A revolutionary propulsion system

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 15:21:25 +0100, "asps"
wrote:

Subject: A revolutionary propulsion system


We inform you of our the recent and decisive progress in a propulsion system
SC2.12 finally alternative to rocketry because it was conceived in the final
purpose of a propulsion system that can perform manned outposts in the Moon
and Mars.

The PNNE (Propulsione Non Newtoniana Eletromagnetica) uses the
electromagnetic field as mass of reaction with reaction momentum p greather
than p=E/c (E= electromagnetic energy , c= velocity of light).

PNNE therefore is distinguished from the chemical and ionic propulsion
(using mass of reaction) as well as the propulsion based on solar sail i.e.
the photonic propulsion (which impulse cannot exceed p=E/c). Its primary
source of energy is of electric nature so SC2.12 is a propellanless
propulsion system.

One of the advantages of SC2.12 is that no reaction mass is used and that
the specific momentum is million times greather than the momentum of the
ionic motors (which have a specific impulse much greater one of the chemical
rockets).

There is a videoclip in http://www.asps.it/nucleoin.htm

Err dosn't Newtons Third law of Motion have to be obeyed to get any
movement going.



Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill

OK, I'm thick. What is this all about? I just need a person to explain it
without resorting to complex theories. I'm sure it must be possible.

At the moment, I feel that it is one of those ideas based on a theory that
has an error some place.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________
__________________________________


"Christopher" wrote in message
...
| On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 15:21:25 +0100, "asps"
| wrote:
|
| Subject: A revolutionary propulsion system
|
|
| We inform you of our the recent and decisive progress in a propulsion
system
| SC2.12 finally alternative to rocketry because it was conceived in the
final
| purpose of a propulsion system that can perform manned outposts in the
Moon
| and Mars.
|
| The PNNE (Propulsione Non Newtoniana Eletromagnetica) uses the
| electromagnetic field as mass of reaction with reaction momentum p
greather
| than p=E/c (E= electromagnetic energy , c= velocity of light).
|
| PNNE therefore is distinguished from the chemical and ionic propulsion
| (using mass of reaction) as well as the propulsion based on solar sail
i.e.
| the photonic propulsion (which impulse cannot exceed p=E/c). Its primary
| source of energy is of electric nature so SC2.12 is a propellanless
| propulsion system.
|
| One of the advantages of SC2.12 is that no reaction mass is used and that
| the specific momentum is million times greather than the momentum of the
| ionic motors (which have a specific impulse much greater one of the
chemical
| rockets).
|
| There is a videoclip in http://www.asps.it/nucleoin.htm
|
| Err dosn't Newtons Third law of Motion have to be obeyed to get any
| movement going.
|
|
|
| Christopher
| +++++++++++++++++++++++++
| "Kites rise highest against
| the wind - not with it."
| Winston Churchill


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free, so there!
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/03

Brian Gaff wrote:
OK, I'm thick. What is this all about? I just need a person to explain it
without resorting to complex theories. I'm sure it must be possible.

Newton's third law (action/re-action) is equivalent to the conservation
of momentum which is equivalent to saying that physical laws remain
unchanged under translation in space.

So if you accept the existence of reaction-free propulsion systems you
also accept the notion that the physical laws that hold HERE and not the
same as the physical laws that hold THERE.

Bob Kolker

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
...
|
|
| Brian Gaff wrote:
| OK, I'm thick. What is this all about? I just need a person to explain
it
| without resorting to complex theories. I'm sure it must be possible.
|
| Newton's third law (action/re-action) is equivalent to the conservation
| of momentum which is equivalent to saying that physical laws remain
| unchanged under translation in space.
|
| So if you accept the existence of reaction-free propulsion systems you
| also accept the notion that the physical laws that hold HERE and not the
| same as the physical laws that hold THERE.
|
| Bob Kolker
|

But that is silly, as you can show that they do.

This sounds like the same idea that suggests that a spinning gyro can
precess without the energy loss contributing to the movement.

I think I'll go lie down now.

Brian
--
Brian Gaff....
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________
__________________________________




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free, so there!
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 11/12/03

Hang on, I was busy there winding a superconducting coil around the moon and
lining the far side with solar cells to attract metal objects from the Earth
to the moon....:-)

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________
__________________________________


"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
...
|
|
| Brian Gaff wrote:
| OK, I'm thick. What is this all about? I just need a person to explain
it
| without resorting to complex theories. I'm sure it must be possible.
|
| Newton's third law (action/re-action) is equivalent to the conservation
| of momentum which is equivalent to saying that physical laws remain
| unchanged under translation in space.
|
| So if you accept the existence of reaction-free propulsion systems you
| also accept the notion that the physical laws that hold HERE and not the
| same as the physical laws that hold THERE.
|
| Bob Kolker
|


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free, so there!
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 11/12/03

It is possible that Newton's laws are incorrect. He was wrong about
many other physical laws, as probably was proved by Einstein.

I agree that the best thing to do is take this along to a reputable
university and have the experiments repeated.

There are no such things as hard and fast laws created by man. We may
sometimes get them right, but we can never be totally sure.


I very much hope that we can invent a reactionless drive and maybe the
universe has some quirks that we can exploit.

Remember we might all be living in someone elses simulation of
reality, so anything can happen.

Stephen
On the contrary Newton's laws of motion have been proved right. Cars
move, aeroplanes fly, people go into space, craft hav been sent outside
the solar system. All on Newton's laws of motion.
Alan




Stephen wrote:

It is possible that Newton's laws are incorrect. He was wrong about
many other physical laws, as probably was proved by Einstein.

It is possible that Newton's laws are incorrect. He was wrong about
many other physical laws, as probably was proved by Einstein.

Nope. Newton's laws are still an excellent low-speed approximation, and
relativity turn into Newton's laws in the low-speed limit. As such,
Einstein didn't prove Newton wrong - he extended him into territory not
previously considered, as it were.

Jan

In article , Jan C. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Vorbr=FCggen?= writes:
It is possible that Newton's laws are incorrect. He was wrong about
many other physical laws, as probably was proved by Einstein.

Nope. Newton's laws are still an excellent low-speed approximation

More than this. F = dp/dt is valid at any speed.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

wrote in message ...
In article , Jan C. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Vorbr=FCggen?= writes:
It is possible that Newton's laws are incorrect. He was wrong about
many other physical laws, as probably was proved by Einstein.

Nope. Newton's laws are still an excellent low-speed approximation

More than this. F = dp/dt is valid at any speed.

For, of course, an appropriately non-Newtonian definition of momentum.