How to violate Newton’s Third – ASPS early method

distintivo

Dear readers, in this post I’d like to share with you ASPS official method to achieve propellantless propulsion.

The procedure I’m going to describe has been used in early ASPS prototypes (SC23) and it has been recently posted on NasaSpaceFlight forum by Laureti himself. After 2005 the Association discovered a more efficient way to produce thrust and they implemented it in F242. This latest procedure however is not of public domain yet.

Please notice: this is my personal understanding. Feel free to correct me if you think I’ve written something wrong.

Let’s start with the basic: the setup of the dipoles.

As you can see in Figure a, the basic thruster unit is composed of two dipoles – D1 and D2 – close together and bound to each other in the reference frame of fixed stars. The length of each dipoles arm is s (wavelength of the input signal) divided by 4, as well as the distance between dipoles.  Each terminal is connected to the opposite dipole: Linea – Line – D1 to D2 and Line D2 to D1.

fig1
Figure a: the basic 2 dipoles thruster unit

The dipoles are powered with a specific waveform (Figure b). This particular shape is crucial to synchronize the thrust in both dipoles.

ondarm
Figure b: waveform of the power signal sent to dipoles

When the charges inside the dipoles oscillate, the electric charges in the space around them is influenced too and then the signal is transmitted in the form of electromagnetic waves. Because, as many of you already know, the dipole is in fact synonymous of antenna.

Figure c (view from above) shows how the waves emitted by one dipole impact with the other. The scheme underlines in which verse the wave train reaches the opposite dipole.

fig5
Figure c: propagation direction of E.M wave emitted by both dipoles. Direzione di propagazione onda di D1/D2 means D1/D2 wave propagation direction.

Now the thrust generation part. Let’s have a look at the following legend:

fig4b

where the symbols, in order, mean:

  • No current
  • Exiting current
  • Entering current

Let’s now have a look at the thrust production cycle in Figure d: we can see the dipoles in top-down view and in lateral view (where you can notice the symbols shown in the legend).   B1 is the magnetic field generated by D1 and B2 the one generated by D2. The cycle is composed of 9 phases (fase).

fig4
Figure d: thrust cycle

The key of the working principle is the Lorentz force (F1 and F2) that is generated when the electromagnetic field emitted by a dipole reaches the charges flux in the opposite dipole. Please notice that in any phase there is a positive or a negative peak in both dipoles at the same time.

Now let’s try to interpret what happens in each phase.

  1. there is no current flow in both dipoles (the flat part of the waveform in Fig.b: we can see it as a musical pause). In the region of space between dipoles there is the positive peak of wave D1 that creates the magnetic field B1 which has got nothing to interact with.
  2. D2 is emitting (and it’s enduring) the positive peak of its wave. Meanwhile the positive peak of D1 wave has reached D2. In this phase the current in D2 (let’s call it I2) is exiting the dipole. Thanks to the Lorentz law the effect of B1 on I2 is the generation of a force F2 directed left. Meanwhile, in D1 there is no current and no D2 wave so the dipole is in resting conditions.
  3. Similar to phase 1: D2 positive peak is in the region of space between dipoles. That creates the magnetic field B2, which hasn’t got nothing to interact with.
  4. The magnetic field B2 reaches D1. Please notice that its rotation verse is the opposite of B1 in phase 2 and that the current I1 is now entering the dipole (negative peak). The outcome is the Lorentz Force F1 which is still oriented in the same direction of F2 in phase 2.
  5. Similar to phase 1 except that this time D1 is in its negative peak, so B1 now rotates in the opposite direction.
  6. Similar to phase 2, except that this time D1 wave peak is negative and I2 is now entering the dipole. The interaction between these new B1 and I2 verses still leads to a left-directed force F2.
  7. Similar to phase 3 except that this time D2 is in its negative peak, so B2 now rotates in the opposite direction.
  8. Similar to phase 4 but now D1 and D2 waves peak are inverted.The interaction between these new B1 and I2 verses again leads to a left-directed force F2.
  9. Basically identical to phase 1

 

Now there is one question left: what happens to reaction force?  I asked it to Laureti and here’s his reply:

Sergio – I don’t understand why the dipoles lines are connected to each other.

Emidio Laureti – It’s mandatory that they work at the same frequency and the only way is to feed them with one single amplifier and then to use a power divider.

S – Has this something to do with the counteract of the reaction force?

E.L – Theoretically one can do two things:

a) with the dipoles still at a distance of 1/4 of wavelength, to utilize a power divider and address the two signals to each dipole, then to lengthen the coaxial cable of one of the dipoles to realize the necessary phase shift.. but this requires control instruments to check that everything is going right. This is, let’s say, a pretty rigid solution because if you don’t precisely set the length of the coaxial cable everything goes to the dogs.
b)  a more refined and flexible solution is to place a phase shifter after the power divider in one of the two lines.

S  – this (my early question) leads me to ask:

The reaction to Lorentz force appears in the magnetic field, am I right?

E.L – Lorentz force is, as I said, iB and it’s force, nothing else.

S – In this case the magnetic field fluctuation should also create a fluctuation in the electric field (I presume in the charges of the dipole). Is then necessary some particular precaution in order to dampen the reaction force or does it simply disperse in the magnetic field without repercussions?

E.L – very tricky question that carries a set of problems resolvable only with proper experimental apparatus that I haven’t – and never had – got. First problem is that the two dipoles influence one another, independently of how they are powered. The second one is that the e.m field in the near zone can’t be theoretically predicted but only by doing experimentation. Conclusions: due to the means I’ve got, I’ve had to find other ways.I can’t tell you more.


As you can see there is actually the need to take some precautions to counteract the reaction force. It seems that it’s somehow dampened by manipulating the input signal and I’m very curious to discover how they did it, as well as to learn more about the new and efficient way that ASPS found to generate electromagnetic thrust. I hope that the next public disclosure won’t be too far, also because it’ll mean that PNN is commercially available!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “How to violate Newton’s Third – ASPS early method

  1. I wish to say that when the current is injected to the monopoles of the antenna, some charge should be accumulated at the ends of monopoles. Actually nobody can correctly describe this process but it is important in the UWB technology (the antennas loaded by short current pulses).
    Magnitude of these accumulated charges could be big enough to create the electric field.

    As I understand, the inventors don’t consider this factor.

    All my best,
    Vladimir

    Like

  2. I couldn’t help noticing that patent no. US 8459002 B2 looks remarkably similar to Laureti’s TDS1. Both probably operate in the same manner.

    The McLean patent uses Barium Titanate for the dielectric. According to Wikipedia, the relative permittivity of Calcium Copper Titanate is considerably higher, but it might not be higher at the indicated frequency of 52Mhz (or it may not stand up to high voltage).

    Like

    1. Premetto che: il patent https://www.google.ch/patents/US8459002
      è completamente diverso da quanto in http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42386.0
      dato che non si parla mai di dipoli a mezz’onda … e di altro 🙂

      e poi constato che il soggetto parla spesso di impedenza senza dare valori quantitativi ( procedura tipica di altri stardrive di altri autori) … e quindi ne consegue che non ha mai elaborato un prototipo con cui confrontare il delirio teorico del possibile con l’impedenza reale e misurabile del tutto.
      Traduzione : questi ciarlano senza aver costruito nulla per verificare le loro “asserzioni teoriche”.
      Solo se abbassi di molto l’impedenza puoi avere correnti idonee a generare spinte consistenti … altrimenti navighi non mare magnum dei micronewton e delle deformazioni termiche .. senza capire un piffero dell’essenza dei problemi che devi risolvere.
      Conclusioni: si dovrebbe scrivere un libro e perdere molto tempo per elencare e descrivere tutte le cappelle e problematiche di un approccio completamente teorico a questo tipo di propellantless propulsion

      E.Laureti

      Like

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:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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