaws were pointed out in Laureti's theory and practice. He
was unable to respond coherently. Meanwhile he thrashes about erraticly, >> > wondering why his machine doesn't work.
The "invention" has always been ridiculed on Usenet, and ignored in RL.
Always will be.
In the meantime, they must also laugh at the Italian society that properly >> filed my patent F432BA and at those from the EPO (European Patent Office) >> who granted it to me. But this WO2022264177 -
ELECTROMAGNETIC PROPULSION SYSTEM FOR SPACECRAFT MOVEMENT WITHOUT
THE EMISSION OF REACTION MASS
https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2022264177 they >> never examine, they prefer, like all envious, worthless trolls,
anonymous defamation.
You can patent anything, no matter how Rube Goldberg. No demonstration
of functionality required. Patents don't mean anything.
You can't defend the technical deficiencies of your claims. That means
your Purely Nonsense Narrative is bunkum.
(snip enraged kookrant that's unbecoming of any scientist)
E.Laureti <user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Rufus Ruffian <ru@ru.ru> posted:
Technical flaws were pointed out in Laureti's theory and practice. He
was unable to respond coherently. Meanwhile he thrashes about erraticly, wondering why his machine doesn't work.
The "invention" has always been ridiculed on Usenet, and ignored in RL. Always will be.
In the meantime, they must also laugh at the Italian society that properly
filed my patent F432BA and at those from the EPO (European Patent Office)
who granted it to me. But this WO2022264177 -
ELECTROMAGNETIC PROPULSION SYSTEM FOR SPACECRAFT MOVEMENT WITHOUT
THE EMISSION OF REACTION MASS https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2022264177 they never examine, they prefer, like all envious, worthless trolls,
anonymous defamation.
You can patent anything, no matter how Rube Goldberg. No demonstration
of functionality required. Patents don't mean anything.
You can't defend the technical deficiencies of your claims. That means
your Purely Nonsense Narrative is bunkum.
(snip enraged kookrant that's unbecoming of any scientist)
E.Laureti <user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Rufus Ruffian <ru@ru.ru> posted:
Technical flaws were pointed out in Laureti's theory and practice. He
was unable to respond coherently. Meanwhile he thrashes about erraticly, wondering why his machine doesn't work.
The "invention" has always been ridiculed on Usenet, and ignored in RL. Always will be.
In the meantime, they must also laugh at the Italian society that properly
filed my patent F432BA and at those from the EPO (European Patent Office)
who granted it to me. But this WO2022264177 -
ELECTROMAGNETIC PROPULSION SYSTEM FOR SPACECRAFT MOVEMENT WITHOUT
THE EMISSION OF REACTION MASS https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2022264177 they never examine, they prefer, like all envious, worthless trolls,
anonymous defamation.
You can patent anything, no matter how Rube Goldberg. No demonstration
of functionality required. Patents don't mean anything.
You can't defend the technical deficiencies of your claims. That means
your Purely Nonsense Narrative is bunkum.
(snip enraged kookrant that's unbecoming of any scientist)
Von Ottone <pnn@pnn.org> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 12:22:01 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 14:41:27 GMT, E.Laureti ><user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) posted:
ERROR "unexpected byte sequence starting at index 287: '\xE2'" while decoding:
In article <0001HW.2E54AA9A0031F5CB70000253B38F@news.supernews.com>, >>> WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:
On Aug 19, 2025, Von Ottone wrote
(in article<54n8ak9iq1pa8cnl33lngo12c2qegdaci8@4ax.com>):
Envy is a nasty beast; it makes you jealous and clouds your mind. >>> >You still can|o??t lift one kilo one meter for one minute.
Note that, according to your own |o??figures|o??, if you lifted a working fluid
(water, for instance) and then let it fall past a turbine, the power. >>> >generated would exceed the power required to lift the working fluid. That|o??s
a perpetual motion machine of the second type. Which is impossible. Your
machine simply cannot work, and never will. You|o??re simply a bunch of con
artists trying on a scam.
Disclaimer: I don't think this device works at all but if it did. I am >>> sufficiently confident in the conservation laws
usi il traduttore .
Il dettaglio essenziale che non nota |? che le leggi di conservazione newoniane
sono state elaborate senza conoscere la forza di Lorentz su cui si basa la PNN.
E poi dimentica che la fisica ha origini sperimentali
e tutto si deve piegare SEMPRE all'esperimento.
Ho sempre detto che le leggi di conservazione di Newton vanno poi >>interpretate con l'inserimento dell'elettrodinamica che Newton neppure conosceva.
E' un compito che lascio ad altri
Mi occupo di fare BENE solo gli esperimenti e di mostrarli agli increduli.
L'uso ossessivo della meccanica newtoniana per la propulsione in astronautica
ci preclude ogni colonizzazione dello spazio come la reat|a finora dimostra brutalmente.
That is,
"use the translator. The essential detail that you do not notice is that Newtonian conservation
laws were developed without knowing the Lorentz force on which PNN is based.
No, the Lorentz force is quite consistent with Newtonian dynamics. And >Newtonian conservation laws were derived from first principles by Emmy >Noether some time after special relativity was developed.
And then you forget that physics has experimental origins and that >>everything must always bend to the experiment.
But experiment must be consistent with previously verified theory.
I have always said that Newton's conservation laws must then be interpreted
with the inclusion of electrodynamics, which Newton did not even know.
Which led to relativity, not perpetual motion machines or whatever
you're trying to do.
It is a task
that I leave to others. I focus on doing experiments WELL and showing them to the skeptics.
The obsessive use of Newtonian mechanics for propulsion in astronautics precludes
any colonization of space, as reality has so far brutally demonstrated.
So because you want to travel through space, Newtonian mechanics
*must* be wrong?
that my first question
on seeing it work (after checking for invisible fishing line or cgi) >>> would be to wonder from what source the motive energy is being drawn. >>>
(It's never tachyons. It would be cool if it was tachyons, except
for the whole "universes with tachyons may not be stable" deal)
Bhuahahahahahahaha
You are so fun!
You think that you know more than Laureti about PNN...
It seems everyone here knows enough about Laureti's claims that they
don't believe him. That's more than Laureti knows about it.
Technical flaws were pointed out in Laureti's theory and practice. He
was unable to respond coherently. Meanwhile he thrashes about erraticly, wondering why his machine doesn't work.
The "invention" has always been ridiculed on Usenet, and ignored in RL. Always will be.
On Aug 19, 2025, James Nicoll wrote
(in article <1081vgc$e2e$1@reader1.panix.com>):
In article<0001HW.2E54AA9A0031F5CB70000253B38F@news.supernews.com>,
WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:
On Aug 19, 2025, Von Ottone wrote
(in article<54n8ak9iq1pa8cnl33lngo12c2qegdaci8@4ax.com>):
Envy is a nasty beast; it makes you jealous and clouds your mind.
You still canrCOt lift one kilo one meter for one minute.
Note that, according to your own rCyfiguresrCO, if you lifted a working fluid
(water, for instance) and then let it fall past a turbine, the power. generated would exceed the power required to lift the working fluid. ThatrCOs
a perpetual motion machine of the second type. Which is impossible. Your machine simply cannot work, and never will. YourCOre simply a bunch of con
artists trying on a scam.
Disclaimer: I don't think this device works at all but if it did. I am sufficiently confident in the conservation laws that my first question
on seeing it work (after checking for invisible fishing line or cgi)
would be to wonder from what source the motive energy is being drawn.
(It's never tachyons. It would be cool if it was tachyons, except
for the whole "universes with tachyons may not be stable" deal)
according to our hero the rCyprototyperCO can generate 184 rCygrammes of thrustrCO. But, as it and its power source mass several orders of magnitude (at least five orders of magnitude) more than 184 grammes it ainrCOt lifting from the EarthrCOs surface.
asteroidrCOs surfaces) To get it to where those rCy184 grammes of thrustrCO would be useful requires assistance from... a rocket. And, given that f=ma, the accel is gonna suck. Unless f=ma is anoother thing that doesnrCOt apply to the rCydevicerCO, of course.
bloody hell, they might as well say that the thing flies because theyrCOve got hold of Twilight SparklerCOs magic. Pity that My Little Pony Comes To Earth has been done before, notably in The Maretian. (Four ponies, a dragon, and a changeling are the real reason why that impossible storm blew up on Mars, stranding them and Mark Watney. Hijinks ensue. https://www.fimfiction.net/story/396744/the-maretian The storm that srands Watney in The Martianhttps://www.imdb.com/title/tt3659388 is utterly impossible, but is nicely explained by a malfunctioning magic space drive... The Maretian is a sequel to Chageling Space Programhttps://www.fimfiction.net/story/327551/changeling-space-program which
details jusy how Twilight Sparkle built a spacecraft. ItrCOs much more believable than their nonsense. For one thing, Kris Overstreet actually worked out the power implications of a magic spacecraft...)
On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 14:41:27 GMT, E.Laureti <user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) posted:
ERROR "unexpected byte sequence starting at index 287: '\xE2'" while decoding:
In article <0001HW.2E54AA9A0031F5CB70000253B38F@news.supernews.com>,
WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:
On Aug 19, 2025, Von Ottone wrote
(in article<54n8ak9iq1pa8cnl33lngo12c2qegdaci8@4ax.com>):
Envy is a nasty beast; it makes you jealous and clouds your mind.
You still can|o??t lift one kilo one meter for one minute.
Note that, according to your own |o??figures|o??, if you lifted a working fluid
(water, for instance) and then let it fall past a turbine, the power.
generated would exceed the power required to lift the working fluid. That|o??s
a perpetual motion machine of the second type. Which is impossible. Your >> >machine simply cannot work, and never will. You|o??re simply a bunch of con
artists trying on a scam.
