About E.M thrusters orbital tests

A representation of the Cube Sat test platform by Cannae Drive Inc.


Dear readers,

today I would like to propose you another selection of Laureti’s comments about the rising awareness -by other scientists- that EmDrive might not work by recoiling on quantum substrates, (that is, for now , the most accepted hypothesis even if it’s basically science fiction) as they shyly start to mention the fact that the device -on paper- looks to defy Newtown’s Third Law of Motion. As reported in the linked article, EmDrive rival Cannae drive Inc. is  going to send a small satellite, equipped with an emDrive thruster, in space to look for the ultimate proof that yes, E.M propulsion does work.

This is basically what ASPS has been saying for years!

Here’s Laureti’s comment about that article:

Actually months ago I “bombed” them [people interested in emDrive – E.N] on different foreign forums, saying that EmDrive thrust issues can be resolved only by understanding and realizing that Newton, in his days, didn’t know anything about Ohm’s Law and e.m waves.

They poorly copy what I’ve been saying for three years: practically the low thrust values of PNN and EmDrive can be observed by bringing the contraptions into orbit, as we already proposed.


Here’s now a crossfire discussion between Laureti and a physicist (Idini) about reliability of PNN [1] :

Idini: Weren’t we going to reach Mars by 2017?

Laureti: If tomorrow you, or someone else, give me the bucks (and nuclear reactors) needed to generate the millions of Amperes required by PNN circuits tomorrow I’ll start to build the spaceship. However, there are plenty of people who want me to conquer Mars without money and in spite of NASA. Also, they don’t want to read this [in Italian – E.N].

I: Trust me, on Mars there is no need for lawyers

L:but there is on Earth..

I: I read Laureti [the link above – E.N], and I keep repeating that you understand nothing about electrodynamics and you took the Halliday-Resnick or some other elementary textbook (that contains the classic didactic contradictions about, for example, the approach of potential vector, known stuff since 1812) and you took your own road, without passing close to a Jackson or to any advanced electrodynamics textbook.

L: you’re one of those many intelligents and geniuses who stand, or might stand, in secula seculorum [for ever and ever – E.N] in front of the EmDrive without understanding a thing about how it really works. It’s comical that you keep quoting the Jackson without understanding that your beloved textbook doesn’t specify any experimental electrodynamics procedure with which one can violate Newton’s Third. To PNN the Jackson is a metaphysics textbook like many others.

I:[…]Moreover, it’s obvious that classic electrodynamics contains irreconcilable contradictions: not by chance it’s from electrodynamics that one has the need to quantize the charge, the space, the relativity, to determine the QED Lagrangian etc..

L: Nice things that decorate who says them and deviate from the right road because they’ve got nothing to do with Newton’s Third violation procedure. I repeat: they deviate and hallucinate (usefully to me).

I: a lot of nice things that fly kilometers away from PNN and its electrodynamics momentum.

L: In PNN momentum is conserved as Planck said.. energy too is conserved. Then, as I hope I can fix F242 [recently damaged by overheating – E.N] or another PNN prototype, I’m going to invite you, hopefully by 2017, to attend an experimental test with all the time and patience that it’ll take. But, it’s mandatory for you to bring the Jackson or another shiny bible where it’s written that you can’t violate Newton’s Third. This Laozi’s motto fits very well to PNN: what is true is not beautiful, what is beautiful is not true.

I: Simply because for us who work by following the strictness of scientific precepts the Newton’s Third globally can’t be violated neither theoretically nor, above all, experimentally.

L: I make a note of that Mr. Idini, because there are colleagues of yours who think that Third principle is theoretically violable even if they don’t know how.

I: […] I reaffirm: if you demonstrate me that you reach orbit with the car battery then it’ll be obvious that we’re in front of a  violation of  the Third principle.

L: ok.. but the car battery must delight me with about 1 million Amperes in UHF for some minutes, otherwise one should find an intermediate solution: to send into orbit a PNN prototype (after it has been patented) and like a common satellite release it, activate it (also by ground control) and to watch from a certain distance, with the due means of detection, what dynamically happens.

I: As long as you’re playing with the pendulum plugged to electrical current, there are already 1001 possible explanations without making Newton turn in his grave. Explanations that you can find inside the Jackson.

L: I think that for you any test with ballistic pendulum (or torsional) is fake even if the PNN prototype remains at fixed angle with the vertical under electric supply.. the Jackson would say that it’s due to an invisible witch’s flying broom or to an invisible fan/magnet/whatever. So before moving to satellite test I’ll have to go through an intermediate phase – which it’ll cost me an arm and a leg – in order to “maybe” convince ultra-skeptics like you and others.

To make it short, Jackson’s “surahs” will have to be revised and one must think to something plausible in order to say that void chambers used for thrust detection of ion engines work with Newtonian thrusters but not with non-Newtonian thrusters.

[1] – A discussion from Italian blog OcaSapiens



2 thoughts on “About E.M thrusters orbital tests

  1. Instead of keeping comparing the PNN to the EMDrive, what’s about the Woodward effect? It actually seems to me much more related to Laureti’s experiments than the EMDrive:

    Another type of Mach effect thruster is the Mach-Lorentz thruster (MLT). It uses a charging capacitor embedded in a magnetic field created by a magnetic coil. A Lorentz force, the cross product between the electric field and the magnetic field, appears and acts upon the ions inside the capacitor dielectric. In such electromagnetic experiments, the power can be applied at frequencies of several megahertz, unlike PZT stack actuators where frequency is limited to tens of kilohertz. The photograph shows the components of a Woodward effect test article used in a 2006 experiment.



    1. Dear visitor,
      thanks for your comment.
      I compare PNN with EmDrive because according to Laureti inside the EmDrive it happens the same phenomenon behind PNN but, as Shawyer thinks it works by “standard” principles, the actual thrust is likely a casual effect of the thruster setup, at least until he (and scientists who study his thruster) decides to accept the fact that Newton’s third might not be always applicable in electrodynamics.

      About Woodward effect: I made a quick research online. Conceptually MLT looks similar to PNN, however I found this interesting discussion at NASA Spaceflight forum:
      where they say that MLT is highly inefficient in comparison with EmDrive, so the principle behind Woodward’s device might be different.
      I think this engine could be a variant of MLT:

      Liked by 1 person

Welcome visitor, please share your thoughts. English is better but Italian is accepted. If you want to learn more about ASPS please have a look at the blog menu

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s