Dear readers, I’m happy to give you two big news about PNN!

The first one is that on September 23rd Laureti had a meeting with their historical financier and a collaborator of his. During the meeting they decided to patent PNN and at the same time to find economic support from a third-party financier whose participation has not been officialized yet. However, converging to a detailed and complete agreement won’t be easy nor brief. Inevitably, the patent will must be armored against plagiarisms and appeals and therefore it will be necessary a support from (expensive) experts. In exchange for financial support the financiers have asked Laureti to improve PNN thrust to 10 grams; he then indicated the engineers who collaborated in the creation of the cart as the only ones capable to increase the current of the prototype through appropriately adapted impedance.

If everything goes right ASPS plans to organize public PNN roadshows within six months to demonstrate that not only its system violates the Third law of motion and obeys to a law of inertia different than Newton’s, but also that in terms of know-how and performances the PNN is a cut above the Emdrive, whose researchers are still scratching their heads trying to figure out how it works.

The second and more “experimental “news is that the very same PNN functioning is no longer explainable with the current laws of dynamics: if one wants to describe it, then all three laws must be put into discussion. This statement will be deepened during this account of an e-mail exchange between Laureti and the three external collaborators from the company who is partnering with ASPS for the industrial development of PNN. For privacy reasons I’ll call them Eng.M, Eng.F and CEO.

The preliminary tests carried out with Eng.M seemed to lead to the fact that it was not possible to discriminate any thrust with upward thrust and downward thrust (by simply turning the dark box containing F432). In order to increase the operating time of the prototype Eng.M mounted an increased heath sink and a thermostat to cut off the power after the temperature exceed 50°C.

 

 

Whereupon Laureti decided after the departure of Eng.M to create a lighter and shorter prototype called PSET18 similar to those made in 2005. The prototype works with external power supply and has a high SWR to better check data.

Laureti then wrote this email to CEO, Eng.M and Eng.F:

I repeated the tests done with Eng.M on September 15th and 16th by wrapping the prototype in two plastic bags to avoid gas leaks (evaporation) as in attached pictures.

 

 

Here’s the results for both Upward Thrust (SA)and Downward Thrust (SB), with SWR=1.15,Z=34.4 Ω and current equal to about 2.4A (Baofeng low state):

1. Identical results even if in SA phase it seems there’s a more accentuate lightening than phase SB. In simple terms Kern scale always reports lightening signals! Possible explanations: evaporation (explanation by Eng.M) prototype/bridge
2. By turning the prototype in the attitude structure the prototype is always with the bridge and all the stuff connected to it (batteries, Baofeng, amplifier, heat sink etc..) at a distance between 10 and 40 centimeters from the edges of the box containing the prototype. Now I presume that all this stuff don’t interfere with the magnetic fields phases emitted by the prototype and that I’ve never checked (I haven’t got the instruments to do it). What do I mean? That it might occur that in cases SA or SB the mass nearby the bridge (which it’s about 5/6 of the total mass) interferes in a counterphase situation in a 180° rotation of the prototype
3. But the absurd isn’t this… once interrupted the current from batteries after a lightening of about 50 milligrams the lightening continues for an abundant 3 minutes reaching a further lightening between 100 and 150 milligrams both in the state SA and in the state SB… the weight of the whole stabilizes on Kern scale… unless the return times are even longer
   
