A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Non Newtonian Propulsion granted



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 2nd 20, 11:57 PM posted to sci.space.policy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 108
Default Non Newtonian Propulsion granted

Patent granted for PNN (Non Newtonian Propulsion) in year 2000
http://www.asps.it/pat98.jpg
from www.asps.it/pnndatabase.htm , www.asps.it/doni.htm
  #2  
Old January 5th 20, 11:03 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Sylvia Else[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 87
Default Non Newtonian Propulsion granted

On 3/01/2020 9:57 am, wrote:
Patent granted for PNN (Non Newtonian Propulsion) in year 2000
http://www.asps.it/pat98.jpg
from www.asps.it/pnndatabase.htm , www.asps.it/doni.htm


Farily safe bet that it doesn't work, which would ultimately invalidate
it anyway. The main problem with such patents is that unscrupulous
people can use them to attract investment from those who think that a
patent is more than it is.

Sylvia.
  #3  
Old January 5th 20, 11:52 AM posted to sci.space.policy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 108
Default Non Newtonian Propulsion granted

Il giorno domenica 5 gennaio 2020 11:03:25 UTC+1, Sylvia Else ha scritto:
On 3/01/2020 9:57 am, wrote:
Patent granted for PNN (Non Newtonian Propulsion) in year 2000
http://www.asps.it/pat98.jpg
from www.asps.it/pnndatabase.htm , www.asps.it/doni.htm


Farily safe bet that it doesn't work, which would ultimately invalidate
it anyway. The main problem with such patents is that unscrupulous
people can use them to attract investment from those who think that a
patent is more than it is.

Sylvia.


The fact that missiles have not been able to maintain even an outpost on the moon for 50 years gives you no suspicion.
Unfortunately, if the PNN is not financed, the human outposts on the Moon and on Mars will remain a dream

and NASA, ESA and Musk remain with their ridicoulous rockets :-)

http://www.asps.it/nasaesa.htm
  #4  
Old January 5th 20, 01:41 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Sylvia Else[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 87
Default Non Newtonian Propulsion granted

On 5/01/2020 9:52 pm, wrote:
Il giorno domenica 5 gennaio 2020 11:03:25 UTC+1, Sylvia Else ha scritto:
On 3/01/2020 9:57 am,
wrote:
Patent granted for PNN (Non Newtonian Propulsion) in year 2000
http://www.asps.it/pat98.jpg
from www.asps.it/pnndatabase.htm , www.asps.it/doni.htm


Farily safe bet that it doesn't work, which would ultimately invalidate
it anyway. The main problem with such patents is that unscrupulous
people can use them to attract investment from those who think that a
patent is more than it is.

Sylvia.


The fact that missiles have not been able to maintain even an outpost on the moon for 50 years gives you no suspicion.
Unfortunately, if the PNN is not financed, the human outposts on the Moon and on Mars will remain a dream

and NASA, ESA and Musk remain with their ridicoulous rockets :-)

http://www.asps.it/nasaesa.htm


I don't follow your reasoning there. Rockets are difficult and
expensive, for sure, but that doesn't mean that there has to be
something better.

Sylvia

  #5  
Old January 15th 20, 03:29 PM posted to sci.space.policy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 108
Default Non Newtonian Propulsion granted

Il giorno domenica 5 gennaio 2020 13:41:33 UTC+1, Sylvia Else ha scritto:
On 5/01/2020 9:52 pm, wrote:
Il giorno domenica 5 gennaio 2020 11:03:25 UTC+1, Sylvia Else ha scritto:
On 3/01/2020 9:57 am,
wrote:
Patent granted for PNN (Non Newtonian Propulsion) in year 2000
http://www.asps.it/pat98.jpg
from www.asps.it/pnndatabase.htm , www.asps.it/doni.htm


Farily safe bet that it doesn't work, which would ultimately invalidate
it anyway. The main problem with such patents is that unscrupulous
people can use them to attract investment from those who think that a
patent is more than it is.

Sylvia.


The fact that missiles have not been able to maintain even an outpost on the moon for 50 years gives you no suspicion.
Unfortunately, if the PNN is not financed, the human outposts on the Moon and on Mars will remain a dream

and NASA, ESA and Musk remain with their ridicoulous rockets :-)

http://www.asps.it/nasaesa.htm


I don't follow your reasoning there. Rockets are difficult and
expensive, for sure, but that doesn't mean that there has to be
something better.

Sylvia


I hope that you or others who believe in rockets are present when in a fundraising in which we will achieve our goals ... that is NOT THIS

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...project_build#

we will be able to demonstrate publicly how the principle of action and reaction is violated.

