On Mon, 15 Aug 2022 14:43:06 -0400, Alain Fournier
<alain245@videotron.ca> wrote:

>Le Aug/15/2022 à 13:29, Doctor Who a écrit :
>> On Fri, 12 Aug 2022 11:06:53 -0400, Alain Fournier
>> <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug/12/2022 at 10:57, Doctor Who wrote :
>>>> On Fri, 12 Aug 2022 10:34:48 -0400, Alain Fournier
>>>> <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Aug/12/2022 at 09:27, Otto J. Makela wrote :
>>>>>> Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Aug 2022 16:07:10 +0300, om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) wrote:
>>>>>>>> Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> yes, first, the thrust is growing with a particular graph
>>>>>>>>> http://www.asps.it/trustgra1.jpg
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This graphic means the thrust grows at parity of power.
>>>>>>>>> no thermal effect can achieve that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd like to point out that the fact that the "thrust" slowly grows up
>>>>>>>> after power is switched on, and then slowly ramps down after power is
>>>>>>>> switched off looks very much like a thermal effect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wrong again,
>>>>>>> no thermal effect can grow thrust in time at parity of power.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You already said that, but unfortunately I don't quite understand what
>>>>>> you mean by that. The issue probably stems from the fact that neither of
>>>>>> us is a native English speaker. Can you please try to expand on this?
>>>>>
>>>>> (Doctor Who: I am somewhat speculating about the meaning of what you
>>>>> said. If what you meant is different, I'm sorry for misleading the group
>>>>> on what you meant. If so please do rephrase what you mean.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe because I can speak Italian, I think I understand what he means. I
>>>>> think that he thinks that a thermal effect could not have thrust
>>>>> increasing while the power source is maintained at a constant level (in
>>>>> this case the power is constant at 250 W).
>>>>>
>>>>> My opinion is the opposite, a thermal effect would indeed see thrust
>>>>> increase with time, or more precisely thrust increases with temperature
>>>>> and the temperature would increase with time.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Alain Fournier
>>>>
>>>> try to make the experiment and tell us the result.
>>>> try to achieve 20 grams of thrust with a dummy load.
>>>
>>> I told you. I get more thrust than that with my hot oven when I leave
>>> the door ajar.
>>>
>>> Similar experiments have been done by others. You are not the first to
>>> produce thrust by thermal effect.
>>>
>>>
>>> Alain Fournier
>>
>> the European Patent Office doesn't think like you as it has granted a
>> patent.
>
>Nope. The patent office does not verify that an invention does work. It
>is the responsibility of the inventor to verify that his invention
>works. If you buy something, let's say a computer, and it does not work.
>You can't sue the patent office even if they patented the computer, the
>patent does not in any way guaranty the thing works. You can only sue
>the computer maker. It is the responsibility of the seller to verify the
>thing works, not the responsibility of the patent office.
>
>
>Alain Fournier

you have been inserted into my list of idiots.

Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Aug 2022 11:06:53 -0400, Alain Fournier
> <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote:
>> Similar experiments have been done by others. You are not the
>> first to produce thrust by thermal effect.
>
> the European Patent Office doesn't think like you
> as it has granted a patent.

Firstly, a patent does not mean the process described there works.
The only exception to this have been perpetual motion devices, since the
hucksters selling those have been using "patented" as a sales incentive.

Secondly, what is the granted patent number, so we can look up details?

--
/* * * Otto J. Makela <om@iki.fi> * * * * * * * * * */
/* Phone: +358 40 765 5772, ICBM: N 60 10' E 24 55' */
/* Mail: Mechelininkatu 26 B 27, FI-00100 Helsinki */
/* * * Computers Rule 01001111 01001011 * * * * * * */

Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> wrote:

> the patent has the following properties:
>
> - Novelty
> - Industrial Application
> - Creative activity

A patent does not have the following properties:

- Process or device guaranteed to work as described in the patent

--
/* * * Otto J. Makela <om@iki.fi> * * * * * * * * * */
/* Phone: +358 40 765 5772, ICBM: N 60 10' E 24 55' */
/* Mail: Mechelininkatu 26 B 27, FI-00100 Helsinki */
/* * * Computers Rule 01001111 01001011 * * * * * * */