4. I checked and checked again several times that emitted fields don’t interfere with Kern electronics, manifestly Earth magnetic field doesn’t’ interfere with bridge current when there’s no current… to tell the truth it doesn’t even interfere during the power supply phase
5. Rather pissed for the absurdity of the whole I’ve rebuilt a mini-prototype like those of the past (2001-2005) rather maladjusted Z= about 7 Ω (since maladjustment jiggles a lot) with short power supply cable (RG 174 AU with about 2.8mm section) about 45mm long and current equal to 3,4 A (in detail, doubled thrust in the lightweight prototype compared with F432 since for Lorentz’s forces thrust goes with the square of the current). I called the prototype PSET18 and hung it in guise of ballistic pendulum with theoretical thrust doubled compared to the cumbersome F432 [about 3Kg of weight – E.N]. Powered by the whopper ITB power supply that warns me as soon as the return power becomes unsustainable (thing that I can’t afford with the light and delicate mosfet mounted on the Little Cart bridge)
6. Note that the ITB power supply is about 2 meters from PSET18, which doesn’t even receive 80W! (against the 200W arriving to F432). Well .. at least for about twenty tests made on ballistic pendulum with the usual laser that projects an index of the prototype on an iris, the mini-trap PSET18 moves and always goes where it should go according to what I know, juggle and tinker of Lorentz forces

Meanwhile the CEO raised an interesting doubt: that the prototype could have hygroscopic characteristics and therefore the weight variations measured during test might be due to the heating of the humidity eventually inside the prototype with consequent evaporation and subsequent condensation due to the cooling of the components. To exclude this eventuality Laureti wrapped the prototype in two plastic bags, as the material doesn’t suffer the electromagnetic irradiation, and repeated the tests. Moreover, Eng.M. suspected that the lightening could be a “hot-air balloon effect” due to the heating of gases inside the box.

This convinced Laureti to carry out two long tests with upward thrust and downward thrust in order to exclude this eventuality. At the end of the tests on September 30th he answered to the collaborators with this email:

Dear Eng.M thank you for everything and for your GREAT EXPERTISE from which I have to learn… I’ll reread calmly ALL YOU’VE WRITTEN.

In the meantime, for experimental events I go back on what I said in a previous post. I just want to say you that I’ve made two long tests (in 2 attachments) with the prototype one with upward thrust SA on September 25th and one with downward thrust SB on September 27th. In this second case I not only turned the dark box but I also turned the whole prototype by adding on its back-end two additional wooden supports in order to attach it to the bracket. I attach the approximate results (approximate because taken with a manual chronometer and with the computer clock (which only counts minutes)) of the measurements.

Upward thrust SA table (original in Italian here):

Downward thrust SB table:

[redacted]

I’ll point out the following:

Assuming HYPOTHETICALLY that there is lightening by EMV [Virtual Mechanical Energy – Lureti used this expression to indicate the speed increment in PNN – E.N] and thrust when the thrust is upward, there are basically 2 lightenings in SA state: the unknown one by hypothetical EMV and the one by thrust. As you can see in table SA the total lightening is about 80 milligrams in 30 seconds. Both events work in the same direction and side in SA state. In SB state the prototype thrust is downward. Now while lightening by EMV always works in the same way, the thrust in SB works in the opposite side.

What does it mean? That the 80 milligrams of total lightening in SB state should be reached later. In fact I spent more time (45 seconds of functioning) to reach the 80 milligrams of total lightening.

I do not comment further. In Nova 157 version I’ll add a graphical description of the event.

Notice that I’ll redo all the SA and SB type measurements and I’ll try to do them better… even by placing the prototype (which has 3 coverings) sideways, that is null thrust and presence of the usual hypothetical EMV. Now by noticing the importance that the torsion scale has in these measurements I’m making in my opinion something similar to the torsion scale (for small angles: 1 or 2 degrees) more quantifiable and temporally less slow than torsional pendulum. In practice I’m making a ballistic pendulum with total barycenter variation. In other words I’m modifying a structure in my possession so that the whole pendulum is reasonably rigid and the fulcrum (a paper-cutter blade) tilts on a disc (made of titanium). To make the variation of the center of gravity, above the fulcrum there is a threaded metal rod on which I can adjust the height of some weights (when I can I will send you the photos).

In practice, by moving upwards the weights above the rod, the center of gravity of the whole system (prototype + weights) move close to the fulcrum from the bottom .. and the system practically tends to become a wheel.

Following this exchange of e-mails, the CEO suggested to remove the cover of the prototype (at the sole presence of Laureti to maintain secrecy) to avoid the hygroscopic effect and the hot-air balloon effect.

