Brief history of ASPS by E.Laureti



Dear readers,

In this post I report the history of ASPS and PNN, written by Laureti as a presentation for PNN at NASA spaceflight forum. I think it represents a valuable addition to the blog in the PNN history category.


ASPS was founded on June 29th 1979 by myself and an engineer.

In our statute is written to pursue the propellantless propulsion as facts demonstrate that through rocketry we can’t set and maintain any stable outpost neither on the Moon nor on Mars.

Until about 1991 we pursued experimental research on exclusively mechanical prototypes based on the phase shift between action/reaction forces. The goal was not reached because in a mechanical device the action/reaction waves destructively interfere. They interfere just because for them the “Superposition Principle” is not valid, on the contrary of e.m waves. The prototype didn’t thrust.

Here the details:

Around 1992 we started researching electromagnetic propulsion.

Some ASPS associates want to make a distinction between Mechanical PNN (PNN-M) and Electromagnetic PNN (PNN-E). I don’t because mechanical PNN doesn’t exist, so there is only the electromagnetic one, PNN for short.

Countless has been the tests for researching the phase shift between action and reaction waves of electromagnetic type. Many details are reported on our periodical Nova Astronautica (first number in 1981 –

To make it short we started to observe the first experimental results in prototypes tested on ballistic pendulum.

Back to our days I’ve been banned from Nasa space flight forum just for trying to talk about PNN.

However it’s better if I don’t write on your forum because I couldn’t say anything more than what I’m doing right now and it may arise some controversies regarding my reticence.

The fundamental point to understand is that PNN is based on the violation of action/reaction principle. It is a well known fact since more than a century (at least since a long time in various Italian physics textbooks) that this Newton’s Third principle doesn’t make coherent sense in electrodynamics.

The only problem is how to proceed at experimental level from a totally abstract theoretical concept .

Here I gave a theoretical base acknowledged by various physicists (in detail Valter Moretti and Elio Fabri). I kindly ask you to distinguish in that link the PNN physics from the “Crusades” (let’s say it’s an hobby of mine, as I think about them like various Popes of centuries ago thought about “relationships” with Islam. At are described my beliefs about it).

Now because I can’t afford to be followed on this road (experimental procedure for the violation of action/reaction principle) I can’t give informations about how to proceed because by having few resources I have to proceed slowly and who can understand the fundamentals of what to do, and owns economical resources, could follow me “very rapidly”.

The road to experimental violation of Newton’s Third demanded years and years of researches and failures to me and ASPS that resulted in PNN of 2004-2005, when we made several road shows both private and public.

Here PNN is presented by ASPS vice president Massimo Ceccarelli.

Here there are some tests, also repeated in a public demonstration at Sheraton Hotel in Rome in 2005 and other roadshows:

Admiral Lucio Accardo of Italian navy (V department – R&D) was also present.

But Italian Navy like any other contacted industries (Alenia Spazio in the first place) wanted the PNN know-how for free so it all came to nothing.

At the end we’ve been founded for just 1 year (a very small funding from an Italian investor). The PNN of the time has been financed only by letting our investor’s technical staff to make all the experiment it wanted on the prototype/s of the time. With our PNN demonstrative procedure THROUGH CLOSED BOX no one loses anything. With the closed box one can demonstrate that Newton’s Third isn’t valid if an investor has a technical team who can understand basic physics.

At the end if the investor doesn’t fund we don’t lose the know-how and no one loses anything.

PNN tests with closed box (that is without losing know-how) were conducted following this experimental procedure, also repeated in the ways investor asked for.

To that group I experimentally demonstrated that PNN (even if back then through a very small thrust) was a real thing and not a dream.

Then it took me about ten years for a successive improvement.

The problems? Mainly technicals: I had to change experimental collaborators (technicians) for unreliability (information leak has always been a problem), then excessive prototype overheatings, preamplifiers and amplifiers in VHF and UHF that often can’t bear the required power and performances. Problems that one can’t solve with few money and without the aid of people skilled at solid state physics who must be paid.

To all of this it must be added the information leak regarding one of my patent deposit copied by two Japanese. Here’s the info:

I perform the trace of my patent filed in Italy on April 22nd, 1998

There is an article on Nova Astronautica where the patent was copied by two Japanese a few years later and reissued in their name. Informations that I don’t want to spread online.

I got the information about the copy of a patent of mine from a physicist from Pisa University practically 12 years after the patent deposit! (in italian)
More information on Nova Astronautica and informational materials that, I repeat, I can not spread on the net to prevent further copying.

Now let’s come back to action/reaction principle and to an event (A NEW KIND OF INERTIA LAW) which is to me is more important than the thrust itself: the changing of inertia law by the system that violates the action/reaction principle.

Our new ballistic pendulum, that someone would like me to spread over the network for free along with F242, not only detects the pressure from F242 but also the new law of inertia.

Recently I came to know about this fantastic correlation: EmDrive experimentally detected “Thrust signals even after the electrical power was turned off”.

The same occurs with more grandeur and evidence for F242:

English article  – Italian article

For me “Thrust signals even after the electrical power was turned off is not a measurement error and agrees with findings in F242, in 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 a uniformly accelerated motion!

Who says I don’t use mathematics simply must go at Calmagorod website [English here E.n] and tell me if in his opinion the violation of action/reaction principle doesn’t imply a change in inertia law. I only mathematically defined an hypothesis completely theoretical about the inertia deriving from violation of action/reaction principle.

One salient characteristic of the system that changes inertia law is that when the power supply is turned off the motion isn’t uniform and linear anymore but uniformly accelerated, thus the mass of the movable object must decrease when speed increases in order to conserve the energy. It’s like if a force was still present.

Now this “seems” it has been observed also with the EmDrive.

With F242 I’m observing several times this phenomenon with more grandeur on my new ballistic pendulum (not patented)

To recap, in my opinion the violation of Newton’s Third (which for me it occurs also in the EmDrive) implies:

  1. the impulse conservation (momentum) through electrodynamic field (also Moretti says this at
  2. the thrust increase for the same energy used: F242 increases the thrust for the same energy used and I’m observing this experimentally through the new kind of ballistic pendulum
  3. I specify: when powered the prototype progressively increases its inclination.. but I can’t increase too much the thrust duration due to thermal issues (since the thrust can’t convert itself in kinetic energy on the ballistic pendulum it convert itself in thermal energy)
  4. the most important fact: only by violating the Third and by changing the inertia law (in the one I mathematically defined it’s even exponential!) the moving object accelerates even with engine turned off. What does it mean? That the moving object mass must decrease when speed increases in order to conserve the total energy. On Reddit one immediately said to me: then it doesn’t work! But I didn’t reply him that Relativity has NOTHING to do with the sum of all non-null internal forces of a mass. What do I want to say? That in physics the concepts are valid only with the procedures used to define them and NOT with those they HAVEN’T BEEN defined with. In my opinion only by changing the law of inertia one can face interstellar travel.


In the next post I’ll publish ASPS thought regarding the displacement current.

Stay tuned!





One thought on “Brief history of ASPS by E.Laureti

Welcome visitor, please share your thoughts. English is better but Italian is accepted. If you want to learn more about ASPS please have a look at the blog menu

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s