Disclaimer: I don't think this device works at all but if it did. I am
sufficiently confident in the conservation laws
usi il traduttore .
Il dettaglio essenziale che non nota |? che le leggi di conservazione newoniane
sono state elaborate senza conoscere la forza di Lorentz su cui si basa la PNN.
E poi dimentica che la fisica ha origini sperimentali
e tutto si deve piegare SEMPRE all'esperimento.
Ho sempre detto che le leggi di conservazione di Newton vanno poi >interpretate con l'inserimento dell'elettrodinamica che Newton neppure conosceva.
E' un compito che lascio ad altri
Mi occupo di fare BENE solo gli esperimenti e di mostrarli agli increduli. >L'uso ossessivo della meccanica newtoniana per la propulsione in astronautica
ci preclude ogni colonizzazione dello spazio come la reat|a finora dimostra brutalmente.
That is,
"use the translator. The essential detail that you do not notice is that Newtonian conservation
laws were developed without knowing the Lorentz force on which PNN is based.
No, the Lorentz force is quite consistent with Newtonian dynamics. And Newtonian conservation laws were derived from first principles by Emmy Noether some time after special relativity was developed.
And then you forget that physics has experimental origins and that >everything must always bend to the experiment.
But experiment must be consistent with previously verified theory.
I have always said that Newton's conservation laws must then be interpreted
with the inclusion of electrodynamics, which Newton did not even know.
Which led to relativity, not perpetual motion machines or whatever
you're trying to do.
It is a task
that I leave to others. I focus on doing experiments WELL and showing them to the skeptics.
The obsessive use of Newtonian mechanics for propulsion in astronautics precludes
any colonization of space, as reality has so far brutally demonstrated.
So because you want to travel through space, Newtonian mechanics
*must* be wrong?
that my first question
on seeing it work (after checking for invisible fishing line or cgi)
would be to wonder from what source the motive energy is being drawn.
(It's never tachyons. It would be cool if it was tachyons, except
for the whole "universes with tachyons may not be stable" deal)
On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 16:02:59 -0400, WolfFan<akwolffan@zoho.com>
wrote:
On Aug 19, 2025, Von Ottone wrote
(in article<a6j9ak15jg3q6mep54glpjq975ug75ojj3@4ax.com>):
On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 14:51:18 -0400, WolfFan<akwolffan@zoho.com>
wrote:
On Aug 19, 2025, E.Laureti wrote
(in article <1081trc$3i1bv$1@dont-email.me>):
WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> posted:
On Aug 19, 2025, Von Ottone wrote
(in article<54n8ak9iq1pa8cnl33lngo12c2qegdaci8@4ax.com>):
Envy is a nasty beast; it makes you jealous and clouds your mind.
You still canrCOt lift one kilo one meter for one minute.
Note that, according to your own rCyfiguresrCO, if you lifted a workingImbeciles, rockets lift tons but return like this http://www.asps.it/artemisback.jpg
fluid
(water, for instance) and then let it fall past a turbine, the power.
generated would exceed the power required to lift the working fluid.
ThatrCOs
a perpetual motion machine of the second type. Which is impossible. Your
machine simply cannot work, and never will. YourCOre simply a bunch of
con
artists trying on a scam.
they return in pieces and like
an iron to brake. :-) Endless laughter.
We can prove everything at the scale of the resources we have.
With Musk's money, we would already be on Mars!
You only show drool and, being incompetent,
you understand nothing about physics http://www.sagredo.eu/varie/terzopr-em.pdf
you havenrCOt thought through the implications of your own rCydevicerCO.
if
it works, it can be used to set up a perpetual motion machine, as the power
generated by running a working fluid (water, air, powdered coal dust, powdered rock, iron fillings, whatever) past a turbine would be more than
the
power the rCydevicerCO uses to lift the working fluid. itrCOs right in your
rCyfiguresrCO.
And you _still_ canrCOt lift onr kilo one meter for one minute, and never
will. thatrCOs why you have so much time to waste yammering on USENET instead
of building your rCydevicerCO.
You forget that perpetual motion machines don't exist and cannot
exist.
which is one reason why your rCydevicerCO will never work. your on rCyfiguresrCO show that if it worked it could be used as the core of a perpetual motion machine of the second type. which is impossible. which means
that your own figures prove that your rCydevicerCO will never, ever, work.
I give up with you.
WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> posted:
On Aug 19, 2025, E.Laureti wrote
(in article <1081trc$3i1bv$1@dont-email.me>):
WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> posted:
On Aug 19, 2025, Von Ottone wrote
(in article<54n8ak9iq1pa8cnl33lngo12c2qegdaci8@4ax.com>):
Envy is a nasty beast; it makes you jealous and clouds your mind.
You still canrCOt lift one kilo one meter for one minute.
Note that, according to your own rCyfiguresrCO, if you lifted a working fluidImbeciles, rockets lift tons but return like this http://www.asps.it/artemisback.jpg
(water, for instance) and then let it fall past a turbine, the power. generated would exceed the power required to lift the working fluid. ThatrCOs
a perpetual motion machine of the second type. Which is impossible. Your
machine simply cannot work, and never will. YourCOre simply a bunch of con
artists trying on a scam.
they return in pieces and like
an iron to brake. :-) Endless laughter.
We can prove everything at the scale of the resources we have.
With Musk's money, we would already be on Mars!
You only show drool and, being incompetent,
you understand nothing about physics http://www.sagredo.eu/varie/terzopr-em.pdf
you havenrCOt thought through the implications of your own rCydevicerCO. if it works, it can be used to set up a perpetual motion machine, as the power generated by running a working fluid (water, air, powdered coal dust, powdered rock, iron fillings, whatever) past a turbine would be more than the
power the rCydevicerCO uses to lift the working fluid. itrCOs right in your rCyfiguresrCO.
And you _still_ canrCOt lift onr kilo one meter for one minute, and never will. thatrCOs why you have so much time to waste yammering on USENET insteadPeople who do not understand PNN have mental fixations, the funniest of which is perpetual motion.:-)
of building your rCydevicerCO.
I observe that only by feeding the Aliena prototype (which is not for sale in http://www.asps.it/vol45.htm)
does its thrust increase over time as shown in this graph http://www.asps.it/trustgra1.jpg
and it can reach even half a kilogram if fed for more than 1 hour with
a coaxial cable through which electric energy passes in UHF.
But there is a risk of failures in the power supply devices since
they are basically toys made for antenna technicians.
And then, when the thrust exceeds the weight,
I could disconnect the coaxial cable but would lose the prototype.
The victory (autonomous flight) is to lose the prototype beyond any
Earth orbit. I have no control systems to stop it and bring it
back to me if I release it from control like a kite.
Think what you want.
On Aug 19, 2025, E.Laureti wrote
(in article <1082o4t$3rndm$1@dont-email.me>):
WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> posted:
On Aug 19, 2025, E.Laureti wrote
(in article <1081trc$3i1bv$1@dont-email.me>):
WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> posted:
On Aug 19, 2025, Von Ottone wrote
(in article<54n8ak9iq1pa8cnl33lngo12c2qegdaci8@4ax.com>):
Envy is a nasty beast; it makes you jealous and clouds your mind.
You still canrCOt lift one kilo one meter for one minute.
Note that, according to your own rCyfiguresrCO, if you lifted a workingImbeciles, rockets lift tons but return like this http://www.asps.it/artemisback.jpg
fluid
(water, for instance) and then let it fall past a turbine, the power. generated would exceed the power required to lift the working fluid. ThatrCOs
a perpetual motion machine of the second type. Which is impossible. Your
machine simply cannot work, and never will. YourCOre simply a bunch of con
artists trying on a scam.
they return in pieces and like
an iron to brake. :-) Endless laughter.
We can prove everything at the scale of the resources we have.
With Musk's money, we would already be on Mars!
You only show drool and, being incompetent,
you understand nothing about physics http://www.sagredo.eu/varie/terzopr-em.pdf
you havenrCOt thought through the implications of your own rCydevicerCO. if
it works, it can be used to set up a perpetual motion machine, as the power
generated by running a working fluid (water, air, powdered coal dust, powdered rock, iron fillings, whatever) past a turbine would be more than the
power the rCydevicerCO uses to lift the working fluid. itrCOs right in your
rCyfiguresrCO.
And you _still_ canrCOt lift onr kilo one meter for one minute, and never will. thatrCOs why you have so much time to waste yammering on USENET insteadPeople who do not understand PNN have mental fixations, the funniest of which
of building your rCydevicerCO.
is perpetual motion.:-)
I observe that only by feeding the Aliena prototype (which is not for sale in
http://www.asps.it/vol45.htm)
does its thrust increase over time as shown in this graph http://www.asps.it/trustgra1.jpg
and it can reach even half a kilogram if fed for more than 1 hour with
a coaxial cable through which electric energy passes in UHF.
But there is a risk of failures in the power supply devices since
they are basically toys made for antenna technicians.
And then, when the thrust exceeds the weight,
I could disconnect the coaxial cable but would lose the prototype.
The victory (autonomous flight) is to lose the prototype beyond any
Earth orbit. I have no control systems to stop it and bring it
back to me if I release it from control like a kite.
Think what you want.
your own figures say that you could build a perpetual motion machine of the second type IF your device works. The fact that your own figures say this is one major reason why your device will never, ever, work.
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:<snip>
On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 14:41:27 GMT, E.Laureti
It is a task
that I leave to others. I focus on doing experiments WELL and showing them to the skeptics.
The obsessive use of Newtonian mechanics for propulsion in astronautics precludes
any colonization of space, as reality has so far brutally demonstrated.
So because you want to travel through space, Newtonian mechanics
*must* be wrong?
that my first question
on seeing it work (after checking for invisible fishing line or cgi)
would be to wonder from what source the motive energy is being drawn.