Here is what Laureti writes to his collaborators on October 3rd:

yesterday and this morning I did and redid on the Kern the thrust tests with long times. I removed about 60% of the coating to not compromise the system geometry since the plastic is well glued to some structures in the inner parts. Furthermore the remaining surface heats up very little compared to the 2 ample ones that have been removed. Well, the incredible thing is that the EMV thrust (in all tests) continues even better after the power supply has been switched off, in upward thrust for 30 seconds (SA state) and for about 48 seconds downward (SB state).

In practice, the Kern scale PCB-3500-2 tells me that the PNN system accelerates for MORE than 98% of the time in TURNED-OFF state, while when it’s TURNED-ON it uses LESS than 2% of the time used for the thrust!

I had to turn off everything because I couldn’t stand still for more than one hour in front of the computer display (plus, the Kern batteries was also discharging) to avoid air movements around the hung prototype. And for me the energy is conserved precisely because together with the thrust there is the decrease of its mass (tens of milligrams for the moment).. As soon as I can I’ll transcribe all the data.

The mass is restored when EMV is dispersed in long times as before. As I said if for the Newtonian mechanics the inertia is a uniform rectilinear motion, for the PNN the inertia SEEMS TO BE a uniformly accelerated motion. Obviously, to well achieve such state you must violate Newton’s III well and not casually or accidentally as MAYBE the “emdrivists” do, ALWAYS IN MY OWN OPINION.

Well in the last two tests in which I removed 60% of the coating the thing works better than before in the sense that the impedance is even lowered slightly… together with the capacitive effects of the dielectric in near zone… I’d dare to add. Now I’ll put 8 vents (laterally and in symmetrical configuration) on the prototype that I’ll cover again to dispel any doubt about thermal or rocket effects 🙂

Hooray!

It can be said, maybe 🙂

All these years of research and experimentation have convinced Laureti that the violation of the III principle has inevitably consequences on the other two laws: it is practically impossible to have the same law of Newtonian inertia through the physical and mathematical correlation that exists between the laws of motion.
From what emerges from the last tests there seem to be two essential phenomena that the Kern scale adds:

• the mass decrease of the system which violates the action / reaction principle and which seems to persist as long as the whole EMV is not dissipated
• the same thrust during the ignition period

During both events there is always a mass decrease that after a while is restored when the EMV is completely dissipated. In both datasheets, notice the restoration of the weight towards the end of the test, always with the engine off.

On October 15th Laureti drawn his own conclusions:

1. After the UHF power supply has been turned off we assist to an accelerated inertial motion of F432 (lightening on the scale) and then to a decelerated inertial motion, that is the prototype regains it weight after having lost all its Virtual Mechanical Energy. The event has been repeatedly observed on two Kern scales: one with a precision to a milligram and one with a precision to a tenth of a milligram.
2. In accelerated inertial motion F432 seems to work around the Theory of Relativity by diminish its mass with increasing speed. In other terms the total energy of the system is conserved. Momentum is also conserved because the system recoils on the electrodynamic field. The fact that it’s called recoil on void or recoil on ether for me is an unessential controversy.
3. The change of inertial law (if realized with more power) seems to be an ideal mean to exceed the speed of light. In the reference frame of fixed stars  the total mass of the moving body tends to zero with increasing speed. I don’t know how many times is possible to exceed the speed of light. I only think that PNN dynamics allows to reach earth-like planets in other solar systems in times that are congruous with human lifespan (I hypothesize less than one year)
4. We’re preparing to study this new PNN law of motion with a more suitable instrumentation. Funding permitting.
5. Funding permitting we want to put into Low Earth Orbit the boosted variants of F432

---

 

With such premises, 2019 is going to be a great year for PNN and the world of electromagnetic propulsion in general 🙂

Official ASPS web page link: http://www.asps.it/vol38.htm

F432 and test lab. gallery: