NASA and ESA have the precondition that reactionless propulsion (i.e. our PNN) does not work since neither the Dean Drive (which you insist on) nor the Emdrive nor anything else does.
So they don't even examine PNN as a hypothesis.
In addition I add that the missile industry would be destroyed if the PNN worked. As Italian aerospace agencies have told me, this would cause millions of unemployed people and the closure of many aerospace industries (especially the American ones).
Faced with this, all the few who have seen PNN work have seen that the PNN push exists and works.
So in order not to pass for crazy we can only show the experimental evidence to be believed.
Experimental tests were carried out, both with a ballistic pendulum and with a battery operated prototype with remote control on an arm balance of this type
http://www.asps.it/kerup3.png
But it gets worse, so PNN is repulsive to rocket science you believe in (including solar sails which are comical to us):
PNN violates not only the principle of action and reaction, but and this is the main HORROR , which is NOT to be believed, it also violates the second principle of dynamics!
With a fixed power output of 250 Watt at 432 Mhz, the thrust increases over time, so for the PNN it is also necessary to rewrite the second law of dynamics and Newton's principle of inertia.
Basically all 3 of Newton's laws are violated!
This is the EXPERIMENTAL graph in which the thrust of the PNN grows over time
http://www.asps.it/trustgra1.jpg
This is observed on any balance that any counterparty wants to use and we leave others the freedom to try it wherever they like.
Anyone who wants to give a conventional explanation eventually finds themselves admitting that inside our F432BA prototype there is either Peter Pan or Santa's reindeer 😊
We are so sure that we are NOT wrong that we PAY anyone who proves us wrong, that is, WE ARE WRONG!
But there is a problem the lithium batteries are discharged after about 2 minutes of operation for which a kilopower type nuclear reactor would be needed which we do not have. But it is not over yet: the dynamics or rather the electrodynamics of the PNN
violates both the conservation of momentum and the conservation of energy of Newtonian mechanics for which also the conservation of energy must be rewritten.
By rewriting it, the conservation of energy also contradicts the theory of relativity.
To conserve energy, the mass of the PNN system must decrease with increasing velocity in exactly the opposite of the theory of relativity.
The problem of the PNN is that the thrust, as I said, increases over time, practically contradicting all the terrestrial physics with which rockets are built
PNN is an UFO for Earth physics and comical mass-losing rockets. PNN does not lose mass like rockets.
Not even 1/100th of Artemis 1's mass returned from Artemis's trip around the Moon.
We have obtained an international patent of that
https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2022264177&_cid=P22-LBYWS8-05338-1
And everything will be better displayed in our ecommerce site
https://www.propulsion-revolution.com/
when it will be operational and all translated into English in all parts.
We will sell prototypes of the F432BA type after experimental demonstration so as not to be taken for scammers.
Greetings
Dr. E.Laureti (PNN Ceo)
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