(It's never tachyons. It would be cool if it was tachyons, except
for the whole "universes with tachyons may not be stable" deal)
too much alone words against PNN !
repeat experimentally this
http://www.asps.it/impnn4.png >https://neolegesmotus.com/2020/11/02/field-self-interaction-electromagnetic-thruster/
you are only unable to do any elementary experiment
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 20:18:58 GMT, "E.Laureti" ><user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 14:41:27 GMT, E.Laureti
It is a taskSo because you want to travel through space, Newtonian mechanics
that I leave to others. I focus on doing experiments WELL and showing them to the skeptics.
The obsessive use of Newtonian mechanics for propulsion in astronautics precludes
any colonization of space, as reality has so far brutally demonstrated. >>>
*must* be wrong?
that my first question
on seeing it work (after checking for invisible fishing line or cgi)
would be to wonder from what source the motive energy is being drawn. >>> >>
(It's never tachyons. It would be cool if it was tachyons, except
for the whole "universes with tachyons may not be stable" deal)
too much alone words against PNN !
repeat experimentally this
http://www.asps.it/impnn4.png >>https://neolegesmotus.com/2020/11/02/field-self-interaction-electromagnetic-thruster/
you are only unable to do any elementary experiment
Briefly, how are you changing the field self-interaction to increase
the thrust of your PNN vehicle? Or are there other methods that you're
using to accomplish that crucial goal?
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 18:01:10 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 20:18:58 GMT, "E.Laureti" >><user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 14:41:27 GMT, E.Laureti
It is a taskSo because you want to travel through space, Newtonian mechanics
that I leave to others. I focus on doing experiments WELL and showing them to the skeptics.
The obsessive use of Newtonian mechanics for propulsion in astronautics precludes
any colonization of space, as reality has so far brutally demonstrated. >>>>
*must* be wrong?
that my first question
on seeing it work (after checking for invisible fishing line or cgi) >>>> >> would be to wonder from what source the motive energy is being drawn. >>>> >>
(It's never tachyons. It would be cool if it was tachyons, except
for the whole "universes with tachyons may not be stable" deal)
too much alone words against PNN !
repeat experimentally this
http://www.asps.it/impnn4.png >>>https://neolegesmotus.com/2020/11/02/field-self-interaction-electromagnetic-thruster/
you are only unable to do any elementary experiment
Briefly, how are you changing the field self-interaction to increase
the thrust of your PNN vehicle? Or are there other methods that you're >>using to accomplish that crucial goal?
Yes, methods:
1) Lower the impedance of the dipole
2) Increase the current
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 03:24:17 +0200, Von Ottone <pnn@pnn.org> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 18:01:10 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 20:18:58 GMT, "E.Laureti" >>><user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 14:41:27 GMT, E.Laureti
It is a taskSo because you want to travel through space, Newtonian mechanics
that I leave to others. I focus on doing experiments WELL and showing them to the skeptics.
The obsessive use of Newtonian mechanics for propulsion in astronautics precludes
any colonization of space, as reality has so far brutally demonstrated. >>>>>
*must* be wrong?
that my first question
on seeing it work (after checking for invisible fishing line or cgi) >>>>> >> would be to wonder from what source the motive energy is being drawn. >>>>> >>
(It's never tachyons. It would be cool if it was tachyons, except >>>>> >> for the whole "universes with tachyons may not be stable" deal)
too much alone words against PNN !
repeat experimentally this
http://www.asps.it/impnn4.png >>>>https://neolegesmotus.com/2020/11/02/field-self-interaction-electromagnetic-thruster/
you are only unable to do any elementary experiment
Briefly, how are you changing the field self-interaction to increase
the thrust of your PNN vehicle? Or are there other methods that you're >>>using to accomplish that crucial goal?
Yes, methods:
1) Lower the impedance of the dipole
2) Increase the current
And are those things difficult to accomplish?
Rufus Ruffian <ru@ru.ru> posted:
E.Laureti <user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Rufus Ruffian <ru@ru.ru> posted:
Technical flaws were pointed out in Laureti's theory and practice. He was unable to respond coherently. Meanwhile he thrashes about erraticly,
wondering why his machine doesn't work.
The "invention" has always been ridiculed on Usenet, and ignored in RL. Always will be.
In the meantime, they must also laugh at the Italian society that properly
filed my patent F432BA and at those from the EPO (European Patent Office)
who granted it to me. But this WO2022264177 -
ELECTROMAGNETIC PROPULSION SYSTEM FOR SPACECRAFT MOVEMENT WITHOUT
THE EMISSION OF REACTION MASS https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2022264177 they
never examine, they prefer, like all envious, worthless trolls,
anonymous defamation.
You can patent anything, no matter how Rube Goldberg. No demonstration
of functionality required. Patents don't mean anything.
You can't defend the technical deficiencies of your claims. That means
your Purely Nonsense Narrative is bunkum.
(snip enraged kookrant that's unbecoming of any scientist)
repeat this imbecile charlatan
http://www.asps.it/impnn4.png
In article<0001HW.2E55102F0049C4B5700008B5C38F@news.supernews.com>,
WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:
On Aug 19, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrotesnip
(in article<4ij9aklhcdektihdnr6k6ou9gpg3n1rm5b@4ax.com>):
So because you want to travel through space, Newtonian mechanics
*must* be wrong?
thatrCOs it, right there.
It's a classic motivation for magic space drives, going back at
least as far as John W. Campbell, jr.
(from Space for Industry, 1960, which ran in Astounding/Analog)
"In the first place, we're never going to get any engineering use of
space until we get something enormously better than rockets.
(...)
So: assume some form of true space-drive. A modified skyhook or an antigravity gadget--anything. It's a space-truck--not a delicate and hyper-expensive rocket. It can carry tons, and work for years."
The whole essay can be found in Collected Editorials from Analog,
which I once described as like "eating a whole box of bon-bons,
if said bon-bons were not in fact candy but deceptively-shaped
pieces of dog-shit."
The only real product of Campbell's relentless space drive advocacy
was a tendency of SF authors to write stories about magical space
drives because while Campbell was an unpleasant, racist, kook, he
paid well and he paid on time.
"E.Laureti" <user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> posted:
Rufus Ruffian <ru@ru.ru> posted:
E.Laureti<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Rufus Ruffian <ru@ru.ru> posted:
Technical flaws were pointed out in Laureti's theory and practice. He was unable to respond coherently. Meanwhile he thrashes about erraticly,
wondering why his machine doesn't work.
The "invention" has always been ridiculed on Usenet, and ignored in RL.
Always will be.
In the meantime, they must also laugh at the Italian society that properly
filed my patent F432BA and at those from the EPO (European Patent Office)
who granted it to me. But this WO2022264177 -
ELECTROMAGNETIC PROPULSION SYSTEM FOR SPACECRAFT MOVEMENT WITHOUT
THE EMISSION OF REACTION MASS https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2022264177 they
never examine, they prefer, like all envious, worthless trolls, anonymous defamation.
You can patent anything, no matter how Rube Goldberg. No demonstration
of functionality required. Patents don't mean anything.
You can't defend the technical deficiencies of your claims. That means your Purely Nonsense Narrative is bunkum.
(snip enraged kookrant that's unbecoming of any scientist)
repeat this imbecile charlatan
http://www.asps.it/impnn4.png
you are unable to every experimentation ...only words you make
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 19:01:21 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 03:24:17 +0200, Von Ottone <pnn@pnn.org> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 18:01:10 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 20:18:58 GMT, "E.Laureti" >>>><user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 14:41:27 GMT, E.Laureti
It is a taskSo because you want to travel through space, Newtonian mechanics
that I leave to others. I focus on doing experiments WELL and showing them to the skeptics.
The obsessive use of Newtonian mechanics for propulsion in astronautics precludes
any colonization of space, as reality has so far brutally demonstrated. >>>>>>
*must* be wrong?
that my first question
on seeing it work (after checking for invisible fishing line or cgi) >>>>>> >> would be to wonder from what source the motive energy is being drawn.
(It's never tachyons. It would be cool if it was tachyons, except >>>>>> >> for the whole "universes with tachyons may not be stable" deal) >>>>>> >>
too much alone words against PNN !
repeat experimentally this
http://www.asps.it/impnn4.png >>>>>https://neolegesmotus.com/2020/11/02/field-self-interaction-electromagnetic-thruster/
you are only unable to do any elementary experiment
Briefly, how are you changing the field self-interaction to increase >>>>the thrust of your PNN vehicle? Or are there other methods that you're >>>>using to accomplish that crucial goal?
Yes, methods:
1) Lower the impedance of the dipole
2) Increase the current
And are those things difficult to accomplish?
To lower the impedance of a dipole fed at high frequency is not so
simple, one would have to at least use silver wires, at least.
Second, and more important, to increase the current, all the circuitry
must *support* high currents at high frequency, and some electronic >components just melt under such stress.
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 09:04:05 +0200, Von Ottone <pnn@pnn.org> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 19:01:21 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 03:24:17 +0200, Von Ottone <pnn@pnn.org> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 18:01:10 -0700, Vincent Maycock >>>><ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 20:18:58 GMT, "E.Laureti" >>>>><user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 14:41:27 GMT, E.Laureti
It is a task
that I leave to others. I focus on doing experiments WELL and showing them to the skeptics.
The obsessive use of Newtonian mechanics for propulsion in astronautics precludes
any colonization of space, as reality has so far brutally demonstrated.
So because you want to travel through space, Newtonian mechanics >>>>>>> *must* be wrong?
that my first question
on seeing it work (after checking for invisible fishing line or cgi) >>>>>>> >> would be to wonder from what source the motive energy is being drawn.
