Over the last months, ASPS created two new variants of its flagship thruster F432, always with the aim of improving the thrust output and the overall efficiency.

The First Variant is what one can call a “dual core” engine, since it’s made of twin thruster units. Unfortunately, the e.m fields emitted by the two units negatively interfere with each other and in order to exactly understand what is happening there is the need of appropriate instruments that ASPS doesn’t own.

Therefore, in order to make things easier Laureti developed the Second Variant.

This thruster is based on the well-known “single core” structure of the previous prototypes, like F432.

Compared to the latter however, the Second Variant is made with new materials (no wood) and has a passive thermal dissipation that is more efficient than F432.

This new thruster is actually tested on the ballistic pendulum with a 600W input power. On the top of the prototype there’s a coaxial connector that can be plugged both to an external power supply or to a battery pack. The connector can rotate on its vertical axis, therefore during the tests the prototype can rotate while the connector remain fixed.

Above 300W of input power the Second Variant, once equipped with adequate active thermal dissipation systems, is suitable for long space missions and with a power supply of at least 2400W it could host 4 thruster units. With this configuration, three units could be pointed toward the three spatial dimensions and one unit could be used to strengthen the thrust in the chosen direction.

At the moment the demonstrative tests of the Second Variant are made on ballistic pendulum alone which, compared to the previous ones, is significantly shortened. The prototype performed wonderfully in tests with 180° rotation, developing thrust in the opposite direction of the fixed power supply cable.

Laureti is also preparing a new electronic scale to be used for further precision tests.

The take off of a PNN prototype is, however, still out of reach at the moment because, I quote Laureti’s words:

There’s the need of a technology that today it doesn’t exist: first, an active thermal dissipation and maybe a 5kW nuclear power supply like the Kilopower reactor. The problem would have already been solved like 20 years ago if I had decided to give away the know-how of PNN for free without trying to commercialize it through a private enterprise. The fast take-off however has to be based on electronics/electrodynamics skills that I don’t possess, but some hundreds of electronic engineers could make it if they pledged to it in a obsessive and frantically way

Nevertheless, ASPS received inquiries by companies (both Italian and non) that are interested in the industrial development of PNN: last May, a Chinese company attended a PNN roadshow in Milan and it’s now interested in buying the technology (patent).

Here’s part of the mail exchange:

Inviato: Venerdi 3 maggio 2019 11:35

A: Asps Manager

Oggetto: PNN project and Patent

Dear Asps Manager

It was very pleasant meeting you last week at the Hilton in Milan and we would
like to confirm our interest in the project PNN / NNP based on Prof. Laureti
studies and prototypes. After our internal meeting regarding Investments we
would like to confirm you that we are very interested in buying out the technology and the related
patent, also we will be doing all the necessary experiments and
implementations even in collaboration with our Russian partners to make
experimentation in microgravity in the International Space Station.

From Corporate side, we must tell you that Patent is a must and without it we
won’t be able to make any investment.
Please consider as we discussed that we manage a 4.7B Investment Fund directly
and that we will be able to valorize your patent.
Looking forward to hear from you soon.

Best regards, XIAO Lihong

Asset Manager Europe Bank of China (Hong Kong) Limited
Bank of China Tower

The problem with the patenting however, is the implicit disclosure of the PNN know-how. Therefore, Laureti elaborated a commercialization procedure aimed to minimize the risks of losing the exclusivity of the know-how. The procedure is composed of the following steps:

1. A potential investor can heavily intervene with financing or anything else only after the patent has been granted, divulged and promoted, meaning that the investors will have to provide at least for the patent filing. Then they can have (if they only fund the demonstrative and patent phases) shares that can be kept or resold at the price they’ll want.
2. A fundamental point is that whatever patent share I (Laureti) will hold, I must have the opportunity to sell PNN thruster autonomously. In other words I must have the chance to join with whoever allows me what I said before: the sale of PNN technology independently or together with others that have my same ideas.
3. Initially, for security reasons (non-negotiable event) I must provide myself alone to the patent filing, advised by my lawyers and persons of trust.
4. I must be assigned a commission (surety or other) so that the patent is filed. If it doesn’t match the expectations on the propellantless thrust (both theoretical and experimental) I’ll give back the due, excluded the patent costs and eventually the costs of further demonstrations, always in enclosed box before the patent filing.
5. Obviously who pays the patent (even partially) and contextually deposit a partial or total surety (or other procedure) will have a property share of the patent. Everything falls if obviously what I’ll say after the PNN know-how has been disclosed won’t be considered convincing, neither theoretically nor experimentally. However, after witnessing the thrust phenomena of PNN both with open and closed box I can’t see how it could happen.
6. Why all this hype during the experimental demonstration of PNN? Because it’s not thinkable that something like that (the know-how of PNN) remains reserved to few (whoever owns patent shares, patent office employees). After the patent has been filed I must be allowed the maximum hype about the disclosure of PNN, because in my opinion:
   1. this will increase the value of the patent shares
   2. it will make the scientific community to evaluate if I tell falsities or not
   3. I consider the hype in Italy and abroad on the PNN disclosure after the patent has been filed a form of self-protection. Therefore, who wants to impede it by any means (there’s already who does!) is for me suspicious and it’s better to exclude him from any kind of agreement.
7. According to the principle that I trust everyone up to a certain point I started some tests for the commercialization of PNN through institutions that support an idea with donations (that I’ve received) and startups. I say without misunderstandings that if the self-styled financiers aim to grab the PNN for free or through exhausting negotiations with the undersigned they are making judgement errors that are unfortunately irreversible.

In conclusion: for Laureti the disclosure of PNN must be public, recorded in the presence of lawyers and, he adds, possibily in a classroom of the physics institute Guglielmo Marconi in Rome where he graduated in physics.