I imagine this will make roll a lot more eyes than the Emdrive. But this one seems easier to test and cheaper to build than a high power Emdrive too.The crowd-funding campaign even tells the one they want to build should be able to levitate itself! Now we are talking about testable assertions.
No better place to falsify than nsf. Hoping DIYers will accept the challenge and move beyond opinion and replicate. Its the only resolution that will be generally accepted. Seems like a simple configuration. Should be easy to replicate, debunk or prove. Falsifying is as valuable as the alternative. Let's get our Build On. If workable, reaction mass paridigms change.
Quote from: rfmwguy on 04/05/2016 10:44 amNo better place to falsify than nsf. Hoping DIYers will accept the challenge and move beyond opinion and replicate. Its the only resolution that will be generally accepted. Seems like a simple configuration. Should be easy to replicate, debunk or prove. Falsifying is as valuable as the alternative. Let's get our Build On. If workable, reaction mass paridigms change.I mostly keep out of the New Physics section, but for once I'll comment...Do you think that every claim like this should be tested? Isn't there anything that is just too silly to bother with without further evidence? As far as I know there's nothing but the inventor's claims that this thing works and as ChrisWilson68 said, his theoretical explanation is full of holes. Why should this be taken any more seriously than numerous perpetual motion machines that have been invited over centuries. Dogmatic physics says they can't work, but I'm sure many of them have never been thoroughly tested. Maybe there's a hidden gem somewhere.But sure, if you like building and testing these things as a hobby, go ahead.
No better place to falsify than nsf. Hoping DIYers will accept the challenge and move beyond opinion and replicate. Its the only resolution that will be generally accepted.
If person A chooses to experiment, person B should not invoke their own standards as everyones learning path is unique. Its harmless to allow DIY experiments to continue. Nothing ventured...nothing gained.
Quote from: rfmwguy on 04/05/2016 05:54 pmIf person A chooses to experiment, person B should not invoke their own standards as everyones learning path is unique. Its harmless to allow DIY experiments to continue. Nothing ventured...nothing gained.If person B believes that person A could be more effective, shouldn't person A make a case to person B to that effect?I think it would be pretty sad if we were to say nobody should try to learn from anyone else and nobody should try to persuade anybody else that they are making a mistake.I'm not arguing anyone should prevent people from doing any experiments they choose. But they should be allowed, even encouraged, to try to persuade them to do things differently.Again, the argument here has absolutely nothing to do with whether current physics is correct or incorrect. It has to do with whether a particular line or reasoning is logically correct, and what the implications are for it being incorrect on the credibility of the person making the argument.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 04/05/2016 06:19 pmQuote from: rfmwguy on 04/05/2016 05:54 pmIf person A chooses to experiment, person B should not invoke their own standards as everyones learning path is unique. Its harmless to allow DIY experiments to continue. Nothing ventured...nothing gained.If person B believes that person A could be more effective, shouldn't person A make a case to person B to that effect?I think it would be pretty sad if we were to say nobody should try to learn from anyone else and nobody should try to persuade anybody else that they are making a mistake.I'm not arguing anyone should prevent people from doing any experiments they choose. But they should be allowed, even encouraged, to try to persuade them to do things differently.Again, the argument here has absolutely nothing to do with whether current physics is correct or incorrect. It has to do with whether a particular line or reasoning is logically correct, and what the implications are for it being incorrect on the credibility of the person making the argument.The problem with this approach of self-consistency first is that a real discovery (done in an experimental setting) can be done by people that barely (or plainly, don't) understand what they found, and therefore, they come up with a fishy theory for explaining it.We can point our finger, laugh, then ignore and potentially lose a significant discovery, or we can give them and their experiment the benefit of the doubt, and lose potentially very little by doing a probably pointless but cheap experiment.As far as I know, the requirements of some experimental evidence and a clear replication recipe (which is not very hard to do) are satisfied here.Even if I also think this is purely thermal in nature (the superconductors are cooled down with liquid Nitrogen, hence generated convection currents when working in air at normal temperature ), I think these claims need to be investigated, given the relatively low expense and complexity to do it, and the high potential benefit.Besides, what's the DIY scene but something done for the fun of it? I'm sure someone will get his/her kicks simply from making a superconductor in the specified shape and characteristics of this experiment.