(It's never tachyons. It would be cool if it was tachyons, except >>>>>>> >> for the whole "universes with tachyons may not be stable" deal) >>>>>>> >>
too much alone words against PNN !
repeat experimentally this
http://www.asps.it/impnn4.png >>>>>>https://neolegesmotus.com/2020/11/02/field-self-interaction-electromagnetic-thruster/
you are only unable to do any elementary experiment
Briefly, how are you changing the field self-interaction to increase >>>>>the thrust of your PNN vehicle? Or are there other methods that you're >>>>>using to accomplish that crucial goal?
Yes, methods:
1) Lower the impedance of the dipole
2) Increase the current
And are those things difficult to accomplish?
To lower the impedance of a dipole fed at high frequency is not so
simple, one would have to at least use silver wires, at least.
And you're saying those cost too much to try to use?
Second, and more important, to increase the current, all the circuitry
must *support* high currents at high frequency, and some electronic >>components just melt under such stress.
Which ones are melting down, and why can't you replace them with
components that don't?
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 08:44:55 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 09:04:05 +0200, Von Ottone <pnn@pnn.org> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 19:01:21 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 03:24:17 +0200, Von Ottone <pnn@pnn.org> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 18:01:10 -0700, Vincent Maycock >>>>><ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 20:18:58 GMT, "E.Laureti" >>>>>><user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 14:41:27 GMT, E.Laureti
It is a task
that I leave to others. I focus on doing experiments WELL and showing them to the skeptics.
The obsessive use of Newtonian mechanics for propulsion in astronautics precludes
any colonization of space, as reality has so far brutally demonstrated.
So because you want to travel through space, Newtonian mechanics >>>>>>>> *must* be wrong?
that my first question
on seeing it work (after checking for invisible fishing line or cgi)
would be to wonder from what source the motive energy is being drawn.
(It's never tachyons. It would be cool if it was tachyons, except >>>>>>>> >> for the whole "universes with tachyons may not be stable" deal) >>>>>>>> >>
too much alone words against PNN !
repeat experimentally this
http://www.asps.it/impnn4.png >>>>>>>https://neolegesmotus.com/2020/11/02/field-self-interaction-electromagnetic-thruster/
you are only unable to do any elementary experiment
Briefly, how are you changing the field self-interaction to increase >>>>>>the thrust of your PNN vehicle? Or are there other methods that you're >>>>>>using to accomplish that crucial goal?
Yes, methods:
1) Lower the impedance of the dipole
2) Increase the current
And are those things difficult to accomplish?
To lower the impedance of a dipole fed at high frequency is not so >>>simple, one would have to at least use silver wires, at least.
And you're saying those cost too much to try to use?
Second, and more important, to increase the current, all the circuitry >>>must *support* high currents at high frequency, and some electronic >>>components just melt under such stress.
Which ones are melting down, and why can't you replace them with
components that don't?
Such components generally cost a fortune, or are reserved for military >purposes.
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 09:04:05 +0200, Von Ottone <pnn@pnn.org> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 19:01:21 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 03:24:17 +0200, Von Ottone <pnn@pnn.org> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 18:01:10 -0700, Vincent Maycock >>><ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 20:18:58 GMT, "E.Laureti" >>>><user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 14:41:27 GMT, E.Laureti
It is a task
that I leave to others. I focus on doing experiments WELL and showing them to the skeptics.
The obsessive use of Newtonian mechanics for propulsion in astronautics precludes
any colonization of space, as reality has so far brutally demonstrated.
So because you want to travel through space, Newtonian mechanics >>>>>> *must* be wrong?
that my first question
on seeing it work (after checking for invisible fishing line or cgi)
would be to wonder from what source the motive energy is being drawn.
(It's never tachyons. It would be cool if it was tachyons, except >>>>>> >> for the whole "universes with tachyons may not be stable" deal) >>>>>> >>
too much alone words against PNN !
repeat experimentally this
http://www.asps.it/impnn4.png >>>>>https://neolegesmotus.com/2020/11/02/field-self-interaction-electromagnetic-thruster/
you are only unable to do any elementary experiment
Briefly, how are you changing the field self-interaction to increase >>>>the thrust of your PNN vehicle? Or are there other methods that you're >>>>using to accomplish that crucial goal?
Yes, methods:
1) Lower the impedance of the dipole
2) Increase the current
And are those things difficult to accomplish?
To lower the impedance of a dipole fed at high frequency is not so
simple, one would have to at least use silver wires, at least.
And you're saying those cost too much to try to use?
Second, and more important, to increase the current, all the circuitry
must *support* high currents at high frequency, and some electronic >components just melt under such stress.
Which ones are melting down, and why can't you replace them with
components that don't?
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 09:04:05 +0200, Von Ottone <pnn@pnn.org> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 19:01:21 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 03:24:17 +0200, Von Ottone <pnn@pnn.org> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 18:01:10 -0700, Vincent Maycock >>><ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 20:18:58 GMT, "E.Laureti" >>>><user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 14:41:27 GMT, E.Laureti
It is a task
that I leave to others. I focus on doing experiments WELL and showing them to the skeptics.
The obsessive use of Newtonian mechanics for propulsion in astronautics precludes
any colonization of space, as reality has so far brutally demonstrated.
So because you want to travel through space, Newtonian mechanics >>>>>> *must* be wrong?
that my first question
on seeing it work (after checking for invisible fishing line or cgi)
would be to wonder from what source the motive energy is being drawn.
(It's never tachyons. It would be cool if it was tachyons, except >>>>>> >> for the whole "universes with tachyons may not be stable" deal) >>>>>> >>
too much alone words against PNN !
repeat experimentally this
http://www.asps.it/impnn4.png >>>>>https://neolegesmotus.com/2020/11/02/field-self-interaction-electromagnetic-thruster/
you are only unable to do any elementary experiment
Briefly, how are you changing the field self-interaction to increase >>>>the thrust of your PNN vehicle? Or are there other methods that you're >>>>using to accomplish that crucial goal?
Yes, methods:
1) Lower the impedance of the dipole
2) Increase the current
And are those things difficult to accomplish?
To lower the impedance of a dipole fed at high frequency is not so >simple, one would have to at least use silver wires, at least.
And you're saying those cost too much to try to use?
Second, and more important, to increase the current, all the circuitry >must *support* high currents at high frequency, and some electronic >components just melt under such stress.
Which ones are melting down, and why can't you replace them with
components that don't?
$$$$$$ and to pay several engineers...
but if you buy much land on Mars http://www.asps.it/vol45.htm
:-)
E.Laureti <user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> posted:
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 09:04:05 +0200, Von Ottone <pnn@pnn.org> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 19:01:21 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 03:24:17 +0200, Von Ottone <pnn@pnn.org> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 18:01:10 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 20:18:58 GMT, "E.Laureti"
<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 14:41:27 GMT, E.Laureti
It is a task
that I leave to others. I focus on doing experiments WELL and showing them to the skeptics.
The obsessive use of Newtonian mechanics for propulsion in astronautics precludes
any colonization of space, as reality has so far brutally demonstrated.
So because you want to travel through space, Newtonian mechanics
*must* be wrong?
that my first question
on seeing it work (after checking for invisible fishing line or cgi)
would be to wonder from what source the motive energy is being drawn.
(It's never tachyons. It would be cool if it was tachyons, except
for the whole "universes with tachyons may not be stable" deal) >> > >>>>>> >>
too much alone words against PNN !
repeat experimentally this
http://www.asps.it/impnn4.png
https://neolegesmotus.com/2020/11/02/field-self-interaction-electromagnetic-thruster/
you are only unable to do any elementary experiment
Briefly, how are you changing the field self-interaction to increase >> > >>>>the thrust of your PNN vehicle? Or are there other methods that you're >> > >>>>using to accomplish that crucial goal?
Yes, methods:
1) Lower the impedance of the dipole
2) Increase the current
And are those things difficult to accomplish?
To lower the impedance of a dipole fed at high frequency is not so
simple, one would have to at least use silver wires, at least.
And you're saying those cost too much to try to use?
Second, and more important, to increase the current, all the circuitry
must *support* high currents at high frequency, and some electronic
components just melt under such stress.
Which ones are melting down, and why can't you replace them with
components that don't?
$$$$$$ and to pay several engineers...
but if you buy much land on Mars http://www.asps.it/vol45.htm
:-)
with the money that Musk loses with his comic dynosaur rocketry ...
i can promise :-)
a trip on Mars in four days :-)
per aspera ad astra
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 17:48:13 +0200, Von Ottone <pnn@pnn.org> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 08:44:55 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 09:04:05 +0200, Von Ottone <pnn@pnn.org> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 19:01:21 -0700, Vincent Maycock >>>><ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 03:24:17 +0200, Von Ottone <pnn@pnn.org> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 18:01:10 -0700, Vincent Maycock >>>>>><ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 20:18:58 GMT, "E.Laureti" >>>>>>><user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 14:41:27 GMT, E.Laureti
It is a task
that I leave to others. I focus on doing experiments WELL and showing them to the skeptics.
The obsessive use of Newtonian mechanics for propulsion in astronautics precludes
any colonization of space, as reality has so far brutally demonstrated.
So because you want to travel through space, Newtonian mechanics >>>>>>>>> *must* be wrong?
that my first question
on seeing it work (after checking for invisible fishing line or cgi)
would be to wonder from what source the motive energy is being drawn.
(It's never tachyons. It would be cool if it was tachyons, except >>>>>>>>> >> for the whole "universes with tachyons may not be stable" deal) >>>>>>>>> >>
too much alone words against PNN !
repeat experimentally this
http://www.asps.it/impnn4.png >>>>>>>>https://neolegesmotus.com/2020/11/02/field-self-interaction-electromagnetic-thruster/
you are only unable to do any elementary experiment
Briefly, how are you changing the field self-interaction to increase >>>>>>>the thrust of your PNN vehicle? Or are there other methods that you're >>>>>>>using to accomplish that crucial goal?
