The quest for the displacement current

Dear readers,
I share with you Laureti’s considerations and experiments that he made in the attempt to measure the elusive displacement current.
You can read this article in Italian on ASPS website

In the past I tried to open a discussion with academics about the measurement procedures of the displacement current invented by the mathematician Maxwell for the coherence of his equations but without success, therefore I decided in 2013, through the url, to give to the fans of classical electrodyamics what they believe to regardless the measurements: the use of the displacement current to achieve propellantless propulsion. Besides, for more publicity I sent the manuscript

Displacement current magnetic field for propellantless propulsion”

(of which I filed a patent in 2013)
to the Journal of Propulsion & Power

….. in detail their approval letter:

Dear Dr. Laureti:

Your manuscript entitled “Displacement current magnetic field for
propellantless propulsion” has been successfully submitted online and is presently being given full consideration for publication in the Propulsion and Power Research.
Your manuscript ID is ………………………..
Please mention the above manuscript ID in all future correspondence or when calling the office for questions. If there are any changes in your street address or e-mail address, please log in to ScholarOne Manuscripts at and edit your user information as appropriate.
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to the Propulsion and Power Research.

Propulsion and Power Research Editorial Office

Those for whom the displacement current doesn’t exist can’t be let down and as I previously said they’re in good company since already in 1901 (Nova Astronautica n.139 , 2014 pag 22) Henri Poincaré pointed out that the Newton’s third law is  violated if the displacement current does exist … This conjecture implicates that, according to Maxwell’s equations, a net propulsion force can be generated from electromagnetic interaction……” (H. Poincaré, Électricité et Optique (Paris: G Carré et C Naud), 1901, pp 465-6).§

This non-orthodox operation of mine towards orthodoxes for whom the mathematical form comes before the experimental evidence is under a certain angle indispensable for them since they can’t accept the experimental evidence of PNN outside the mental constructs with which they have been educated and with which they publicly reason. Plus, it will be of great help for those who observe and copy the PNN.

As already said in Nova Astronautica 143, since when two Japanese copied an (Italian) PNN patent of mine from 1998
and they republished it under their name (and they even ask money for that:;2-B/abstract)
about the ESSENTIAL data of PNN I systematically lie for my self-defence and for that of ASPS members that in future will own a share of the “true” patent.

To summarize, the best thing to feed the copiers with is indeed something that is based on what is secularly certified at theoretical level.. and the displacement current is perfect for that 🙂

Figure 1: the circuit diagram of a closed loop antenna

Please notice that incidentally the displacement current is needed “pure” by the orthodoxy to avoid returning to talk about a historical bogeyman of relativistic electrodynamics: the ether … but this is another matter.

[E.N: I asked Laureti why the inexistence of the displacement current is connected with ether and he replied:

Do not forget that physics is the science of the how and not of the why. In the electrodynamic field, experimentally, FOR ME only the electric field propagates. You detect the magnetic field only nearby a conductor in which real electric charges move and it doesn’t propagate in the wave, which is only electrical. Then I can call this medium in which it happens ether but I could also change its name. For me its physical properties matter, not its word. So much so that people have in mind other types of ether… Also Maxwell believed in the ether, but his ether isn’t mine. For Maxwell’s equations the thing is irrelevant since no one goes or WANTS to see if the magnetic field from the displacement current exists. Yet if you tell them there isn’t and it’s a mathematical trick they get really pissed off 🙂

I summarize with some more specifications what said in the issues n.132 and 133 of Nova Astronautica from 2012 and refer to the articles themselves for more information


From Nova Astronautica n.132 e 133

INTRODUCTION: discussions from Usenet about the impossibility of having any kind of experimental datas that confirm the existence of the magnetic field of the displacement current in short called “Maxwell’s ghost”. An ectoplasm to which one might as well apply a Lao Tze’s motto that I often repeat with a variation:” the excessive application of mathematical mental impressions dulls the capacity of perceiving the physical reality”

In a discussion one tried in vain to have experimental data from the interlocutor about the most colossal blunder in the history of physics (his words): that is the invention that presents itself mathematically well, that is the extra-experimental supposition, esthetical, metaphysical and “mateficentometrica” [E.N: an untranslatable fusion of the words mathematician+moron] of the displacement current by the mathematician J.C.Maxwell.

Therefore one wants to demonstrate ALWAYS UNTIL OPPOSITE EXPERIMENT that antennas receive only the electric field emitted by the source and thus between the source and the receiver only the emitted electric field is propagated in the abolished interlaid medium, that is the antennas of any form transmit and receive only and exclusively like the plates of a capacitor.

Another interlocutor proclaimed in 30/04/2012 that his loop was a magnetic antenna although for decency he didn’t want to release the circuit diagram first and sold it as a closed spire. In reality there was and there is in all antennas the Essential “shielding” since that without it they couldn’t pretend to be magnetic.