Quote from: as58 on 04/05/2016 11:10 amQuote from: rfmwguy on 04/05/2016 10:44 amNo better place to falsify than nsf. Hoping DIYers will accept the challenge and move beyond opinion and replicate. Its the only resolution that will be generally accepted. Seems like a simple configuration. Should be easy to replicate, debunk or prove. Falsifying is as valuable as the alternative. Let's get our Build On. If workable, reaction mass paridigms change.I mostly keep out of the New Physics section, but for once I'll comment...Do you think that every claim like this should be tested? Isn't there anything that is just too silly to bother with without further evidence? As far as I know there's nothing but the inventor's claims that this thing works and as ChrisWilson68 said, his theoretical explanation is full of holes. Why should this be taken any more seriously than numerous perpetual motion machines that have been invited over centuries. Dogmatic physics says they can't work, but I'm sure many of them have never been thoroughly tested. Maybe there's a hidden gem somewhere.But sure, if you like building and testing these things as a hobby, go ahead.No, every claim should not be tested. One should look at what the payoff could mean and how difficult it would be to replicate. If true, its disruptive...also seems rather simple to replicate. Guess that would be enough to cross the threshold for some.Falsification cannot be provided by opinion or counter claims once an experimental claim is presented. So, I'd recommend a mythbusters approach for those with the interest and skills.Philosophically, one could argue that we've lost our Edison mentality...the persistence to try that one last light bulb filament before giving up.Or worse yet, never trying in the first place.
The object of this paper is to describe the experimental verification of a self-propulsive force created by means of a superconducting device. This device is a converging nozzle made of a superconductor like YBCO and two permanent magnets, acting as a self-propulsion mechanism with direction towards the converging area.This device is activated when it is immersed within a coolant as the liquid nitrogen. The force is measuredthrough the slope of a pendulum created by the device mentioned hanged by means of a string from a constant point.
if the system works, we should have an interaction between themagnetic field and the gravitational one since the system motionimplies a mass creation (relativity). However this interaction hasnot been until now accepted and theoretically stated according tothe dominant theories as the GRT and the QM. This interactioncan be interpreted on the basis of a minimum contradictionspoint of view according to which space time is matter itself eitheras mass or as charge field
Natural Philosophy Alliance An organization which believes there are fundamental flaws in theories such as relativity, the big bang, and plate tectonics
To provide worldwide forums for expression and discussion of diverse scientific theories, observations and experiments by which an improved natural philosophy based on logic, structures and processes of our visible world and extended universe may be developed.
The standard model implies the energy and momentum conservation law and the Higgs boson existence. Thus, the violation of the conservation law implies the violation of the standard model and its implications. Object of this paper is to describe the experimental verification of a self-propulsive force created by means of a superconducting device. This device is a converging nozzle made of a superconductor like YBCO and two permanent magnets, acting as a self-propulsion mechanism with direction towards the converging area. This device is activated when it is immersed within a coolant as the liquid Nitrogen. The force is measured through the slope of a pendulum created by the device mentioned hanged by means of a string from a constant point. This self propulsion violates the conservation law and requires beyond the standard model. Through logic analysis and by means of a theorem, stating the contradictory nature of communication, we can reach the minimum contradictions physics; according to this physics space-time is quantum stochastic and matter itself; there are (g)-mass and (em)-charge space-time which interact-communicate through photons [(g) or (em) particles with zero rest mass]. A quick explanation, of the experiment mentioned, is given by means of the minimum contradictions physics; this physics can imply the neutron synthesis which has been experimentally verified and explained via Hadronic Mechanics by R. M. Santilli. Since, according to this, quantum space time is matter itself there is not need for Higgs-implied by standard model-to exist; mass is a property of quantum space time itself. According to the CERN discovery there is a Higgs-like boson; according to this paper there is not the standard model Higgs boson.
