|The important fact recently discovered is that the violation of action reaction principle change newtonian inertia law and the II newtonian principle too. We see this experimentally in pendulum tests with PNN prototype F432 powered by batteries. Newton laws are not wrong but can be bypassed. We found any correlation with emdrive too|
PNN tests that bypass the 3 laws of Newton's motion
@ W. Staal
Non-Newtonian Propulsion does not violate the conservation of the momentum nor that of energy.
It could only give details after the release of the N.158 of Nova Astronautica ,ASPS issue, in about 2-3 weeks
From Nova Astronautica Vol38 n.158 asps.it/vol38.htm
For a long time our judgment on the Emdrive is the following: just because there are, as Staal says, many theories to explain the emdrive can only mean that the creator and / or the researchers of the em drive have not yet understood what is the UNIQUE and just theory. Theory that for us is the same that regulates the functioning of PNN or primarily the violation of the principle of action and reaction.
But the Emdrive in doing such an operation does it according to our assessment very badly. Reaching the violation of Newton's III in a totally chaotic and casual and worse yet unconscious not understanding the essential procedures that should be done in order to overcome the third law of Newton's motion with an artificial type device.
Consequently, the emdrivists fall into far worse events: they do not understand and can experimentally assess that the violation of Newton III alters NECESSARILY the other two basic principles of mechanics: the First Principle or the law of inertia and the Second Principle or the fatal relationship F = ma
One of our problems was that we had to lengthen the duration of the experimental tests as much as possible. Now if the ambient temperature is low enough the mosfet protection thermostat trips with more delay and therefore the test lasts longer. The kern scale tests are much longer ... almost 1 hour. The thrust is only visible when the amplifier is turned on again within 60 seconds for the rest of the time we are on the balance of the inertial motion of F432 with what appears to be a mass decrease and a subsequent mass re-entry.
Thinking back to the Kern Balance tests, I notice that more than a mass loss (I stand as a primary understanding to the scale display) it is something equivalent to a form of internal potential energy, that is, always a quantity that, like the mass, is one climb and not a carrier. I give a trivial example: if you put a mass on a scale and weighs x, if you pull it upwards without lifting it, the weight will be x-k. That is only the acceleration of gravity has changed (diminished). In practice, mass does not change ... only the gravitational potential that is a scalar changes.
The thrust tests on the pendulum rocker instead of which you can not see mass decrease but only the overall violation of the 3 principles of Newton I made them repeatedly after the heat sink has cooled. The tests indicate first that the third of Newton is violated, then that the thrust (amplifier ON) increases at the same power delivered (violation of the law-law of the dynamics) then finally ceased the power supply (amplifier OFF) the index of the slope it does not return to the starting position but remains between zero (start) and the maximum excursion point. It must be remembered that only a small mass of the whole pendulum is in non-Newtonian state the mass of the cart and of the batteries near the balance knife are probably less non-Newtonian than non-Newtonian is the pnn engine of F432. What do I mean? That slowly the index returns to the starting state. How slowly I do not know can I count well because the computer counts the minutes, for other data (for the duration of the ON state I use a stopwatch, the data (weight) I take them by eye (I do not have recording data on the scale display) and given the fact that my lab is limited as a surface I can not stand more than one hour near the instrumentation to avoid creating air currents that would alter the measures: the tenths of milligrams of the electronic scale Kern!
The first thrust test is on the net and is done with the technician Rinaldo J. Who assists and maneuvers the remote control and lasts about 28 seconds ... at the end the thrust on the pendulum's barycentre was about 1.38 grams. The second longest and not yet on the net lasted about 52 seconds with a final barycentral thrust estimated at 2.78 grams (I estimate the error at 20%)
To be continued
About two years ago I find such correlation between Emdrive an PNN:
EmDrive experimentally verified that "Thrust signals even after the electrical power was turned off" (from sciencealert.com/independent-s…-em-drive-produces-thrust)
The same occurs with more evidence for F242 and better with F432
For me "Thrust signals even after the electrical power was turned off" is not a measurement error and agreesin the sense that the violation of Newton's Third principle involves a change of the law of inertia and therefore the law of inertia for systems that violate the third principle (PNN and Emdrive) is an accelerated motion with power turned off
My experimental means do not allow to me at now a good identification of the mathematical trend of accelerated inertia
From Nova Astronautica Vol38 n.158 asps.it/vol38.htm
I have done a rough account excluding the non-linearity of the event even if in the observed data we notice a certain tendency to non-linearity. After about 17 hours with battery power at about 320 watts F432 would reach the acceleration of just over 1 g and then it would take off. With the non-linearity of the increase in thrust force F432 would take off before.