Yes, methods:
1) Lower the impedance of the dipole
2) Increase the current
And are those things difficult to accomplish?
To lower the impedance of a dipole fed at high frequency is not so >>>>simple, one would have to at least use silver wires, at least.
And you're saying those cost too much to try to use?
Second, and more important, to increase the current, all the circuitry >>>>must *support* high currents at high frequency, and some electronic >>>>components just melt under such stress.
Which ones are melting down, and why can't you replace them with >>>components that don't?
Such components generally cost a fortune, or are reserved for military >>purposes.
Like how much is a "fortune"? What does the military use them for? It
sounds like you need someone to invest in your ideas financially.
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 16:16:05 GMT, E.Laureti <user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
E.Laureti <user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> posted:
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 09:04:05 +0200, Von Ottone <pnn@pnn.org> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 19:01:21 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 03:24:17 +0200, Von Ottone <pnn@pnn.org> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 18:01:10 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 20:18:58 GMT, "E.Laureti"
<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 14:41:27 GMT, E.Laureti
It is a task
that I leave to others. I focus on doing experiments WELL and showing them to the skeptics.
The obsessive use of Newtonian mechanics for propulsion in astronautics precludes
any colonization of space, as reality has so far brutally demonstrated.
So because you want to travel through space, Newtonian mechanics >> > >>>>>> *must* be wrong?
that my first question
on seeing it work (after checking for invisible fishing line or cgi)
would be to wonder from what source the motive energy is being drawn.
(It's never tachyons. It would be cool if it was tachyons, except
for the whole "universes with tachyons may not be stable" deal)
too much alone words against PNN !
repeat experimentally this
http://www.asps.it/impnn4.png
https://neolegesmotus.com/2020/11/02/field-self-interaction-electromagnetic-thruster/
you are only unable to do any elementary experiment
Briefly, how are you changing the field self-interaction to increase >> > >>>>the thrust of your PNN vehicle? Or are there other methods that you're
using to accomplish that crucial goal?
Yes, methods:
1) Lower the impedance of the dipole
2) Increase the current
And are those things difficult to accomplish?
To lower the impedance of a dipole fed at high frequency is not so
simple, one would have to at least use silver wires, at least.
And you're saying those cost too much to try to use?
Second, and more important, to increase the current, all the circuitry >> > >must *support* high currents at high frequency, and some electronic
components just melt under such stress.
Which ones are melting down, and why can't you replace them with
components that don't?
$$$$$$ and to pay several engineers...
but if you buy much land on Mars http://www.asps.it/vol45.htm
:-)
with the money that Musk loses with his comic dynosaur rocketry ...
i can promise :-)
a trip on Mars in four days :-)
per aspera ad astra
What kind of a return-on-investment can you offer an entrepreneur
interested in investing in your ideas?
On Aug 20, 2025, James Nicoll wrote
(in article <1084jb1$kid$1@reader1.panix.com>):
In article<0001HW.2E55102F0049C4B5700008B5C38F@news.supernews.com>,
WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:
On Aug 19, 2025, Vincent Maycock wrotesnip
(in article<4ij9aklhcdektihdnr6k6ou9gpg3n1rm5b@4ax.com>):
So because you want to travel through space, Newtonian mechanics
*must* be wrong?
thatrCOs it, right there.
It's a classic motivation for magic space drives, going back at
least as far as John W. Campbell, jr.
John Campbell was... special.
(from Space for Industry, 1960, which ran in Astounding/Analog)
"In the first place, we're never going to get any engineering use of
space until we get something enormously better than rockets.
(...)
So: assume some form of true space-drive. A modified skyhook or an
antigravity gadget--anything. It's a space-truck--not a delicate and
hyper-expensive rocket. It can carry tons, and work for years."
The whole essay can be found in Collected Editorials from Analog,
which I once described as like "eating a whole box of bon-bons,
if said bon-bons were not in fact candy but deceptively-shaped
pieces of dog-shit."
The only real product of Campbell's relentless space drive advocacy
was a tendency of SF authors to write stories about magical space
drives because while Campbell was an unpleasant, racist, kook, he
paid well and he paid on time.
Well, mrCOman is certainly trying to get paid. If only he could produce >_quality_ fiction, he might have been able to sell to Campbell. I just >donrCOt think that herCOs good enough to be published in The Magazine With >Rivets. (No, my Italian boy, that does NOT refer to a certain modern mag with >pix of girls half or less clad in denim.)
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 16:16:05 GMT, E.Laureti
<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
E.Laureti <user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> posted:
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 09:04:05 +0200, Von Ottone <pnn@pnn.org> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 19:01:21 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 03:24:17 +0200, Von Ottone <pnn@pnn.org> wrote: >> >> > >>
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 18:01:10 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 20:18:58 GMT, "E.Laureti"
<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 14:41:27 GMT, E.Laureti
It is a task
that I leave to others. I focus on doing experiments WELL and showing them to the skeptics.
The obsessive use of Newtonian mechanics for propulsion in astronautics precludes
any colonization of space, as reality has so far brutally demonstrated.
So because you want to travel through space, Newtonian mechanics >> >> > >>>>>> *must* be wrong?
that my first question
on seeing it work (after checking for invisible fishing line or cgi)
would be to wonder from what source the motive energy is being drawn.
(It's never tachyons. It would be cool if it was tachyons, except
for the whole "universes with tachyons may not be stable" deal)
too much alone words against PNN !
repeat experimentally this
http://www.asps.it/impnn4.png
https://neolegesmotus.com/2020/11/02/field-self-interaction-electromagnetic-thruster/
you are only unable to do any elementary experiment
Briefly, how are you changing the field self-interaction to increase
the thrust of your PNN vehicle? Or are there other methods that you're
using to accomplish that crucial goal?
Yes, methods:
1) Lower the impedance of the dipole
2) Increase the current
And are those things difficult to accomplish?
To lower the impedance of a dipole fed at high frequency is not so
simple, one would have to at least use silver wires, at least.
And you're saying those cost too much to try to use?
Second, and more important, to increase the current, all the circuitry >> >> > >must *support* high currents at high frequency, and some electronic
components just melt under such stress.
Which ones are melting down, and why can't you replace them with
components that don't?
$$$$$$ and to pay several engineers...
but if you buy much land on Mars http://www.asps.it/vol45.htm
:-)
with the money that Musk loses with his comic dynosaur rocketry ...
i can promise :-)
a trip on Mars in four days :-)
per aspera ad astra
What kind of a return-on-investment can you offer an entrepreneur
interested in investing in your ideas?
I understand next to nothing about finance.
I can say that an investor should do a basic PNN test on their own,
with their experts,
to understand what they might be buying and to ensure they won't be deceived.
Afterward, if they want to buy the F432BA, we can conduct an
experimental demonstration of the prototype's functioning.
Then, in theory, they could even build PNN spaceships themselves
by carefully studying how the F432BA works.
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 17:13:06 GMT, "E.Laureti" <user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 16:16:05 GMT, E.Laureti
<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
E.Laureti <user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> posted:
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 09:04:05 +0200, Von Ottone <pnn@pnn.org> wrote: >> >> >
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 19:01:21 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 03:24:17 +0200, Von Ottone <pnn@pnn.org> wrote: >> >> > >>
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 18:01:10 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 20:18:58 GMT, "E.Laureti"
<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 14:41:27 GMT, E.Laureti
It is a task
that I leave to others. I focus on doing experiments WELL and showing them to the skeptics.
The obsessive use of Newtonian mechanics for propulsion in astronautics precludes
any colonization of space, as reality has so far brutally demonstrated.
So because you want to travel through space, Newtonian mechanics
*must* be wrong?
that my first question
on seeing it work (after checking for invisible fishing line or cgi)
would be to wonder from what source the motive energy is being drawn.
(It's never tachyons. It would be cool if it was tachyons, except
for the whole "universes with tachyons may not be stable" deal)
too much alone words against PNN !
repeat experimentally this
http://www.asps.it/impnn4.png
https://neolegesmotus.com/2020/11/02/field-self-interaction-electromagnetic-thruster/
you are only unable to do any elementary experiment
Briefly, how are you changing the field self-interaction to increase
the thrust of your PNN vehicle? Or are there other methods that you're
using to accomplish that crucial goal?
Yes, methods:
1) Lower the impedance of the dipole
2) Increase the current
And are those things difficult to accomplish?
To lower the impedance of a dipole fed at high frequency is not so >> >> > >simple, one would have to at least use silver wires, at least.
And you're saying those cost too much to try to use?
Second, and more important, to increase the current, all the circuitry
must *support* high currents at high frequency, and some electronic >> >> > >components just melt under such stress.
Which ones are melting down, and why can't you replace them with
components that don't?
$$$$$$ and to pay several engineers...
but if you buy much land on Mars http://www.asps.it/vol45.htm
:-)
with the money that Musk loses with his comic dynosaur rocketry ...
i can promise :-)
a trip on Mars in four days :-)
per aspera ad astra
What kind of a return-on-investment can you offer an entrepreneur
interested in investing in your ideas?
I understand next to nothing about finance.
I can say that an investor should do a basic PNN test on their own,
with their experts,
to understand what they might be buying and to ensure they won't be deceived.
That's ironic, since most people consider PNN to be a scam.
Afterward, if they want to buy the F432BA, we can conduct an
experimental demonstration of the prototype's functioning.
Then, in theory, they could even build PNN spaceships themselves
by carefully studying how the F432BA works.
What happens if, afterward, they don't want to buy your product?
Afterward, if they want to buy the F432BA, we can conduct an
experimental demonstration of the prototype's functioning.
Then, in theory, they could even build PNN spaceships themselves
by carefully studying how the F432BA works.
What happens if, afterward, they don't want to buy your product?
