On 2/21/20 12:52 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 20/02/2020 4:49 pm, wrote:
Il giorno giovedì 20 febbraio 2020 06:13:38 UTC+1, Sylvia Else ha
scritto:
On 19/02/2020 7:27 pm, wrote:
Il giorno mercoledì 19 febbraio 2020 02:41:18 UTC+1, Sylvia Else ha
scritto:
........................cut...........

I repeat again: The scams are decided on the merits of the facts

E.Laureti

Why not allow device, and the experimental demonstration that it works,
to be examined by scientists of impeccable credentials, under a
non-disclosure agreement that does, however, allow them to say whether
or not they think the effect is real?

Sylvia.

This is what we are doing NOW with a view to the international
patenting of PNN and its industrial development.
But unfortunately everything requires suitable personnel, experimental
means time and unfortunately money.
But to do this it had to improve the PNN of 20 years ago to have a
comparable boost with an ion engine. The primary advantage of the pnn
lies not only in violating the principle of action and reaction but
also in changing the first and second principles of Newtonian dynamics.
But these events are seen well only if the push increases.

If the results from experiments you've done already are not sufficiently
compelling as to convince impartial experts, then the obvious suspicion
is that you're deluding yourself as to the effectiveness of your drive.

No one in their right mind would invest in something that not only
cannot be shown to function, but also breaks the accepted laws of
physics. The natural assumption would be that it doesn't work, and that
any money spent on it is money wasted.

You're putting the cart before the horse. The first thing to do is to
show, convincingly, that the effect is real. It doesn't need to be a
practical space drive for that, and attempts at industrial development
are premature.

Sylvia.

compliments this is a troll reasoning in all respects...