NASA has the kilopower nuclear reactors needed to produce electricity for PNN.
We hope to find an agreement with NASA ... always if they want American human outposts on Mars and not play with robots

Regards

E.Laureti
  #6  
Old January 16th 20, 01:01 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Sylvia Else[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 87
Default Non Newtonian Propulsion granted

On 16/01/2020 1:29 am, wrote:
Il giorno domenica 5 gennaio 2020 13:41:33 UTC+1, Sylvia Else ha scritto:
On 5/01/2020 9:52 pm,
wrote:
Il giorno domenica 5 gennaio 2020 11:03:25 UTC+1, Sylvia Else ha scritto:
On 3/01/2020 9:57 am,
wrote:
Patent granted for PNN (Non Newtonian Propulsion) in year 2000
http://www.asps.it/pat98.jpg
from www.asps.it/pnndatabase.htm , www.asps.it/doni.htm


Farily safe bet that it doesn't work, which would ultimately invalidate
it anyway. The main problem with such patents is that unscrupulous
people can use them to attract investment from those who think that a
patent is more than it is.

Sylvia.

The fact that missiles have not been able to maintain even an outpost on the moon for 50 years gives you no suspicion.
Unfortunately, if the PNN is not financed, the human outposts on the Moon and on Mars will remain a dream

and NASA, ESA and Musk remain with their ridicoulous rockets :-)

http://www.asps.it/nasaesa.htm


I don't follow your reasoning there. Rockets are difficult and
expensive, for sure, but that doesn't mean that there has to be
something better.

Sylvia


I hope that you or others who believe in rockets are present when in a fundraising in which we will achieve our goals ... that is NOT THIS

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...project_build#

we will be able to demonstrate publicly how the principle of action and reaction is violated.


AU$ 2,112 pledged of AU$ 5,648,769 goal
6 days to go.

Looks like most people know a scam when they see one.

Sylvia.
  #7  
Old January 16th 20, 03:29 PM posted to sci.space.policy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 108
Default Non Newtonian Propulsion granted

Il giorno giovedì 16 gennaio 2020 01:01:43 UTC+1, Sylvia Else ha scritto:
On 16/01/2020 1:29 am, wrote:
Il giorno domenica 5 gennaio 2020 13:41:33 UTC+1, Sylvia Else ha scritto:
On 5/01/2020 9:52 pm,
wrote:
Il giorno domenica 5 gennaio 2020 11:03:25 UTC+1, Sylvia Else ha scritto:
On 3/01/2020 9:57 am,
wrote:
Patent granted for PNN (Non Newtonian Propulsion) in year 2000
http://www.asps.it/pat98.jpg
from www.asps.it/pnndatabase.htm , www.asps.it/doni.htm


Farily safe bet that it doesn't work, which would ultimately invalidate
it anyway. The main problem with such patents is that unscrupulous
people can use them to attract investment from those who think that a
patent is more than it is.

Sylvia.

The fact that missiles have not been able to maintain even an outpost on the moon for 50 years gives you no suspicion.
Unfortunately, if the PNN is not financed, the human outposts on the Moon and on Mars will remain a dream

and NASA, ESA and Musk remain with their ridicoulous rockets :-)

http://www.asps.it/nasaesa.htm


I don't follow your reasoning there. Rockets are difficult and
expensive, for sure, but that doesn't mean that there has to be
something better.

Sylvia


I hope that you or others who believe in rockets are present when in a fundraising in which we will achieve our goals ... that is NOT THIS

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...project_build#

we will be able to demonstrate publicly how the principle of action and reaction is violated.


AU$ 2,112 pledged of AU$ 5,648,769 goal
6 days to go.

Looks like most people know a scam when they see one.

Sylvia.


These https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...project_build#

don't make me sell PNN prototypes but only idiocies like medal ,cups and certificates, as you can see in www.asps.it/doni.htm

I was paid for this patent granted www.asps.it/Pat98.jpg in 2005 .
GRANTED do you understand? No I suppose

But the pnn thrust was then very low.
Now F432 it is about 100,000 times better that of a solar sail… about like a ion motor
You missiles died with a PNN motor you just have to close your sepulcher
And scrap the nonsense called rockets.
Scam is the comic rocketry : no manned outposts on the moon after 50 years!
It is a fact and not an opinion. :-))))


  #8  
Old January 17th 20, 01:41 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Alain Fournier[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 548
Default Non Newtonian Propulsion granted

On Jan/15/2020 at 19:01, Sylvia Else wrote :
On 16/01/2020 1:29 am, wrote:
Il giorno domenica 5 gennaio 2020 13:41:33 UTC+1, Sylvia Else ha scritto:
On 5/01/2020 9:52 pm,
wrote:
Il giorno domenica 5 gennaio 2020 11:03:25 UTC+1, Sylvia Else ha
scritto:
On 3/01/2020 9:57 am,
wrote:
Patent granted for PNN (Non Newtonian Propulsion) in year 2000
http://www.asps.it/pat98.jpg
fromÂ*Â* www.asps.it/pnndatabase.htmÂ*Â* , www.asps.it/doni.htm


Farily safe bet that it doesn't work, which would ultimately
invalidate
it anyway. The main problem with such patents is that unscrupulous
people can use them to attract investment from those who think that a
patent is more than it is.

