At this point, after all my previous posts, I wouldn’t be surprised if some readers were wondering whether PNN really exists or it’s rather one of the many scams in the scientific world.
The easiest way to convince everyone would be, of course, a public demonstration with the participation of scientific community that can validate ASPS‘s claims. Although the Association itself aims for such public event the technology behind PNN is not ready for a demonstration yet, because Laureti wants first to enhance TDS VF2 thrust to at least 1.1g (prototype take-off) . In order to do this TDS needs to be 32 times more powerful than now and ASPS is facing all the correlated technical difficulties to achieve this result.
While we wait that the exhibition dispels all doubts, we could find another way to sense that there’s definitely something behind PNN: I’m talking about the similar technologies that are emerging around the world.
In 2001 British aerospace engineer Robert Shawyer invented an electromagnetic propellant-less thruster called EmDrive, which works by injecting microwaves inside a metallic hollow cone using a magnetron. As the cone shape acts as a wave-guide, the group velocity of the waves impacting on the large end is higher than that of the waves impacting on the narrow end; this difference of speed directly affects the radiation pressure exerted on both ends. If we call F1 the force exerted on large end and F2 the force exerted on narrow end, we can see that F1 is higher than F2. This means that the whole structure will be pushed in the direction of F1, with a little drag caused by F2 which pushes in the opposite direction. Usually the radiation pressure wouldn’t be noticeable but inside the EmDrive it is amplified through the phenomenon of resonance. For this reason the scientific community has baptized the device as Radio Frequency resonance cavity thruster.
The electromagnetic forces F1 and F2 inside the EmDrive cavity
In 2014 NASA tested Shawyer’s device in a vacuum chamber and reported that a thrust of 91.2uN at 17W of input power has been observed . Even if this measure is close to instrument sensitivity threshold (thus with an high risk of measurement error), it is enough to let NASA’s fantasy run wild. One of Agency‘s scientists, Harold White, speculates that the thrust is generated because microwaves push against quantum vacuum virtual particles inside the resonant cavity. Another researcher external to NASA, Dr. Fernando Minotti, speculates that the thrust may be explained by certain scalar tensor theories of gravity. In practice, every EmDrive observer tries to explain how it works without daring to affirm that this kind of device violates Newton’s third law of motion, because it would be like swearing for a scientist. Rather they chose to set up complex explanations that contemplate advanced theoretical physics, losing sight of the implications of the EmDrive existence. ASPS instead has always written that the Third Law does not apply in electrodynamics and it’s thank to this understanding that PNN-E is heading to take-off. If we think about it for a moment, when Newton formulated his laws electromagnetism wasn’t discovered yet: why should we say they’re valid in this field?
Right here on Neo Leges Motus Emidio Laureti has commented about EmDrive: he writes that all parties involved actually don’t have a clue of what is happening inside the device. To make a comparison it’s like as if they were trying to build a rocket ignoring the action/reaction principle: without knowing the real phenomenon that occurs inside the EmDrive the measurements will utterly confuse researchers because their value will vary from time to time. For this reason, the gap between EmDrive and PNN-E is unbridgeable and ASPS is light years ahead in the research (in the right direction).
Why EmDrive is similar to PNN-E?
Because the magnetron is basically an antenna that emits electromagnetic waves, which interact with the metallic mass of the cone pushing it in a given direction. The macroscopic difference is that PNN-E doesn’t need a resonant cavity to exploit EM field because the thrust is induced within the dipole region. In fact, while EmDrive magnetron transmits power toward the cavity, in PNN-E Laureti struggles to convey as much power as possible nearby the dipoles instead of irradiating it. Another big difference is that while PNN-E is a reactionless drive, EmDrive doesn’t eliminate completely the reaction force (F2).
In 2006 the chemical engineer Guido Fetta realized his own variation of EmDrive, called Cannae Drive. The working principle is the same but Fetta, like White, believes that the thrust is produced by quantum void fluctuations. The architectural difference is that the cavity is a cylinder with the insides coated of reflecting materials of different refractive indexes. NASA tested Cannae Drive as well, reporting a thrust of 25uN .
NASA experimental setup for Cannae Drive
What is strange is that Fetta has declared that an inner slotting is crucial for the thruster to work but in NASA’s “null test” (without the slotting) the device has produced thrust nevertheless. This could make us think to the unpredictability of results theorized by Laureti or to the measurement errors due to the microscopic thrusts involved.
However, the point is that an authority of NASA’s caliber has confirmed an anomalous thrust production in propellant-less devices that work using electromagnetic waves. Indirectly, they’ve validated what ASPS has been saying for twenty three years.