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 17:13:06 GMT, "E.Laureti"
<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 16:16:05 GMT, E.Laureti
<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
E.Laureti <user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> posted:
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 09:04:05 +0200, Von Ottone <pnn@pnn.org> wrote: >> >> >> >
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 19:01:21 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 03:24:17 +0200, Von Ottone <pnn@pnn.org> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 18:01:10 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 20:18:58 GMT, "E.Laureti"
<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 14:41:27 GMT, E.Laureti
It is a task
that I leave to others. I focus on doing experiments WELL and showing them to the skeptics.
The obsessive use of Newtonian mechanics for propulsion in astronautics precludes
any colonization of space, as reality has so far brutally demonstrated.
So because you want to travel through space, Newtonian mechanics
*must* be wrong?
that my first question
on seeing it work (after checking for invisible fishing line or cgi)
would be to wonder from what source the motive energy is being drawn.
(It's never tachyons. It would be cool if it was tachyons, except
for the whole "universes with tachyons may not be stable" deal)
too much alone words against PNN !
repeat experimentally this
http://www.asps.it/impnn4.png
https://neolegesmotus.com/2020/11/02/field-self-interaction-electromagnetic-thruster/
you are only unable to do any elementary experiment
Briefly, how are you changing the field self-interaction to increase
the thrust of your PNN vehicle? Or are there other methods that you're
using to accomplish that crucial goal?
Yes, methods:
1) Lower the impedance of the dipole
2) Increase the current
And are those things difficult to accomplish?
To lower the impedance of a dipole fed at high frequency is not so >> >> >> > >simple, one would have to at least use silver wires, at least.
And you're saying those cost too much to try to use?
Second, and more important, to increase the current, all the circuitry
must *support* high currents at high frequency, and some electronic >> >> >> > >components just melt under such stress.
Which ones are melting down, and why can't you replace them with
components that don't?
$$$$$$ and to pay several engineers...
but if you buy much land on Mars http://www.asps.it/vol45.htm
:-)
with the money that Musk loses with his comic dynosaur rocketry ...
i can promise :-)
a trip on Mars in four days :-)
per aspera ad astra
What kind of a return-on-investment can you offer an entrepreneur
interested in investing in your ideas?
I understand next to nothing about finance.
I can say that an investor should do a basic PNN test on their own,
with their experts,
to understand what they might be buying and to ensure they won't be deceived.
That's ironic, since most people consider PNN to be a scam.
successful defamation.. and never see the PNN experiments that disprove
the defamation
Afterward, if they want to buy the F432BA, we can conduct an
experimental demonstration of the prototype's functioning.
Then, in theory, they could even build PNN spaceships themselves
by carefully studying how the F432BA works.
What happens if, afterward, they don't want to buy your product?
I certainly won't tell to you now
....and given your prejudices,
you doesn't even consider conducting
an experiment by herself that contradicts your beliefs :-)
Put your money in comic rocketry and be happy :-)
Afterward, if they want to buy the F432BA, we can conduct an
experimental demonstration of the prototype's functioning.
Then, in theory, they could even build PNN spaceships themselves
by carefully studying how the F432BA works.
What happens if, afterward, they don't want to buy your product?
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 20:54:42 GMT, E.Laureti <user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 17:13:06 GMT, "E.Laureti"
<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 16:16:05 GMT, E.Laureti
<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
E.Laureti <user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> posted:
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 09:04:05 +0200, Von Ottone <pnn@pnn.org> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 19:01:21 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 03:24:17 +0200, Von Ottone <pnn@pnn.org> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 18:01:10 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 20:18:58 GMT, "E.Laureti"
<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 14:41:27 GMT, E.Laureti
It is a task
that I leave to others. I focus on doing experiments WELL and showing them to the skeptics.
The obsessive use of Newtonian mechanics for propulsion in astronautics precludes
any colonization of space, as reality has so far brutally demonstrated.
So because you want to travel through space, Newtonian mechanics
*must* be wrong?
that my first question
on seeing it work (after checking for invisible fishing line or cgi)
would be to wonder from what source the motive energy is being drawn.
(It's never tachyons. It would be cool if it was tachyons, except
for the whole "universes with tachyons may not be stable" deal)
too much alone words against PNN !
repeat experimentally this
http://www.asps.it/impnn4.png
https://neolegesmotus.com/2020/11/02/field-self-interaction-electromagnetic-thruster/
you are only unable to do any elementary experiment
Briefly, how are you changing the field self-interaction to increase
the thrust of your PNN vehicle? Or are there other methods that you're
using to accomplish that crucial goal?
Yes, methods:
1) Lower the impedance of the dipole
2) Increase the current
And are those things difficult to accomplish?
To lower the impedance of a dipole fed at high frequency is not so
simple, one would have to at least use silver wires, at least.
And you're saying those cost too much to try to use?
Second, and more important, to increase the current, all the circuitry
must *support* high currents at high frequency, and some electronic
components just melt under such stress.
Which ones are melting down, and why can't you replace them with >> >> >> > components that don't?
$$$$$$ and to pay several engineers...
but if you buy much land on Mars http://www.asps.it/vol45.htm
:-)
with the money that Musk loses with his comic dynosaur rocketry ...
i can promise :-)
a trip on Mars in four days :-)
per aspera ad astra
What kind of a return-on-investment can you offer an entrepreneur
interested in investing in your ideas?
I understand next to nothing about finance.
I can say that an investor should do a basic PNN test on their own,
with their experts,
to understand what they might be buying and to ensure they won't be deceived.
That's ironic, since most people consider PNN to be a scam.
successful defamation.. and never see the PNN experiments that disprove
the defamation
What kinds of patents do you have in the field of PNN?
Afterward, if they want to buy the F432BA, we can conduct an
experimental demonstration of the prototype's functioning.
Then, in theory, they could even build PNN spaceships themselves
by carefully studying how the F432BA works.
What happens if, afterward, they don't want to buy your product?
I certainly won't tell to you now
....and given your prejudices,
you doesn't even consider conducting
an experiment by herself that contradicts your beliefs :-)
Put your money in comic rocketry and be happy :-)
LOL! I'm not prejudiced against you. I think it would be cool if
your super-spaceships were a reality.
And I think that's true for almost everyone else. Never underestimate
the power of human greed, so that people would be beating a path to
your door if they thought they could make money with PNN.
It's just that no one is impressed enough by what you're doing to get involved with it.
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 20:54:42 GMT, E.Laureti
<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 17:13:06 GMT, "E.Laureti"
<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 16:16:05 GMT, E.Laureti
<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
E.Laureti <user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> posted:
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 09:04:05 +0200, Von Ottone <pnn@pnn.org> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 19:01:21 -0700, Vincent MaycockAnd you're saying those cost too much to try to use?
<ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 03:24:17 +0200, Von Ottone <pnn@pnn.org> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 18:01:10 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 20:18:58 GMT, "E.Laureti"
<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 14:41:27 GMT, E.Laureti
It is a task
that I leave to others. I focus on doing experiments WELL and showing them to the skeptics.
The obsessive use of Newtonian mechanics for propulsion in astronautics precludes
any colonization of space, as reality has so far brutally demonstrated.
So because you want to travel through space, Newtonian mechanics
*must* be wrong?
that my first question
on seeing it work (after checking for invisible fishing line or cgi)
would be to wonder from what source the motive energy is being drawn.
(It's never tachyons. It would be cool if it was tachyons, except
for the whole "universes with tachyons may not be stable" deal)
too much alone words against PNN !
repeat experimentally this
http://www.asps.it/impnn4.png
https://neolegesmotus.com/2020/11/02/field-self-interaction-electromagnetic-thruster/
you are only unable to do any elementary experiment
Briefly, how are you changing the field self-interaction to increase
the thrust of your PNN vehicle? Or are there other methods that you're
using to accomplish that crucial goal?
Yes, methods:
1) Lower the impedance of the dipole
2) Increase the current
And are those things difficult to accomplish?
To lower the impedance of a dipole fed at high frequency is not so
simple, one would have to at least use silver wires, at least. >> >> >> >> >
Second, and more important, to increase the current, all the circuitry
must *support* high currents at high frequency, and some electronic
components just melt under such stress.
Which ones are melting down, and why can't you replace them with >> >> >> >> > components that don't?
$$$$$$ and to pay several engineers...
but if you buy much land on Mars http://www.asps.it/vol45.htm
:-)
with the money that Musk loses with his comic dynosaur rocketry ... >> >> >> >
i can promise :-)
a trip on Mars in four days :-)
per aspera ad astra
What kind of a return-on-investment can you offer an entrepreneur
interested in investing in your ideas?
I understand next to nothing about finance.
I can say that an investor should do a basic PNN test on their own,
with their experts,
to understand what they might be buying and to ensure they won't be deceived.
That's ironic, since most people consider PNN to be a scam.
successful defamation.. and never see the PNN experiments that disprove
the defamation
What kinds of patents do you have in the field of PNN?
Afterward, if they want to buy the F432BA, we can conduct an
experimental demonstration of the prototype's functioning.
Then, in theory, they could even build PNN spaceships themselves
by carefully studying how the F432BA works.
What happens if, afterward, they don't want to buy your product?
I certainly won't tell to you now
....and given your prejudices,
you doesn't even consider conducting
an experiment by herself that contradicts your beliefs :-)
Put your money in comic rocketry and be happy :-)
LOL! I'm not prejudiced against you. I think it would be cool if
your super-spaceships were a reality.
You say what I do not say.
And I have always said that I have demonstrative prototypes of the PNN
and not spaceships. Unfortunately, it seems that in order
to defame the PNN you alter what I say.
And I think that's true for almost everyone else. Never underestimate
the power of human greed, so that people would be beating a path to
your door if they thought they could make money with PNN.
It's just that no one is impressed enough by what you're doing to get
involved with it.