On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 18:29:52 +0300, om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) wrote:

>Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 12 Aug 2022 11:06:53 -0400, Alain Fournier
>> <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote:
>>> Similar experiments have been done by others. You are not the
>>> first to produce thrust by thermal effect.
>>
>> the European Patent Office doesn't think like you
>> as it has granted a patent.
>
>Firstly, a patent does not mean the process described there works.
>The only exception to this have been perpetual motion devices, since the
>hucksters selling those have been using "patented" as a sales incentive.
>
>Secondly, what is the granted patent number, so we can look up details?

Dr. Lorenzo Marrucci of the University of Naples writes IN FACT:
"The fact that the Lorentz force ......................... can violate
Newton's 3rd principle (in its traditional formulation) is well known,
any physicist with good training knows this.
The reason (as Fabri also writes in the short paper he provided me)
.... the existence of a net resultant not zero on the V dipole seems to
me correct and plausible .......... ................................ "

Do you understand what makes them go wild?

Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 18:29:52 +0300, om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) wrote:
>>Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> wrote:
>>> the European Patent Office doesn't think like you
>>> as it has granted a patent.
>> Firstly, a patent does not mean the process described there works.
>> The only exception to this have been perpetual motion devices, since
>> the hucksters selling those have been using "patented" as a sales
>> incentive.
>>
>> Secondly, what is the granted patent number, so we can look up
>> details?
>
> Dr. Lorenzo Marrucci of the University of Naples writes IN FACT:
> "The fact that the Lorentz force ......................... can
> violate Newton's 3rd principle (in its traditional formulation) is
> well known, any physicist with good training knows this. The
> reason (as Fabri also writes in the short paper he provided me)
> ... the existence of a net resultant not zero on the V dipole
> seems to me correct and plausible .......... "
> Do you understand what makes them go wild?

If the patent has already been granted, as you again claim above,
the process is under its protection, and there is absolutely no
reason to withhold its number from the public.

The only conclusion we can make of this is that there is (at least as
of yet) no patent. I look forward to you proving me wrong on this.

----

And for some reason you neglected to copy-paste the complete text,
ostensibly from professor Marrucci http://wpage.unina.it/lomarruc/

However, it should be compensated for by the unbalanced
emission of electromagnetic waves in the space surrounding
the dipole, so that the total momentum remains preserved. I
don’t have time to attempt an explicit calculation to
evaluate my claim in detail, but I’m pretty sure that’s the
case. This means that the experiment in question is not
wrong, indeed it is also interesting, but it is not as
revolutionary as you seem to think. In practice it is a form
of reaction propulsion in which there is no eject material
but in its place there are electromagnetic waves radiated in
the opposite direction to where you want to move. If this
principle could be made practical and energy efficient it
could perhaps be interesting for some applications.
-- https://neolegesmotus.com/2021/01/18/violation-of-momentum-conservation-in-high-energy-colliders/

He seems to be of the opinion that thrust COULD be produced by the
emission of electromagnetic waves in the space surrounding the dipole,
but that this is not "reactionless", following well-known laws of
preservation of momentum.

--
/* * * Otto J. Makela <om@iki.fi> * * * * * * * * * */
/* Phone: +358 40 765 5772, ICBM: N 60 10' E 24 55' */
/* Mail: Mechelininkatu 26 B 27, FI-00100 Helsinki */
/* * * Computers Rule 01001111 01001011 * * * * * * */

On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 18:17:42 +0300, om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) wrote:

>Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 18:29:52 +0300, om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) wrote:
>>>Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> wrote:
>>>> the European Patent Office doesn't think like you
>>>> as it has granted a patent.
>>> Firstly, a patent does not mean the process described there works.
>>> The only exception to this have been perpetual motion devices, since
>>> the hucksters selling those have been using "patented" as a sales
>>> incentive.
>>>
>>> Secondly, what is the granted patent number, so we can look up
>>> details?
>>
>> Dr. Lorenzo Marrucci of the University of Naples writes IN FACT:
>> "The fact that the Lorentz force ......................... can
>> violate Newton's 3rd principle (in its traditional formulation) is
>> well known, any physicist with good training knows this. The
>> reason (as Fabri also writes in the short paper he provided me)
>> ... the existence of a net resultant not zero on the V dipole
>> seems to me correct and plausible .......... "
>> Do you understand what makes them go wild?
>
>If the patent has already been granted, as you again claim above,
>the process is under its protection, and there is absolutely no
>reason to withhold its number from the public.
>
>The only conclusion we can make of this is that there is (at least as
>of yet) no patent. I look forward to you proving me wrong on this.
>
>----
>
>And for some reason you neglected to copy-paste the complete text,
>ostensibly from professor Marrucci http://wpage.unina.it/lomarruc/
>
> However, it should be compensated for by the unbalanced
> emission of electromagnetic waves in the space surrounding
> the dipole, so that the total momentum remains preserved. I
> don’t have time to attempt an explicit calculation to
> evaluate my claim in detail, but I’m pretty sure that’s the
> case. This means that the experiment in question is not
> wrong, indeed it is also interesting, but it is not as
> revolutionary as you seem to think. In practice it is a form
> of reaction propulsion in which there is no eject material
> but in its place there are electromagnetic waves radiated in
> the opposite direction to where you want to move. If this
> principle could be made practical and energy efficient it
> could perhaps be interesting for some applications.
> -- https://neolegesmotus.com/2021/01/18/violation-of-momentum-conservation-in-high-energy-colliders/
>
>He seems to be of the opinion that thrust COULD be produced by the
>emission of electromagnetic waves in the space surrounding the dipole,
>but that this is not "reactionless", following well-known laws of
>preservation of momentum.

You are becoming unpleasant to me, and I will not talk to you anymore,
from now on the only comments you will see will be of PNN Calmagorod,
he is the project leader.

Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> wrote:

> You are becoming unpleasant to me, and I will not talk to you anymore,
> from now on the only comments you will see will be of PNN Calmagorod,
> he is the project leader.

Is a question on the existence of a patent too embarrassing for you?

Also, you seem to misunderstand what "kill files" are in the Usenet context.

--
/* * * Otto J. Makela <om@iki.fi> * * * * * * * * * */
/* Phone: +358 40 765 5772, ICBM: N 60 10' E 24 55' */
/* Mail: Mechelininkatu 26 B 27, FI-00100 Helsinki */
/* * * Computers Rule 01001111 01001011 * * * * * * */

On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 20:05:07 +0300, om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) wrote:

>Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> wrote:
>
>> You are becoming unpleasant to me, and I will not talk to you anymore,
>> from now on the only comments you will see will be of PNN Calmagorod,
>> he is the project leader.
>
>Is a question on the existence of a patent too embarrassing for you?
>
>Also, you seem to misunderstand what "kill files" are in the Usenet context.

the patent exists, it hasn't been published yet.
but yo useem to undergo the enemy path.

Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 20:05:07 +0300, om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) wrote:
>> Is a question on the existence of a patent too embarrassing for you?
>> Also, you seem to misunderstand what "kill files" are in the Usenet context.
>
> the patent exists, it hasn't been published yet.
> but yo useem to undergo the enemy path.

The fact that you see that you have "enemies" speaks volumes about you,
not so much about me. When can we expect the publication to happen?

--
/* * * Otto J. Makela <om@iki.fi> * * * * * * * * * */
/* Phone: +358 40 765 5772, ICBM: N 60 10' E 24 55' */
/* Mail: Mechelininkatu 26 B 27, FI-00100 Helsinki */
/* * * Computers Rule 01001111 01001011 * * * * * * */

On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 20:19:36 +0300, om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) wrote:

>Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 20:05:07 +0300, om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) wrote:
>>> Is a question on the existence of a patent too embarrassing for you?
>>> Also, you seem to misunderstand what "kill files" are in the Usenet context.
>>
>> the patent exists, it hasn't been published yet.
>> but yo useem to undergo the enemy path.
>
>The fact that you see that you have "enemies" speaks volumes about you,
>not so much about me. When can we expect the publication to happen?

we said December 2022 already.