Sylvia.

The fact that missiles have not been able to maintain even an
outpost on the moon for 50 years gives you no suspicion.
Unfortunately, if the PNN is not financed, the human outposts on the
Moon and on Mars will remain a dream

and NASA, ESA and Musk remain with their ridicoulous rockets :-)

http://www.asps.it/nasaesa.htm


I don't follow your reasoning there. Rockets are difficult and
expensive, for sure, but that doesn't mean that there has to be
something better.

Sylvia


I hope that you or others who believe in rockets are present when in a
fundraising in which we will achieve our goals ... that is NOT THIS

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...project_build#


we will be able to demonstrate publicly how the principle of action
and reaction is violated.


AU$ 2,112 pledged of AU$ 5,648,769 goal
6 days to go.

Looks like most people know a scam when they see one.


I might be wrong but I don't think this is a scam. It seems to me that
they are genuinely trying to develop non Newtonian propulsion. And I
think that they think that they really do have a wonderful technology. I
think they are wrong and I don't think anything interesting is going to
come out of that. But it doesn't seem to me that they are trying to
commit fraud. They have a gizmo that seems to vibrate when they turn on
the switch and they do measurements on that vibrating gizmo and seem to
think that they have something. If they were scammers they would show
their gizmo actually accelerating when they flip the switch on. I didn't
see that.

For space related scammers I would look more in the direction of
SpinLaunch, they seem to know what they are doing.


Alain Fournier
  #9  
Old January 17th 20, 04:41 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Sylvia Else[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 87
Default Non Newtonian Propulsion granted

On 17/01/2020 11:41 am, Alain Fournier wrote:
On Jan/15/2020 at 19:01, Sylvia Else wrote :
On 16/01/2020 1:29 am, wrote:
Il giorno domenica 5 gennaio 2020 13:41:33 UTC+1, Sylvia Else ha
scritto:
On 5/01/2020 9:52 pm,
wrote:
Il giorno domenica 5 gennaio 2020 11:03:25 UTC+1, Sylvia Else ha
scritto:
On 3/01/2020 9:57 am,
wrote:
Patent granted for PNN (Non Newtonian Propulsion) in year 2000
http://www.asps.it/pat98.jpg
fromÂ*Â* www.asps.it/pnndatabase.htmÂ*Â* , www.asps.it/doni.htm


Farily safe bet that it doesn't work, which would ultimately
invalidate
it anyway. The main problem with such patents is that unscrupulous
people can use them to attract investment from those who think that a
patent is more than it is.

Sylvia.

The fact that missiles have not been able to maintain even an
outpost on the moon for 50 years gives you no suspicion.
Unfortunately, if the PNN is not financed, the human outposts on
the Moon and on Mars will remain a dream

and NASA, ESA and Musk remain with their ridicoulous rockets :-)

http://www.asps.it/nasaesa.htm


I don't follow your reasoning there. Rockets are difficult and
expensive, for sure, but that doesn't mean that there has to be
something better.

Sylvia

I hope that you or others who believe in rockets are present when in
a fundraising in which we will achieve our goals ... that is NOT THIS

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...project_build#


we will be able to demonstrate publicly how the principle of action
and reaction is violated.


AU$ 2,112 pledged of AU$ 5,648,769 goal
6 days to go.

Looks like most people know a scam when they see one.


I might be wrong but I don't think this is a scam. It seems to me that
they are genuinely trying to develop non Newtonian propulsion. And I
think that they think that they really do have a wonderful technology. I
think they are wrong and I don't think anything interesting is going to
come out of that. But it doesn't seem to me that they are trying to
commit fraud. They have a gizmo that seems to vibrate when they turn on
the switch and they do measurements on that vibrating gizmo and seem to
think that they have something. If they were scammers they would show
their gizmo actually accelerating when they flip the switch on. I didn't
see that.


Of course, you could be right. They may just be misinterpreting what
they're seeing, or indeed outright deluding themselves. But I don't know
that too much can be read into the lack of a manifestly positive result,
because a scammer would know very well that if they created a fraudulent
demonstration of that, they'd attract the kind of people who would be
capable of exposing the fraud in short order.