There is also this reference, from the proceedings of the American Institute of Physics Conference in Greece, also in 2012 Superconducting self propulsion requires beyond the standard modelA. A. NassikasAIP Conf. Proc. 1479, 1024 (2012); http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4756319Conference date: 19–25 September 2012Location: Kos, Greecehttp://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/proceeding/aipcp/10.1063/1.4756319QuoteThe standard model implies the energy and momentum conservation law and the Higgs boson existence. Thus, the violation of the conservation law implies the violation of the standard model and its implications. Object of this paper is to describe the experimental verification of a self-propulsive force created by means of a superconducting device. This device is a converging nozzle made of a superconductor like YBCO and two permanent magnets, acting as a self-propulsion mechanism with direction towards the converging area. This device is activated when it is immersed within a coolant as the liquid Nitrogen. The force is measured through the slope of a pendulum created by the device mentioned hanged by means of a string from a constant point. This self propulsion violates the conservation law and requires beyond the standard model. Through logic analysis and by means of a theorem, stating the contradictory nature of communication, we can reach the minimum contradictions physics; according to this physics space-time is quantum stochastic and matter itself; there are (g)-mass and (em)-charge space-time which interact-communicate through photons [(g) or (em) particles with zero rest mass]. A quick explanation, of the experiment mentioned, is given by means of the minimum contradictions physics; this physics can imply the neutron synthesis which has been experimentally verified and explained via Hadronic Mechanics by R. M. Santilli. Since, according to this, quantum space time is matter itself there is not need for Higgs-implied by standard model-to exist; mass is a property of quantum space time itself. According to the CERN discovery there is a Higgs-like boson; according to this paper there is not the standard model Higgs boson.Again: the device was immersed within liquid Nitrogen. The force was measured through the slope of a pendulum created by the device mentioned hanged by means of a string from a constant point. To understand the claimed experimental behavior, one has to analyze the fluid mechanics of the hanging device on a liquid Nitrogen fluid, under the action of the electromagnetic fields. One should take into account the convection heat transfer effect to explain the experimental measurement.I have not seen an analysis of the convection heat transfer and associated fluid mechanics in these papers.If this device is proposed for space propulsion, and if tests are proposed, the self-contained cryo-device should be tested in a vacuum chamber instead of being immersed in a fluid, to eliminate propulsion due to convection effects.
Dr. Rodal, if the effect is convection as you suggest, wouldn't the apparent force generated diminish over time as the thruster materials cooled to equilibrium with the LN2?Once cooled to equilibrium the LN2 could be drained off to a level below the device and if the effect is not thermal convection the apparent force should remain. If the force vanishes then that would confirm the convection theory as generating the apparent force. That would seem an easy test to perform.
I wondered what actions the magnet would exhibit if instead of liquid N2 they used O2? Liquid nitrogen is slightly diamagnetic and will repel from a magnetic source such as a superconducting magnet. Liquid O2 is paramagnetic and is attracted to a magnetic field.Inserting a magnet into the fixture as built will obviously concentrate the magnetic field within the cone portion of the device as it's cooled.{snip}
Quote from: SeeShells on 04/08/2016 04:16 pmI wondered what actions the magnet would exhibit if instead of liquid N2 they used O2? Liquid nitrogen is slightly diamagnetic and will repel from a magnetic source such as a superconducting magnet. Liquid O2 is paramagnetic and is attracted to a magnetic field.Inserting a magnet into the fixture as built will obviously concentrate the magnetic field within the cone portion of the device as it's cooled.{snip}Hot oxygen is very corrosive. Can a thruster be built that does not boil the oxygen propellant?