On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 18:17:42 +0300, om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) wrote:

>Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 18:29:52 +0300, om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) wrote:
>>>Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> wrote:
>>>> the European Patent Office doesn't think like you
>>>> as it has granted a patent.
>>> Firstly, a patent does not mean the process described there works.
>>> The only exception to this have been perpetual motion devices, since
>>> the hucksters selling those have been using "patented" as a sales
>>> incentive.
>>>
>>> Secondly, what is the granted patent number, so we can look up
>>> details?
>>
>> Dr. Lorenzo Marrucci of the University of Naples writes IN FACT:
>> "The fact that the Lorentz force ......................... can
>> violate Newton's 3rd principle (in its traditional formulation) is
>> well known, any physicist with good training knows this. The
>> reason (as Fabri also writes in the short paper he provided me)
>> ... the existence of a net resultant not zero on the V dipole
>> seems to me correct and plausible .......... "
>> Do you understand what makes them go wild?
>
>If the patent has already been granted, as you again claim above,
>the process is under its protection, and there is absolutely no
>reason to withhold its number from the public.
>
>The only conclusion we can make of this is that there is (at least as
>of yet) no patent. I look forward to you proving me wrong on this.
>
>----
>
>And for some reason you neglected to copy-paste the complete text,
>ostensibly from professor Marrucci http://wpage.unina.it/lomarruc/
>
> However, it should be compensated for by the unbalanced
> emission of electromagnetic waves in the space surrounding
> the dipole, so that the total momentum remains preserved. I
> don’t have time to attempt an explicit calculation to
> evaluate my claim in detail, but I’m pretty sure that’s the
> case. This means that the experiment in question is not
> wrong, indeed it is also interesting, but it is not as
> revolutionary as you seem to think. In practice it is a form
> of reaction propulsion in which there is no eject material
> but in its place there are electromagnetic waves radiated in
> the opposite direction to where you want to move. If this
> principle could be made practical and energy efficient it
> could perhaps be interesting for some applications.
> -- https://neolegesmotus.com/2021/01/18/violation-of-momentum-conservation-in-high-energy-colliders/
>
>He seems to be of the opinion that thrust COULD be produced by the
>emission of electromagnetic waves in the space surrounding the dipole,
>but that this is not "reactionless", following well-known laws of
>preservation of momentum.

whatever you want to call it, it works, the device is not a scam.

Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 20:19:36 +0300, om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) wrote:
>> The fact that you see that you have "enemies" speaks volumes about you,
>> not so much about me. When can we expect the publication to happen?
>
> we said December 2022 already.

Sorry, I cannot find that date mentioned on Usenet before this.
It might be on your (very confusing) site, but not here.

All right, I'll try to be patient waiting for the patent.
--
/* * * Otto J. Makela <om@iki.fi> * * * * * * * * * */
/* Phone: +358 40 765 5772, ICBM: N 60 10' E 24 55' */
/* Mail: Mechelininkatu 26 B 27, FI-00100 Helsinki */
/* * * Computers Rule 01001111 01001011 * * * * * * */

Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 18:17:42 +0300, om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) wrote:
>> He seems to be of the opinion that thrust COULD be produced by the
>> emission of electromagnetic waves in the space surrounding the
>> dipole, but that this is not "reactionless", following well-known
>> laws of preservation of momentum.
>
> whatever you want to call it, it works, the device is not a scam.

If it isn't reactionless, it's not new physics, unlike your claims.
--
/* * * Otto J. Makela <om@iki.fi> * * * * * * * * * */
/* Phone: +358 40 765 5772, ICBM: N 60 10' E 24 55' */
/* Mail: Mechelininkatu 26 B 27, FI-00100 Helsinki */
/* * * Computers Rule 01001111 01001011 * * * * * * */

On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 21:01:06 +0300, om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) wrote:

>Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 18:17:42 +0300, om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) wrote:
>>> He seems to be of the opinion that thrust COULD be produced by the
>>> emission of electromagnetic waves in the space surrounding the
>>> dipole, but that this is not "reactionless", following well-known
>>> laws of preservation of momentum.
>>
>> whatever you want to call it, it works, the device is not a scam.
>
>If it isn't reactionless, it's not new physics, unlike your claims.

if it wasn't reactionless, or at least action > reaction, there would
be no thrust.