Better to offer a tantalising glimpse of what is offered, with promises
of great things to come that somehow never materialise. In the mean time
the money invested can be spent on the salaries of the scammers.

Sylvia.

  #10  
Old January 17th 20, 10:33 AM posted to sci.space.policy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 108
Default Non Newtonian Propulsion granted

Il giorno venerdì 17 gennaio 2020 01:41:48 UTC+1, Alain Fournier ha scritto:
On Jan/15/2020 at 19:01, Sylvia Else wrote :
On 16/01/2020 1:29 am, wrote:
Il giorno domenica 5 gennaio 2020 13:41:33 UTC+1, Sylvia Else ha scritto:
On 5/01/2020 9:52 pm,
wrote:
Il giorno domenica 5 gennaio 2020 11:03:25 UTC+1, Sylvia Else ha
scritto:
On 3/01/2020 9:57 am,
wrote:
Patent granted for PNN (Non Newtonian Propulsion) in year 2000
http://www.asps.it/pat98.jpg
fromÂ*Â* www.asps.it/pnndatabase.htmÂ*Â* , www.asps.it/doni.htm


Farily safe bet that it doesn't work, which would ultimately
invalidate
it anyway. The main problem with such patents is that unscrupulous
people can use them to attract investment from those who think that a
patent is more than it is.

Sylvia.

The fact that missiles have not been able to maintain even an
outpost on the moon for 50 years gives you no suspicion.
Unfortunately, if the PNN is not financed, the human outposts on the
Moon and on Mars will remain a dream

and NASA, ESA and Musk remain with their ridicoulous rockets :-)

http://www.asps.it/nasaesa.htm


I don't follow your reasoning there. Rockets are difficult and
expensive, for sure, but that doesn't mean that there has to be
something better.

Sylvia

I hope that you or others who believe in rockets are present when in a
fundraising in which we will achieve our goals ... that is NOT THIS

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...project_build#


we will be able to demonstrate publicly how the principle of action
and reaction is violated.


AU$ 2,112 pledged of AU$ 5,648,769 goal
6 days to go.

Looks like most people know a scam when they see one.


I might be wrong but I don't think this is a scam. It seems to me that
they are genuinely trying to develop non Newtonian propulsion. And I
think that they think that they really do have a wonderful technology. I
think they are wrong and I don't think anything interesting is going to
come out of that. But it doesn't seem to me that they are trying to
commit fraud. They have a gizmo that seems to vibrate when they turn on
the switch and they do measurements on that vibrating gizmo and seem to
think that they have something. If they were scammers they would show
their gizmo actually accelerating when they flip the switch on. I didn't
see that.

For space related scammers I would look more in the direction of
SpinLaunch, they seem to know what they are doing.


Alain Fournier



I think you will have to expand the set of scammers who say that Newton's III principle can be violated in electrodynamics :-)

And don't think I'm the only one :-)

From www.asps.it/pnndatabase.htm


PNN THEORETICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL DATABASE

1) From the thread on NG free.it.scienza.fisica entitled
The third principle of dynamics sometimes does not apply?
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=...ca/eUUCW9P6NVA
On 27/04/16 20:00, Giorgio Pastore wrote:

Interesting. It increases the personal statistics of people who should know it but they don't (about the possibility of violating the III principle of dynamics).
And many graduated in physics seem to ignore it (or to have forgotten it if they knew it in the past).
Your post confirms that this is a widespread gap. I also add that the electromagnetic case is not the only one.
It doesn't apply to apparent forces.
It doesn't apply to the case of forces that are not attributable to sums of couple interactions.
Giorgio Pastore (Professor at University of Trieste)

………………….

PhD Valter Moretti says that practically the III principle makes no sense in electrodynamics probably for the facts that Newton didn’t know electrodynamics www.asps.it/azione.htm

…………..

2) A webpage by Professor Elio Fabri, former professor at University of Pisa with whom I've had countless controversies form many years (over 15 years) about the violability of Newton third principle. At least in Italy recently he has become the best academic propagandist of the violability in electrodynamics of the principle of action and reaction

With this paper basically he practically dismantles years and years of controversies with the undersigned
http://www.sagredo.eu/varie/terzopr-em.pdf
from www.asps.it/setupdip.htm


E.Laureti



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Non Newtonian Propulsion (PNN) for Interstellar Flight [email protected] Policy 6 February 5th 19 08:49 PM
Non Newtonian Propulsion (PNN) [email protected] Policy 0 October 5th 18 10:09 PM
Non Newtonian Propulsion asps Policy 12 October 26th 05 03:27 AM
For decades the press took NASA granted Matt History 2 September 19th 04 05:24 PM
Non Newtonian Propulsion (PNN) videoclip asps Policy 0 November 5th 03 10:30 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.