This is clearly nonsense.The inventor claims a derivation from simple physics gives reactionless thrust, in spite of the fact that the physics he claims to use to prove it works is mathematically proven to never give reactionless thrust under any circumstances. Then he goes on to claim the energy comes from the quantum vacuum -- even though he never used anything about the quantum vacuum in his derivation. It makes no logical sense at all.Then, he goes on to claim that because some aspects of semiconductors aren't fully understood that "any concerns that the Nassikas thruster shouldn't possibly work because it violates "known laws of physics", are not well grounded", which is a logical contradiction -- he used the known laws of physics to derive his claim that it should work in the first place.He can't have it both ways. Either he can claim to have a derivation from known laws of physics and be subject to the consequences of that or he can claim new physics and he has to defend the new physics.(Mod note - removed last sentence per site rules)
"The inventor claims a derivation from simple physics gives reactionless thrust, in spite of the fact that the physics he claims to use to prove it works is mathematically proven to never give reactionless thrust under any circumstances.”
"Then he goes on to claim the energy comes from the quantum vacuum -- even though he never used anything about the quantum vacuum in his derivation. It makes no logical sense at all.”
The oscillatory movement of the pendulum, biased in one direction, is caused by boil-off of LN2. The LN2 bubbles that form inside the cone have to escape from the cone. When a bubble slides out of the cone it producies a small force that moves the cone away from the bubble. Bubbles that form on the outside of the cone produce no lateral force. There will always be bubbles forming on the YBCO cone because it is black and absorbs radiation from outside the pool of LN2. A better experiment would shield the YBCO cone from outside radiation by enclosing it in a sealed dewar with a reflective covering. Eventually the YBCO cone will be at the same temperature as the LN2 and the bubbles will stop forming on it. When that happens it will stop moving. (provided there are no air currents or other external disturbances). This may be the same as Dr. Rodal's explanation, just stated differently.If there was just a force being generated there would be no oscillation of the pendulum. It would just hang at an angle. The videos were obviously recorded several minutes after the LN2 was poured into the container and after most of the movement had stopped. But the only phenomena seen is an oscillation which is consistent with an LN2 bubble induced effect.A counter experiment (the bane of pseudo science!) would be to suspend a black ceramic cone, with or without a magnet inserted, in the LN2 bath. The LN2 boil-off will cause it to oscillate the same way.
I suggest (combining with the great suggestion from zen-in above) to conduct the following inexpensive tests using the present set-up in Nassikas video:1) enclose the Nassikas nozzle inside a larger sphere made of a thin plastic material (through which the magnetic field can easily penetrate) (*). The external sphere would involve a completely symmetric 3-D external geometry that is easier to analyze (until there is separation of the flow).Any asymmetry will be the result only of the fluid flow direction, and not inherent to the geometry, which would be 3-D symmetric for a sphere. (*)2) immerse a sphere made of the same plastic material having the same diameter, as in #1 above, and weighted with sand or something else to have the same total weight as #1. Conduct the experiment with both spheres at the same time and observe whether there is any difference in their behavior.3) Introduce flow visualization particles, such as microspheres, added to trace the fluid motion. Or perhaps the air bubbles will be enough to visualize the flow. We can illuminate the flow with a sheet of laser light in order to visualize a slice of a complicated fluid flow pattern. If the particles faithfully follow the streamlines of the flow, we can not only visualize the flow but also measure its velocity using the particle image velocimetry or particle tracking velocimetry methods. Particles with densities that match that of the fluid flow will exhibit the most accurate visualization_____________________________________________________4) enclose the Nassikas nozzle inside a larger sphere made of a ferromagnetic material (through which the magnetic field can not penetrate). The external sphere would involve a completely symmetric 3-D external geometry that is easier to analyze.5) immerse a sphere made of the same ferromagnetic material having the same diameter, as in #3 above, and weighted with sand or something else to have the same total weight as #3. Conduct the experiment with both spheres at the same time and observe whether there is any difference in their behavior.Make sure that there is no fluid inside the sphere !:
Quote from: Rodal on 04/08/2016 08:10 pmI have not yet seen any coupled fluid mechanics/heat transfer analysis performed by Nassikas or others to scientifically address what is going on in Nassikas' experiment with the device immersed in Liquid Nitrogen.The proposed experiment was to address the fluid mechanics issues with a simpler geometry. Why can't you position the magnet within the throat of the YBCO nozzle, and all of that be within an enclosing sphere? In any case, if you cannot do that, then at the minimum a computational fluid mechanics analysis of the experiment should be performed to understand the fluid mechanics convection involved in the experiment. Experiments involving fluid flow in the aerospace industry (the subject of the NSF threads) are analyzed using fluid mechanics computational codes, not with words.Since the device is proposed for space propulsion, and there is no fluid surrounding the device in space, a valid experiment should be conducted in a vacuum chamber.We have to be careful how we spend our time and we are operating on a very limited budget. It is basically a one man operation here, not a laboratory full of scientists and engineers. We have been able to portray what we have done up to this point. As for experiments leary of fluid effect causes of the thrust, I have already explained in a previous post that we have conducted pendulum experiments with the thruster hung out of its liquid nitrogen bath, which thereby eliminates any concerns of liquid nitrogen fluid effects on the thruster.
