Action reaction princcipe violation in uhf

Nut cases post this sort of nonsense from time to time. Search on the "Dean Drive" which got some publicity around 1960.

rotfl

A well-thought-out reaction.

Lorentz forces certainly exist - the magnetic field is one of them - and you can set up a notionally reactionless drive by circulating a current in a non-uniform magnetic field, except that the actual reaction force is transferred to the mass that is generating the magnetic field.

It's a still a nonsense - and a sufficiently popular nonsense to show up repeatedly. If there was a version that did anything useful somebody would have found out about it by now, and any claim that a new version actually works would have to be very well documented for anybody to take it seriously.

It's strange that certain things that are almost well-known in Europe are unfortunately not so in America and elsewere.

Now, at least for those who seek information, it is known that by applying the Lorentz force to open circuits it is possible to violate the principle of action and reaction. The catastrophic detail is that no one before us (Asps association

In practice, no one has done anything in this regard for more than a century! …. Because experimentally, one must experiment with what is unfortunately unpredictable. The non-Newtonian thrust in the PNN starts very weak but grows over time as shown in this graph

I would also add that because the PNN is based on concrete physics (the Lorentz forces), they had to, after much resistance, grant us the European patent. Patent: WO2022264177 - ELECTROMAGNETIC PROPULSION SYSTEM FOR SPACECRAFT MOVEMENT WITHOUT THE EMISSION OF REACTION MASS

Under stress they break and fail. This writing describes how to verify at zero cost the violability of the principle of action and reaction

With PNN, it is possible to build spacecraft that do not lose parts and mass and finally colonize the Moon and Mars.

To the complete satisfaction of some experimentalist who doesn't seem to have published in the peer-reviewed literature.

"It would almost seem that Musk does not know the thermodynamic equation PV= NkT which links the speed of the gases expelled from a rocket to the temperature of the combustion chamber. This ratio says that the velocity of the gas expelled from the missile's nozzle is inexorably linked to the square root of the temperature. At most the combustion chambers tolerate around 3000°C of temperature but if you wanted to double the thrust of a rocket you would have to raise the temperature to 12000°C and any known metal alloy if used to cover the combustion chamber would not tolerate even 4000°C . Therefore, any rocket, even if improved, will NEVER have double thrust for the same expelled mass."

This is ignorant nonsense.

The combustion chamber is actually cooled by the fluids fed into it - they can't burn until they mix, and combustion chamber design makes sure that they mix and burn at centre of the chamber and the hot gases don't hit the walls on the way out. The hot gas still radiates, but the flow of fuel into the combustion chamber actively cools the walls.

Liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen has a peak combustion temperature of about

Ion drives can get much better specific impulses, and the

This sort of fact is well know in the US, and the UK and the bit of Europe - the Netherlands - where I worked for 19 years.

English language nonsense peddlers are happy to ignore these sorts of inconvenient facts, and I imagine that Italy has a few of them too.

Being able to produce an Enrico Fermi doesn't stop the Italian gene pool from being able to produce lots of less able people.

I've snipped the rest of the drivel.

Peer reviews do not accept paradigm shifts (violation of Newton's third law). Even AI says that the limitation of peer reviews is that they never conduct experiments alternative to the existing ones.

In fact, with rockets they still haven't managed to establish a permanent human base on the moon in over half a century (Apollo 11)… And they will never succeed, given that expelling the same mass of gas becomes increasingly difficult as the temperature rises. Evidence teaches you nothing. The same goes for Musk, who will fail no matter how he tries with rockets to have permanent bases even on the Moon alone.

Why are you talking to me about dreams when there is an experiment (with open circuits in UHF)

Nonsense belongs to those who do not even want to do this experiment

Don't be silly. Getting the temperature to rise is the difficult bit. The amount of mass you can expel depends on getting the gases to combine to create that temperature rise without ripping up ripping the rocket motor apart in the in process.

The evidence that you have posted demonstrates that you don't know what you are talking about, and has taught me that responding to you is a waste of time.

Not without going to a lot of trouble and spending an appreciable amount of money.

That's your claim. The most likely outcome of devoting that effort much would be that I'd find out what you'd got wrong.

You've already posted links to enough half-baked nonsense to make it perfectly clear that you've very likely got something seriously wrong.

I've been stuck with carrying out quite enough ill-conceived experiments in the course of my professional career to be well aware what an ill-conceived proposal looks like, and you tick far too many of the boxes.

I'm not going to build any spaceships. I don't have that kind of money.

I agree that chemical rockets aren't a good solution to the problem of getting into space.