They are unaffected despite the demonstrative evidence we can provide
and do not want to see?
Or the evidence that you do not want to see in small to convince
yourselves that the PNN is not a scam?
I say that I am happy that all missile astronautics,
which you inadvertently defend, goes down like the Titanic.
Just change the music of your orchestra while your Titanic sinks ?
On Fri, 22 Aug 2025 05:10:02 GMT, E.Laureti <user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 20:54:42 GMT, E.Laureti
<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 17:13:06 GMT, "E.Laureti"
<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 16:16:05 GMT, E.Laureti
<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
E.Laureti <user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> posted:
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 09:04:05 +0200, Von Ottone <pnn@pnn.org> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 19:01:21 -0700, Vincent MaycockAnd you're saying those cost too much to try to use?
<ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 03:24:17 +0200, Von Ottone <pnn@pnn.org> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 18:01:10 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 20:18:58 GMT, "E.Laureti"
<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 14:41:27 GMT, E.Laureti
It is a task
that I leave to others. I focus on doing experiments WELL and showing them to the skeptics.
The obsessive use of Newtonian mechanics for propulsion in astronautics precludes
any colonization of space, as reality has so far brutally demonstrated.
So because you want to travel through space, Newtonian mechanics
*must* be wrong?
that my first question
on seeing it work (after checking for invisible fishing line or cgi)
would be to wonder from what source the motive energy is being drawn.
(It's never tachyons. It would be cool if it was tachyons, except
for the whole "universes with tachyons may not be stable" deal)
too much alone words against PNN !
repeat experimentally this
http://www.asps.it/impnn4.png
https://neolegesmotus.com/2020/11/02/field-self-interaction-electromagnetic-thruster/
you are only unable to do any elementary experiment
Briefly, how are you changing the field self-interaction to increase
the thrust of your PNN vehicle? Or are there other methods that you're
using to accomplish that crucial goal?
Yes, methods:
1) Lower the impedance of the dipole
2) Increase the current
And are those things difficult to accomplish?
To lower the impedance of a dipole fed at high frequency is not so
simple, one would have to at least use silver wires, at least. >> >> >> >> >
Second, and more important, to increase the current, all the circuitry
must *support* high currents at high frequency, and some electronic
components just melt under such stress.
Which ones are melting down, and why can't you replace them with
components that don't?
$$$$$$ and to pay several engineers...
but if you buy much land on Mars http://www.asps.it/vol45.htm
:-)
with the money that Musk loses with his comic dynosaur rocketry ... >> >> >> >
i can promise :-)
a trip on Mars in four days :-)
per aspera ad astra
What kind of a return-on-investment can you offer an entrepreneur
interested in investing in your ideas?
I understand next to nothing about finance.
I can say that an investor should do a basic PNN test on their own, >> >> >with their experts,
to understand what they might be buying and to ensure they won't be deceived.
That's ironic, since most people consider PNN to be a scam.
successful defamation.. and never see the PNN experiments that disprove >> > the defamation
What kinds of patents do you have in the field of PNN?
Afterward, if they want to buy the F432BA, we can conduct an
experimental demonstration of the prototype's functioning.
Then, in theory, they could even build PNN spaceships themselves
by carefully studying how the F432BA works.
What happens if, afterward, they don't want to buy your product?
I certainly won't tell to you now
....and given your prejudices,
you doesn't even consider conducting
an experiment by herself that contradicts your beliefs :-)
Put your money in comic rocketry and be happy :-)
LOL! I'm not prejudiced against you. I think it would be cool if
your super-spaceships were a reality.
You say what I do not say.
And I have always said that I have demonstrative prototypes of the PNN
and not spaceships. Unfortunately, it seems that in order
to defame the PNN you alter what I say.
How far away from spaceships would you say you are now? And have you
even applied for any patents for the PNN?
And I think that's true for almost everyone else. Never underestimate
the power of human greed, so that people would be beating a path to
your door if they thought they could make money with PNN.
It's just that no one is impressed enough by what you're doing to get
involved with it.
They are unaffected despite the demonstrative evidence we can provide
and do not want to see?
Your demonstrations are a bit underwhelming, wouldn't you say?
Or the evidence that you do not want to see in small to convince
yourselves that the PNN is not a scam?
I say that I am happy that all missile astronautics,
which you inadvertently defend, goes down like the Titanic.
Just change the music of your orchestra while your Titanic sinks ?
Why wouldn't the aeronautics industry be interested in what you're
doing?
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2025 05:10:02 GMT, E.Laureti
<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 20:54:42 GMT, E.Laureti
<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 17:13:06 GMT, "E.Laureti"
<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 16:16:05 GMT, E.Laureti
<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
E.Laureti <user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> posted:
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 09:04:05 +0200, Von Ottone <pnn@pnn.org> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 19:01:21 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 03:24:17 +0200, Von Ottone <pnn@pnn.org> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 18:01:10 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 20:18:58 GMT, "E.Laureti"
<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 14:41:27 GMT, E.Laureti
It is a task
that I leave to others. I focus on doing experiments WELL and showing them to the skeptics.
The obsessive use of Newtonian mechanics for propulsion in astronautics precludes
any colonization of space, as reality has so far brutally demonstrated.
So because you want to travel through space, Newtonian mechanics
*must* be wrong?
that my first question
on seeing it work (after checking for invisible fishing line or cgi)
would be to wonder from what source the motive energy is being drawn.
(It's never tachyons. It would be cool if it was tachyons, except
for the whole "universes with tachyons may not be stable" deal)
too much alone words against PNN !
repeat experimentally this
http://www.asps.it/impnn4.png
https://neolegesmotus.com/2020/11/02/field-self-interaction-electromagnetic-thruster/
you are only unable to do any elementary experiment
Briefly, how are you changing the field self-interaction to increase
the thrust of your PNN vehicle? Or are there other methods that you're
using to accomplish that crucial goal?
Yes, methods:
1) Lower the impedance of the dipole
2) Increase the current
And are those things difficult to accomplish?
To lower the impedance of a dipole fed at high frequency is not so
simple, one would have to at least use silver wires, at least.
And you're saying those cost too much to try to use?
Second, and more important, to increase the current, all the circuitry
must *support* high currents at high frequency, and some electronic
components just melt under such stress.
Which ones are melting down, and why can't you replace them with
components that don't?
$$$$$$ and to pay several engineers...
but if you buy much land on Mars http://www.asps.it/vol45.htm
:-)
with the money that Musk loses with his comic dynosaur rocketry ...
i can promise :-)
a trip on Mars in four days :-)
per aspera ad astra
What kind of a return-on-investment can you offer an entrepreneur >> >> >> >> interested in investing in your ideas?
I understand next to nothing about finance.
I can say that an investor should do a basic PNN test on their own, >> >> >> >with their experts,
to understand what they might be buying and to ensure they won't be deceived.
That's ironic, since most people consider PNN to be a scam.
successful defamation.. and never see the PNN experiments that disprove >> >> > the defamation
What kinds of patents do you have in the field of PNN?
Afterward, if they want to buy the F432BA, we can conduct an
experimental demonstration of the prototype's functioning.
Then, in theory, they could even build PNN spaceships themselves
by carefully studying how the F432BA works.
What happens if, afterward, they don't want to buy your product?
I certainly won't tell to you now
....and given your prejudices,
you doesn't even consider conducting
an experiment by herself that contradicts your beliefs :-)
Put your money in comic rocketry and be happy :-)
LOL! I'm not prejudiced against you. I think it would be cool if
your super-spaceships were a reality.
You say what I do not say.
And I have always said that I have demonstrative prototypes of the PNN
and not spaceships. Unfortunately, it seems that in order
to defame the PNN you alter what I say.
How far away from spaceships would you say you are now? And have you
even applied for any patents for the PNN?
I have a patent (about 2020) of PNN . I have no time no money to patent continuosly
And I think that's true for almost everyone else. Never underestimate
the power of human greed, so that people would be beating a path to
your door if they thought they could make money with PNN.
It's just that no one is impressed enough by what you're doing to get
involved with it.
They are unaffected despite the demonstrative evidence we can provide
and do not want to see?
Your demonstrations are a bit underwhelming, wouldn't you say?
Many persons haven't patience to examine all
Or the evidence that you do not want to see in small to convince
yourselves that the PNN is not a scam?
I say that I am happy that all missile astronautics,
which you inadvertently defend, goes down like the Titanic.
Just change the music of your orchestra while your Titanic sinks ?
Why wouldn't the aeronautics industry be interested in what you're
doing?
20 years ago ... at the beginning of today PNN in italian industry
Alenia Spazio they said to me : if PNN works it is a problem for us :-)
Interesting if true!
"These experimental data (VERIFIED SEVERAL TIMES) demonstrate that the
thrust of a PNN propulsion spaceship can be incredibly increased OVER
TIME with the same power used, inevitably exceeding the speed of light."
Take that, Albert!
http://www.asps.it/vol43.htm?trk=public_post_reshare-text
Why has nobody else ever thought of "go very very fast" as a means
of circumventing relativity?
On Fri, 22 Aug 2025 15:24:49 GMT, "E.Laureti" <user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2025 05:10:02 GMT, E.Laureti
<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 20:54:42 GMT, E.Laureti
<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 17:13:06 GMT, "E.Laureti"
<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 16:16:05 GMT, E.Laureti
<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
E.Laureti <user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> posted:
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 09:04:05 +0200, Von Ottone <pnn@pnn.org> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 19:01:21 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 03:24:17 +0200, Von Ottone <pnn@pnn.org> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 18:01:10 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 20:18:58 GMT, "E.Laureti"
<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 14:41:27 GMT, E.Laureti
It is a task
that I leave to others. I focus on doing experiments WELL and showing them to the skeptics.