I have not yet seen any coupled fluid mechanics/heat transfer analysis performed by Nassikas or others to scientifically address what is going on in Nassikas' experiment with the device immersed in Liquid Nitrogen.The proposed experiment was to address the fluid mechanics issues with a simpler geometry. Why can't you position the magnet within the throat of the YBCO nozzle, and all of that be within an enclosing sphere? In any case, if you cannot do that, then at the minimum a computational fluid mechanics analysis of the experiment should be performed to understand the fluid mechanics convection involved in the experiment. Experiments involving fluid flow in the aerospace industry (the subject of the NSF threads) are analyzed using fluid mechanics computational codes, not with words.Since the device is proposed for space propulsion, and there is no fluid surrounding the device in space, a valid experiment should be conducted in a vacuum chamber.
Could you be so kind as to post (preferably) a specific video link showing that experiment with the thruster hung out of its liquid nitrogen bath, or otherwise the particular report detailing that experiment with the thruster hung out of its liquid nitrogen bath?The only reports and videos I found do not discuss such experiment:Thanks
Quote from: Rodal on 04/08/2016 08:29 pmCould you be so kind as to post (preferably) a specific video link showing that experiment with the thruster hung out of its liquid nitrogen bath, or otherwise the particular report detailing that experiment with the thruster hung out of its liquid nitrogen bath?The only reports and videos I found do not discuss such experiment:Thankshttp://etheric.com/nassikas-thruster-ii/
Published on Mar 30, 2016Pendulum test of the Nassikas Thruster-I made at Athens University with the thruster suspended out of its cooling bath. At the end of the video one can see that because the thruster has warmed up and approached its critical temperature above which it is no longer superconducting, the thrust magnitude has visibly declined.
...At the end of the video one can see that because the thruster has warmed up and approached its critical temperature above which it is no longer superconducting, the thrust magnitude has visibly declined.
I just looked at the device hung out from pendulum, outside the liquid nitrogen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=WYZFoAk6gqYQuotePublished on Mar 30, 2016Pendulum test of the Nassikas Thruster-I made at Athens University with the thruster suspended out of its cooling bath. At the end of the video one can see that because the thruster has warmed up and approached its critical temperature above which it is no longer superconducting, the thrust magnitude has visibly declined. The device is shown to have the frozen liquid on its surface convecting away due to natural convection (one can see the white streamlines). Hence the movement may be explained by asymmetric natural convection and asymmetric boiling of the frozen liquid on its surface. Concerning:Quote...At the end of the video one can see that because the thruster has warmed up and approached its critical temperature above which it is no longer superconducting, the thrust magnitude has visibly declined.The same can be said about the natural convection, and evaporation of frozen liquid effect: once it has warmed up, there is no more deflection because the deflection is due to the asymmetric evaporation of frozen liquid.Need to perform this same experiment in a vacuum chamber (*). That would be much more convincing! as it would eliminate the convection effects. Thank you_____________(*) an experiment in a vacuum chamber would be best. Otherwise at least a computational fluid mechanics and change of phase, sublimation analysis.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 04/08/2016 05:10 pmQuote from: SeeShells on 04/08/2016 04:16 pmI wondered what actions the magnet would exhibit if instead of liquid N2 they used O2? Liquid nitrogen is slightly diamagnetic and will repel from a magnetic source such as a superconducting magnet. Liquid O2 is paramagnetic and is attracted to a magnetic field.Inserting a magnet into the fixture as built will obviously concentrate the magnetic field within the cone portion of the device as it's cooled.