In figure 1 there’s the circuit diagram on the antenna shown by an interlocutor in Usenet but that he didn’t want to release and that I casually discovered while in a clip he was improvidently handling (he didn’t hide the syntony knob) his loop which was allegedly intercepting the magnetic fluxes of Maxwell’s ghost (in reality it was intercepting the electric field alone)


Thank goodness, since it’s 150 years that me, like others, are waiting 🙂

In practice the antennas are nothing more than the plates of a capacitor… and the capacitors only work with the electric field and not with the magnetic one 🙂

In practice one wants to show that the so called magnetic antennas are magnetic only because there is the shielding that works as the primary of a circuit where there electric charges put into motion only by the electric field that hits them, that is the so-called magnetic loops are magnetic only due to some tacky interpretative errors and because Maxwellists are idelogists that represent “the ……. arrogance of mathematical physicists giving priority to  formalism against empirical facts…..”. I consider the displacement current a theoretical error supported by the ruling “mateficentometria” according to an anti-experimental aesthetic principle (to read: mathematical) unrelated to what should be the world of physicists. Mine is not a war to mathematics but a reminder that its functionality in physics is secondary to the experiment.

In the two underlying figures [2 and 3] is highlighted what the interlocutor mistakes with the magnetic flux on the secondary caused by the “shielding” of the electric field. In reality the shielding behaves like the primary of a circuit and it’s not used to shield but to cause a movement of electric charges (with the relative magnetic field) whitout which the secondary would reveal nothing.

Obviously for what other antenna technicians previously pointed out it’s impossibile to avoid on a conductor that the electric field moves charges, since the shielding “always” produces a movement of real charges (an effect that could be canceled by connecting to ground both the extremes of the fissured loop and having that way on the primary loop two opposite currents that cancel the effects on the secondary)

In practice inside the primary the charges move because the electric induction (Fig.2) caused by the external variable electric field E.

Figure 2: the shielding behaves like the primary of a circuit and it’s not used to shield but to cause a movement of electric charges

Therefore given that the variable electric field doesn’t come from a direction normal to the support surface of the loop (basically from above)… the “electric field alone” is capable of producing current in the open primary as any variable electric field does in a extended conductor.
In practice in the primary the charges move by the electrical induction (Fig 2) caused by the external variable electric field E

A 180° rotation (Fig 3) makes charges move in the opposite direction (with the reference in solid with the loop) exactly because the primary is fissured and this operation also cause a variation of its impedance.

Figure 3 – A rotation of 180 degrees causes the charges to flow in the opposite direction precisely because the primary is fissured.

Note the comedy of the ideological assumption of the “shielders” of the electric field.

While with a closed loop it is possible to intercept only the close magnetic field (near zone) of a Tesla coil, THAT IS WITHOUT ANY SHIELDING, with an e.m wave at distance it’s not possible anymore that a loop would intercept any magnetic field from the displacement current.

One needs the shielding, or better, the scam of the shielding

Note that the shielding is a double-edged sword since if maxwellists made a proper shielding with a ground connection for both the ends there wouldn’t be a fissured primary anymore.
It’s the fissured primary that makes possible the movement of charges inside itself in a circular and regular way.
If it was REALLY WELL SHIELDED, namely closed in both ends, namely with a shared grounding the magnetic effects, for example the current in the secondary in series with a capacitor, would magically disappear together with the displacement current.

Unfortunately it doesn’t exists any experimental detection of the displacement current even between the plates of a capacitor, but it’s clear the existence of amperian currents in the plates of all capacitors.
Bartlett, or the one who did the most of the experimental tests regarding the displacement current between the armatures of a capacitor, offers evidence of the Amperian current whose magnetic field can play precisely the part of the non-existent displacement current.

Figure 4: conduction currents and B field in a circular capacitor

Here his conclusions in 1990:

In other terms he says that between the plates of a capacitor there are ALWAYS magnetic fields from charges that move on the plates and therefore it’s impossible any kind of measure that distinguishes between the two magnetic fields.

The only thing is to make a measure like the interlocutors did with a nice loop in free field… but as we have seen in order to make the displacement current exist they must place a crucial “shielding”

Anyway in conclusion if for maxwellists the displacement current exists between the plates of a capacitor all they have to do is to replicate what illustrated in Calmagorod.

Oddly it looks like that even with thousands of visits and offers of free and easy copying they still haven’t made it since 2013

Published in NOVA ASTRONAUTICA VOL.35 N.145 Jul.Aug.Sept 2015 and available for reading at

Here’s a gallery (source) of previous attempts made by Laureti for demonstrating the existence of the magnetic field generated by the displacement current.
Laureti also stated that all the attempts haven’t succeeded (as he expected) since if they worked one could have made another type of PNN, basically a spaceship propelled by the magnetic field of the displacement current.

One thought on “The quest for the displacement current



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

Google photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s