Needless to say that the batteries should be recharged with solar panels and RGT radioisotope generators and that the thermal dissipation of the dashboard of the cart should work at 100% with additional and more adequate passive thermal dissipators if the system were to and would venture into space.
If F432 adapted to the target should point to Mars we would arrive in less than 2 days. But just outside the terrestrial mesosphere F432 should start to decelerate because it would find (growth of long duration of engine acceleration with engine turned off!) Not on Mars but on Pluto or even worse within the cloud of Oort that is about 2400 times the distance between the Sun and Pluto!
PNN is structurally suitable for interplanetary flight and therefore to reach Earth-like planets in other solar systems. Unfortunately, the whole thing is quite incredible given that the PNN propulsion system is intrinsically extra-relativistic, given that an energy observable linked to the mass DIMINISES and NOT increases with increasing speed. However, these reflections are the clues from initial measures that should be redone, perfected, and better reshaped.
To be continued
In conclusion, PNN does NOT violate:
a) the law of conservation of momentum
Given that the dr. Planck told us that the conservation of the impulse is ensured by the conservation of electromagnetic momentum fisica.unipv.it/antoci/re/Planck08.pdf
Now also in the link asps.it/azione.htm the physicist V. Moretti says that:
In Newtonian mechanics the third principle of Newton is thus enunciated. With reference to an inertial system, assigned two bodies A and B, if A exerts a force F on B then B, at the same time, exercises A force -F on A. F and -F are vectors.
In a stronger form, the third principle also states that if A and B are point bodies, the forces F and -F lie along the two bodies together.
In electrodynamics, if the two bodies are charged, precisely because of the delay effect due to the electromagnetic field, the third principle as stated above is not valid. The EM field can not be considered a body for various reasons (not even in continuum theory essentially because it does not define a velocity field ...) so that the third principle can not even be formulated for the system charges + field EM. While for the electrodynamics the third principle does not apply or is informable according to taste, the conservation of the total impulse, if the EM field is included in the system, continues to hold.
And we add that the conservation of the impulse through the electromagnetic field for PNN can also be done with a relationship of type P> E / c
To be continued
PNN does NOT violate:
b) The law of conservation of energy
A criticism that was made in the past about the existence of the possibility of violating the III principle of newton was that this would have led to a violation of the
principle of conservation of energy because given the constant energy throughout the system (including also electricity) the same could not have sustained high levels of kineticenergy given that it would not have had an equal compensation of electricity. Now the pnn tests can show that at any increase of an observable connected to the kinetic energy EMV (EMV = Virtual Mechanical Energy) there is a corresponding decrease of EPV (EPV = Virtual Potential Energy) which I previously call mass decrease ( since I measured it and measured only with a scale!) I had to change this interpretation because the decreases and then mass REGAINS ... did not reconcile us in any way with
the Einsteinian relation E = mc ^ 2.
To be continued
Indeed, the exchange between EMV and EPV is very similar to the exchange between kinetic energy and the potential of a body moving in a gravitational field. I can not further theorize because the thing seems that does not happen because of the presence of an external gravitational field ... but perhaps for an unknown field inside the atom and not assimilable to the weak gravitational force that exists between nucleons and electrons and so I can not give a reason why to all this.
So it is better to settle on the basic antimetaphysical idea that precisely defines physics: “ Physics tries to understand how the world goes, not because it exists “ .
I want to re-evaluate all the experimental data pnn and better understand if possible the EMV and the EPV and their interaction in other terms to find better data detection methods on the kern scale and on the rocker pendulum so as to better understand all types of measures. Let us not forget that the pushing configuration of a non-Newtonian prototype is imposed in a Newtonian environment, or in general it completes this cycle: in off energy it starts as Newtonian, in energetic state ON it becomes more and more non-Newtonian. Then when the engines are OFF , that is energetic OFF, it does not immediately become Newtonian but prolongs its non-Newtonian state while there are exchanges between EMV and EPV with non-linear law of inertia.
In conclusion, given the strangeness of the events that are happening in the PNN tests on the pendulum and on the Kern scale, I do not exclude the need to change opinion or theories in the future
It is inconvenient to say it, but in a state of pnn , matter seems to be in a new state
To continue when I do not know