{snip}Hot oxygen is very corrosive. Can a thruster be built that does not boil the oxygen propellant?His thruster in the demo on a string doesn't have an outside power source to input heat into his device, all the supercooled gasses are used for is to lower the temperature of the YBCO into a superconducting state. Once his device reaches the same temperature in the gas it will remain in equilibrium and cool at the same rate as the rest of the gas in the container.To negate the corrosive effect of the O2 heating up and causing a reaction to the metals when dropping in the DUT into the liquid O2 I'd pre-cool it down with N2 before dropping into the container.This isn't looking at his powered device just his demo device in a string suspended into liquid N2 showing a deviation or apparent thrust.Shell
Quote from: rfmwguy on 04/05/2016 10:44 amNo better place to falsify than nsf. Hoping DIYers will accept the challenge and move beyond opinion and replicate. Its the only resolution that will be generally accepted.Experimental results aren't the only way to move beyond opinion. There is such a thing as objective truth about the validity of mathematics and logical deduction. Whether or not everyone is able to see it, a mathematical proof is either valid or invalid. It's not a matter of opinion.The square root of 2 is irrational. That's a fact. It doesn't require any experiment to prove it. It's not just an opinion. If someone argues against it, that person is simply wrong.Mathematics and logic can't tell you whether any given device will work or not. But it can tell you for certain that the reason given for it to work is valid or invalid. In this case, the reason given by the inventor for why it should work is invalid. That's objective fact, just the same as the objective fact that the square root of 2 is irrational.Sure, the inventor could build something that was supposed to work for an invalid reason and accidentally stumble into something that actually works for another reason, heretofore unknown. But wouldn't it make more sense for do-it-yourselfers to choose to do something that isn't based on incorrect reasoning? Just making up something of their own for no reason at all is just as likely to happen upon something that works.
...There is no way that that such small vapors would exert 2 grams of force on the thruster. No reasonable person would believe your theory.We have checked into rental of NASA's cryogenic vacuum chamber for such an experiment, but the cost of the rental and flying out there are huge. We don't currently have such funds. I suggest contributing to our campaign and if there is money left over from the more important Nassikas-thruster-II experiment, we could do such an experiment as you suggest and which we have previously looked into.
Quote from: SeeShells on 04/08/2016 05:25 pmQuote from: A_M_Swallow on 04/08/2016 05:10 pmQuote from: SeeShells on 04/08/2016 04:16 pmI wondered what actions the magnet would exhibit if instead of liquid N2 they used O2? Liquid nitrogen is slightly diamagnetic and will repel from a magnetic source such as a superconducting magnet. Liquid O2 is paramagnetic and is attracted to a magnetic field.Inserting a magnet into the fixture as built will obviously concentrate the magnetic field within the cone portion of the device as it's cooled.{snip}Hot oxygen is very corrosive. Can a thruster be built that does not boil the oxygen propellant?His thruster in the demo on a string doesn't have an outside power source to input heat into his device, all the supercooled gasses are used for is to lower the temperature of the YBCO into a superconducting state. Once his device reaches the same temperature in the gas it will remain in equilibrium and cool at the same rate as the rest of the gas in the container.To negate the corrosive effect of the O2 heating up and causing a reaction to the metals when dropping in the DUT into the liquid O2 I'd pre-cool it down with N2 before dropping into the container.This isn't looking at his powered device just his demo device in a string suspended into liquid N2 showing a deviation or apparent thrust.ShellBetter yet, solid state cryocoolers meant to operate in space can cool things to <4K so it can be done with no fluid at all.