The obsessive use of Newtonian mechanics for propulsion in astronautics precludes
any colonization of space, as reality has so far brutally demonstrated.
So because you want to travel through space, Newtonian mechanics
*must* be wrong?
that my first question
on seeing it work (after checking for invisible fishing line or cgi)
would be to wonder from what source the motive energy is being drawn.
(It's never tachyons. It would be cool if it was tachyons, except
for the whole "universes with tachyons may not be stable" deal)
too much alone words against PNN !
repeat experimentally this
http://www.asps.it/impnn4.png
https://neolegesmotus.com/2020/11/02/field-self-interaction-electromagnetic-thruster/
you are only unable to do any elementary experiment
Briefly, how are you changing the field self-interaction to increase
the thrust of your PNN vehicle? Or are there other methods that you're
using to accomplish that crucial goal?
Yes, methods:
1) Lower the impedance of the dipole
2) Increase the current
And are those things difficult to accomplish?
To lower the impedance of a dipole fed at high frequency is not so
simple, one would have to at least use silver wires, at least.
And you're saying those cost too much to try to use?
Second, and more important, to increase the current, all the circuitry
must *support* high currents at high frequency, and some electronic
components just melt under such stress.
Which ones are melting down, and why can't you replace them with
components that don't?
$$$$$$ and to pay several engineers...
but if you buy much land on Mars http://www.asps.it/vol45.htm >> >> >> >> >>
:-)
with the money that Musk loses with his comic dynosaur rocketry ...
i can promise :-)
a trip on Mars in four days :-)
per aspera ad astra
What kind of a return-on-investment can you offer an entrepreneur >> >> >> >> interested in investing in your ideas?
I understand next to nothing about finance.
I can say that an investor should do a basic PNN test on their own,
with their experts,
to understand what they might be buying and to ensure they won't be deceived.
That's ironic, since most people consider PNN to be a scam.
successful defamation.. and never see the PNN experiments that disprove
the defamation
What kinds of patents do you have in the field of PNN?
Afterward, if they want to buy the F432BA, we can conduct an
experimental demonstration of the prototype's functioning.
Then, in theory, they could even build PNN spaceships themselves
by carefully studying how the F432BA works.
What happens if, afterward, they don't want to buy your product? >> >> >
I certainly won't tell to you now
....and given your prejudices,
you doesn't even consider conducting
an experiment by herself that contradicts your beliefs :-)
Put your money in comic rocketry and be happy :-)
LOL! I'm not prejudiced against you. I think it would be cool if
your super-spaceships were a reality.
You say what I do not say.
And I have always said that I have demonstrative prototypes of the PNN >> >and not spaceships. Unfortunately, it seems that in order
to defame the PNN you alter what I say.
How far away from spaceships would you say you are now? And have you
even applied for any patents for the PNN?
I have a patent (about 2020) of PNN . I have no time no money to patent continuosly
What features of PNN was the patent for?
And I think that's true for almost everyone else. Never underestimate >> >> the power of human greed, so that people would be beating a path to
your door if they thought they could make money with PNN.
It's just that no one is impressed enough by what you're doing to get >> >> involved with it.
They are unaffected despite the demonstrative evidence we can provide
and do not want to see?
Your demonstrations are a bit underwhelming, wouldn't you say?
Many persons haven't patience to examine all
Have you published any articles in any scientific or engineering
journals about this?
Or the evidence that you do not want to see in small to convince
yourselves that the PNN is not a scam?
I say that I am happy that all missile astronautics,
which you inadvertently defend, goes down like the Titanic.
Just change the music of your orchestra while your Titanic sinks ?
Why wouldn't the aeronautics industry be interested in what you're
doing?
20 years ago ... at the beginning of today PNN in italian industry
Alenia Spazio they said to me : if PNN works it is a problem for us :-)
But you always present PNN as a solution for that problem, right? So
why wouldn't the industry be interested in that "solution"?
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2025 15:24:49 GMT, "E.Laureti"
<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2025 05:10:02 GMT, E.Laureti
<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 20:54:42 GMT, E.Laureti
<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 17:13:06 GMT, "E.Laureti"
<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 16:16:05 GMT, E.Laureti
<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
E.Laureti <user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> posted:
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 09:04:05 +0200, Von Ottone <pnn@pnn.org> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 19:01:21 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 03:24:17 +0200, Von Ottone <pnn@pnn.org> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 18:01:10 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 20:18:58 GMT, "E.Laureti"
<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
Vincent Maycock <ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> posted:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 14:41:27 GMT, E.Laureti
It is a task
that I leave to others. I focus on doing experiments WELL and showing them to the skeptics.
The obsessive use of Newtonian mechanics for propulsion in astronautics precludes
any colonization of space, as reality has so far brutally demonstrated.
So because you want to travel through space, Newtonian mechanics
*must* be wrong?
that my first question
on seeing it work (after checking for invisible fishing line or cgi)
would be to wonder from what source the motive energy is being drawn.
(It's never tachyons. It would be cool if it was tachyons, except
for the whole "universes with tachyons may not be stable" deal)
too much alone words against PNN !
repeat experimentally this
http://www.asps.it/impnn4.png
https://neolegesmotus.com/2020/11/02/field-self-interaction-electromagnetic-thruster/
you are only unable to do any elementary experiment
Briefly, how are you changing the field self-interaction to increase
the thrust of your PNN vehicle? Or are there other methods that you're
using to accomplish that crucial goal?
Yes, methods:
1) Lower the impedance of the dipole
2) Increase the current
And are those things difficult to accomplish?
To lower the impedance of a dipole fed at high frequency is not so
simple, one would have to at least use silver wires, at least.
And you're saying those cost too much to try to use?
Second, and more important, to increase the current, all the circuitry
must *support* high currents at high frequency, and some electronic
components just melt under such stress.
Which ones are melting down, and why can't you replace them with
components that don't?
$$$$$$ and to pay several engineers...
but if you buy much land on Mars http://www.asps.it/vol45.htm >> >> >> >> >> >>
:-)
with the money that Musk loses with his comic dynosaur rocketry ...
i can promise :-)
a trip on Mars in four days :-)
per aspera ad astra
What kind of a return-on-investment can you offer an entrepreneur
interested in investing in your ideas?
I understand next to nothing about finance.
I can say that an investor should do a basic PNN test on their own,
with their experts,
to understand what they might be buying and to ensure they won't be deceived.
That's ironic, since most people consider PNN to be a scam.
successful defamation.. and never see the PNN experiments that disprove
the defamation
What kinds of patents do you have in the field of PNN?
Afterward, if they want to buy the F432BA, we can conduct an
experimental demonstration of the prototype's functioning.
Then, in theory, they could even build PNN spaceships themselves >> >> >> >> > by carefully studying how the F432BA works.
What happens if, afterward, they don't want to buy your product? >> >> >> >
I certainly won't tell to you now
....and given your prejudices,
you doesn't even consider conducting
an experiment by herself that contradicts your beliefs :-)
Put your money in comic rocketry and be happy :-)
LOL! I'm not prejudiced against you. I think it would be cool if
your super-spaceships were a reality.
You say what I do not say.
And I have always said that I have demonstrative prototypes of the PNN >> >> >and not spaceships. Unfortunately, it seems that in order
to defame the PNN you alter what I say.
How far away from spaceships would you say you are now? And have you
even applied for any patents for the PNN?
I have a patent (about 2020) of PNN . I have no time no money to patent continuosly
What features of PNN was the patent for?
Obtaining the patent cost me about a year in addition to the money
and I had to overcome challenges in Italy and at the European Patent Office, >along with continuous revisions of the text.
There is a lot to read in
WO2022264177 - ELECTROMAGNETIC PROPULSION SYSTEM FOR SPACECRAFT MOVEMENT
WITHOUT THE EMISSION OF REACTION MASS
https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2022264177
And I think that's true for almost everyone else. Never underestimate >> >> >> the power of human greed, so that people would be beating a path to
your door if they thought they could make money with PNN.
It's just that no one is impressed enough by what you're doing to get >> >> >> involved with it.
They are unaffected despite the demonstrative evidence we can provide
and do not want to see?
Your demonstrations are a bit underwhelming, wouldn't you say?
Many persons haven't patience to examine all
Have you published any articles in any scientific or engineering
journals about this?
... They do not understand the essential issue that opposes the PNN
(New Physics Theory). The PNN is based on the violation of Newton's
third principle and requires a revision of all the laws of Newtonian
dynamics on which missile technology is based, and even worse, the principles
of conservation of momentum and energy that rely on Newtonian mechanics
must be rewritten. For many journals, this is unacceptable regardless.
They don't even examine the matter, even though there are contrary data >produced by others indicated in our URLs. It can only be accepted by >compelling attendance at its experimental tests with an open mind and
not with prejudice.
The PNN can only be accepted by referencing evident
experimental facts and not the theoretical preconceptions of a
Newtonian physics that is circumvented.
Try to understand: Newtonian mechanics has not been falsified
but circumvented,
since our solar system operates under Newtonian mechanics.
Or the evidence that you do not want to see in small to convince
yourselves that the PNN is not a scam?
I say that I am happy that all missile astronautics,
which you inadvertently defend, goes down like the Titanic.
Just change the music of your orchestra while your Titanic sinks ?
Why wouldn't the aeronautics industry be interested in what you're
doing?
20 years ago ... at the beginning of today PNN in italian industry
Alenia Spazio they said to me : if PNN works it is a problem for us :-)
But you always present PNN as a solution for that problem, right? So
why wouldn't the industry be interested in that "solution"?
The PNN is too cumbersome and alternative to be accepted by the
scientific status quo. Many do not understand anything about electrodynamics
(which Newton didnAt even know about) and therefore dismiss it outright.
No one wants to work hard and pay out of their own pocket to repeat
experiments and go against an established scientific power.