On Aug/26/2022 at 14:14, Doctor Who wrote :
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 21:01:06 +0300, om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) wrote:
>
>> Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 18:17:42 +0300, om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) wrote:
>>>> He seems to be of the opinion that thrust COULD be produced by the
>>>> emission of electromagnetic waves in the space surrounding the
>>>> dipole, but that this is not "reactionless", following well-known
>>>> laws of preservation of momentum.
>>>
>>> whatever you want to call it, it works, the device is not a scam.
>>
>> If it isn't reactionless, it's not new physics, unlike your claims.
>
> if it wasn't reactionless, or at least action > reaction, there would
> be no thrust.

So you say but we and professor Marrucci (see Otto J. Makela's post at
11:17) disagree. Your device really seems to provide some thrust which
can be explained with Newtonian physics.

Alain Fournier

On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 18:36:44 -0400, Alain Fournier
<alain245@videotron.ca> wrote:

>On Aug/26/2022 at 14:14, Doctor Who wrote :
>> On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 21:01:06 +0300, om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) wrote:
>>
>>> Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 18:17:42 +0300, om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) wrote:
>>>>> He seems to be of the opinion that thrust COULD be produced by the
>>>>> emission of electromagnetic waves in the space surrounding the
>>>>> dipole, but that this is not "reactionless", following well-known
>>>>> laws of preservation of momentum.
>>>>
>>>> whatever you want to call it, it works, the device is not a scam.
>>>
>>> If it isn't reactionless, it's not new physics, unlike your claims.
>>
>> if it wasn't reactionless, or at least action > reaction, there would
>> be no thrust.
>
>So you say but we and professor Marrucci (see Otto J. Makela's post at
>11:17) disagree. Your device really seems to provide some thrust which
>can be explained with Newtonian physics.
>
>
>Alain Fournier

But Newton knew nothing about electrodynamics!

On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 18:36:44 -0400, Alain Fournier
<alain245@videotron.ca> wrote:

>On Aug/26/2022 at 14:14, Doctor Who wrote :
>> On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 21:01:06 +0300, om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) wrote:
>>
>>> Doctor Who <doc@tardis.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 18:17:42 +0300, om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) wrote:
>>>>> He seems to be of the opinion that thrust COULD be produced by the
>>>>> emission of electromagnetic waves in the space surrounding the
>>>>> dipole, but that this is not "reactionless", following well-known
>>>>> laws of preservation of momentum.
>>>>
>>>> whatever you want to call it, it works, the device is not a scam.
>>>
>>> If it isn't reactionless, it's not new physics, unlike your claims.
>>
>> if it wasn't reactionless, or at least action > reaction, there would
>> be no thrust.
>
>So you say but we and professor Marrucci (see Otto J. Makela's post at
>11:17) disagree. Your device really seems to provide some thrust which
>can be explained with Newtonian physics.
>
>
>Alain Fournier

that's totally wrong!
Newton knew nothing about electrodynamics, that's why Newtonian
Mechanics talks about bodies and not about electrodynamics.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiwpN-zquf5AhWfQfEDHXdHBvgQFnoECCoQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lehman.edu%2Ffaculty%2Fdgaranin%2FMechanics%2FNewtonian_Mechanics.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1mgL0EQrSWxnHnabsNn9Js

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiwpN-zquf5AhWfQfEDHXdHBvgQFnoECCkQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fphys.libretexts.org%2FBookshelves%2FClassical_Mechanics%2FVariational_Principles_in_Classical_Mechanics_(Cline)%2F02%253A_Review_of_Newtonian_Mechanics&usg=AOvVaw2Xm28V4BZElc2rJ60CGkwv

https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Classical_Mechanics/Variational_Principles_in_Classical_Mechanics_(Cline)/02%3A_Review_of_Newtonian_Mechanics/2.01%3A_Introduction_to_Newtonian_Mechanics