The difference in temperature of the HTS (High Temperature Superconductor) cone and magnet compared to the surrounding environment is approximately 300 C. Heat will radiate from the surrounding environment and warm up the dark HTS cone. That will cause LN2 boil-off on the HTS surface, although it may not be easy to see.I believe what you have is an oscillator. When an N2 bubble rolls out of the cone it imparts a small push. The resulting movement of the cone, at the end of a long cord, results in a slight upward tilt of the cone. This upward tilt allows more N2 bubbles to escape. The pendulum then swings back and the cycle repeats. If there was a constant force the pendulum would have a constant angle. Instead what is happening is simple harmonic motion that is reinforced by the escaping N2 bubbles. This oscillatory movement is well understood and can be seen in many other phenomena. The period of the oscillation is just the period of the pendulum. No doubt the LN2 is also set into motion.
Quote from: zen-in on 04/09/2016 05:16 amThe difference in temperature of the HTS (High Temperature Superconductor) cone and magnet compared to the surrounding environment is approximately 300 C. Heat will radiate from the surrounding environment and warm up the dark HTS cone. That will cause LN2 boil-off on the HTS surface, although it may not be easy to see.I believe what you have is an oscillator. When an N2 bubble rolls out of the cone it imparts a small push. The resulting movement of the cone, at the end of a long cord, results in a slight upward tilt of the cone. This upward tilt allows more N2 bubbles to escape. The pendulum then swings back and the cycle repeats. If there was a constant force the pendulum would have a constant angle. Instead what is happening is simple harmonic motion that is reinforced by the escaping N2 bubbles. This oscillatory movement is well understood and can be seen in many other phenomena. The period of the oscillation is just the period of the pendulum. No doubt the LN2 is also set into motion.Liquid nitrogen would have very rapidly drained from the thruster when out of the bath. What may be visible in the video is likely fog condensing from the humid air and some of this will necessarily ice up the superconductor.Your theory that the pendulum should be expected to stay stationary at an angle does not hold. We explain in our documentation why the oscillation occurs. The propulsive thrust causes the pendulum to develop momentum and this momentum causes it to overshoot its equilibrium angle. No other explanation is needed to explain why it oscillates. Since the pendulum does not swing an equal distance to either side, this again rules out your claim for simple harmonic motion due to bubbles. Again bubbles are ruled out on the grounds that I have already explained in my previous postings.
Thanks Dr Paul, and tell Dr Nissikas we appreciate all the time spent to address some preliminary thoughts by our readership. I have one, if I might ask:You mentioned Equilibrium Angle. I have a hard time visualizing this, so need some help. A thrusting device I assume is maintaining constant thrust while supercooled, regardless of its angle of incident. If this is the case, an increased incident angle would cause it to overshoot, fall back but eventually reach an equilibrium angle which is fixed, lets say 10 degrees for 2 grams thrust (as an example only).What causes it to seem to continuously pulse, or oscillate? Not familiar with your technology and am just curious...Thanks in advance - Dave
Quote from: rfmwguy on 04/09/2016 01:30 pmThanks Dr Paul, and tell Dr Nissikas we appreciate all the time spent to address some preliminary thoughts by our readership. I have one, if I might ask:You mentioned Equilibrium Angle. I have a hard time visualizing this, so need some help. A thrusting device I assume is maintaining constant thrust while supercooled, regardless of its angle of incident. If this is the case, an increased incident angle would cause it to overshoot, fall back but eventually reach an equilibrium angle which is fixed, lets say 10 degrees for 2 grams thrust (as an example only).What causes it to seem to continuously pulse, or oscillate? Not familiar with your technology and am just curious...Thanks in advance - DaveWhen the thruster is near its plumb the pull of gravity opposing its forward movement is at a minimum, hence its lateral thrust is stored as forward kinetic energy. As the angle increases, the gravitational force vector opposing the movement of the pendulum progressively increases. But the extra momentum which the pendulum acquired while near its plumb position will cause the pendulum to overshoot the angular position where gravity exactly opposes the thruster's force. Eventually, it will fall back, again overshooting its equilibrium point to approach plumb position. So the cycle repeats. When the thruster warms above its critical temperature, its thrust ceases and the pendulum ceases to oscillate asymmetrically.