The same, i don’t waste my time

AI evauluate to repeat the pendulum test

All my experimental tests give identical results in front of me and others who, unfortunately, do not even want to believe what they see. :-) It doesn't seem necessary to add anything else.

The history of physics includes a number of ill-conceived experiments which persuaded naive observers.

A slightly more sceptical attitude wouldn't go amiss. A vital part of any Ph.D. thesis is a critical review of the literature. I found a few howlers in mine.

There's a potential problem with this demonstration. It is shown working in open air.

Air molecules - N2 and O2 - aren't polarised, but they are polarisable, and are attracted to areas of high electric field.

At very high voltages you can ionise air and create electric wind

Putting the device in a vacuum might change the behavior.

Youbtells me that if I do a test with two wires to test the Lorentz repulsive force in direct current, things change if alternating current is used :-) I am repeating applying the Lorentz force law to open circuits at 432 MHz... I'm not inventing anything unusual... and the power used is 250 watts to have a controllable SWR

So explain to me what happens when I put this prototype

But what happens with the prototypes for sale is an old story. For about 2 years, we have had new prototypes (Aliena class) that are not patented and NOT for sale, which can remain under thrust for more than 1 hour at about 250 watts. To rule out any explanation involving comical ionic winds... in over 1 hour of thrust, the force reached is above 1 kg at about 250 watts. Totally inexplicable by any paranoid explanation of unknown ionic particle flows. We could achieve, with more robust equipment—i.e., more robust amplifiers + other prototypes in series and parallel that reuse reflected energy—tons of thrust. And lift a submarine to use as a spaceship to Mars. Nova Astronautica no.185

qff (quo fata ferunt)

Actually that should have been 3.46A in 50R or 173V. If the impedance of you antenna structure was higher we would be talking about even higher voltages, which could ionise air.

Precision scales used in chemistry are mounted in glazed cabinets - you have to open a door in the cabinet to put your sample one pan, and you close it while you are comparing the mass you added to the weights in the other pan. Open rooms have fast enough convection currents to exert significant aerodynamic forces on the pans. When I was testing an electric weighing device I found that I had to drop a draft-shield - a cylinder of paper - over the weighing head - to get a stable output.

There nothing hypothetical about electric wind. Pushing RF into an antenna structure generates heat, and that generates thermal convection currents in air. That's simple aerodynamics.

If you feed RF into your antenna for long enough it will heat up the space around your demonstration - the warmer it gets, the faster the convection currents.

Where the heat is dissipated affects the sorts of convention currents you generate, and their direction. That's more complicated aerodynamics. At least you shouldn't be putting enough heat in to generate turbulent flow, which avoids another layer of complication.

Turbulent flow is unpredictable. Laminar flow is predictable, but you have to know a lot to be able predict the speed and the direction.

The Aliena prototype is completely enclosed in a box

Not the world's most informative photograph.

I'm not talking about "particle winds" but rather about convection currents in air which are driven by heat differences, and a 250 Watt dissipation can generate appreciable thermal gradients.

Your voltages may be high enough to ionise air and generate electric winds as well

Conduct many experiments by placing different dummy loads on scales and powering it at 250 watt for at least 1 hour at 432 MHz, and see if in the end the thrust is 1 kg. :-)

Not having your toys to play with, these aren't instructions that I could follow.

My guess is that you have screwed up somewhere, and we'd have to take your experimental setup apart very carefully to find out where.

Putting it back together again and still being able to get the 1 kilogram thrust that you claim would be an even more demanding exercise, but if anybody could do that you might have something that you might be able to sell.

Incidentally "1kg" is a measure of weight, not thrust, which is measured in Newtons, which is the force required to accelerate a 1kgm mass at

"Gravity on the Earth's surface varies by around 0.7%, from 9.7639 m/s2 on the Nevado Huascarán mountain in Peru to 9.8337 m/s2 at the surface of the Arctic Ocean."

So you are actually claiming a thrust of about 9.8 Newton.

It would be a bit less in Sydney than in Rome - we are closer to the equator than you are so the centrifical component trying to throw us off the planet is a bit higher here

Anything that we, the ASPS association, manage to sell comes with the obligation for the buyer to perform all the tests they want before purchasing.

Regards

But you haven't managed to sell anything.

What you are trying to sell is probably effectively a coil gun.

These aren't normally activated by 433MHz RF currents, but all they need is is a current source that induces a matching current in the structure to be accelerated. The wavelength of 433MHz RF is about 70cm so the force will alternate as the structure gets progressively further away from the current source but this won't show up in a static lab test.