Quote from: Divine Falcon on 04/09/2016 01:42 pmQuote from: rfmwguy on 04/09/2016 01:30 pmThanks Dr Paul, and tell Dr Nissikas we appreciate all the time spent to address some preliminary thoughts by our readership. I have one, if I might ask:You mentioned Equilibrium Angle. I have a hard time visualizing this, so need some help. A thrusting device I assume is maintaining constant thrust while supercooled, regardless of its angle of incident. If this is the case, an increased incident angle would cause it to overshoot, fall back but eventually reach an equilibrium angle which is fixed, lets say 10 degrees for 2 grams thrust (as an example only).What causes it to seem to continuously pulse, or oscillate? Not familiar with your technology and am just curious...Thanks in advance - DaveWhen the thruster is near its plumb the pull of gravity opposing its forward movement is at a minimum, hence its lateral thrust is stored as forward kinetic energy. As the angle increases, the gravitational force vector opposing the movement of the pendulum progressively increases. But the extra momentum which the pendulum acquired while near its plumb position will cause the pendulum to overshoot the angular position where gravity exactly opposes the thruster's force. Eventually, it will fall back, again overshooting its equilibrium point to approach plumb position. So the cycle repeats. When the thruster warms above its critical temperature, its thrust ceases and the pendulum ceases to oscillate asymmetrically.Your explanation of pendulum action is incorrect. A pendulum is a second order system. It's response to a constant force that forces it from a vertical position is as follows: There is a transient underdamped response. and a steady state response. The transient response is a damped oscillation. This is the overshoot you mention. This overshoot is gone after a few seconds (or less). The steady state response is an angular displacement of the pendulum. After the oscillations die off the angular displacement will remain. A steady force acting on a pendulum will produce an angular displacement. You can test this concept on your pendulum by using a test force such as a very weak spring. Since your experiment does not show the characteristic pendulum response to a force, there is no force.
Your explanation of pendulum action is incorrect. A pendulum is a second order system. It's response to a constant force that forces it from a vertical position is as follows: There is a transient underdamped response. and a steady state response. The transient response is a damped oscillation. This is the overshoot you mention. This overshoot is gone after a few seconds (or less). The steady state response is an angular displacement of the pendulum. After the oscillations die off the angular displacement will remain. A steady force acting on a pendulum will produce an angular displacement. You can test this concept on your pendulum by using a test force such as a very weak spring. Since your experiment does not show the characteristic pendulum response to a force, there is no force.
Quote from: zen-in on 04/09/2016 02:47 pmYour explanation of pendulum action is incorrect. A pendulum is a second order system. It's response to a constant force that forces it from a vertical position is as follows: There is a transient underdamped response. and a steady state response. The transient response is a damped oscillation. This is the overshoot you mention. This overshoot is gone after a few seconds (or less). The steady state response is an angular displacement of the pendulum. After the oscillations die off the angular displacement will remain. A steady force acting on a pendulum will produce an angular displacement. You can test this concept on your pendulum by using a test force such as a very weak spring. Since your experiment does not show the characteristic pendulum response to a force, there is no force. I stick to my explanation as the best that describes what's happening. Your suggestion that there is no force is way off the mark.
Quote from: zen-in on 04/09/2016 02:47 pm...Your explanation of pendulum action is incorrect. A pendulum is a second order system. It's response to a constant force that forces it from a vertical position is as follows: There is a transient underdamped response. and a steady state response. The transient response is a damped oscillation. This is the overshoot you mention. This overshoot is gone after a few seconds (or less). The steady state response is an angular displacement of the pendulum. After the oscillations die off the angular displacement will remain. A steady force acting on a pendulum will produce an angular displacement. You can test this concept on your pendulum by using a test force such as a very weak spring. Since your experiment does not show the characteristic pendulum response to a force, there is no force. Thanks Zen, it seems to be the correct assessment, except for the fact the string fails to move past the vertical (in the opposite direction) as a result of its forward momentum. Its the oscillation I'm having trouble with. The return path appears to halt at the vertical rather than moving past it. Anyway, it was my first glance at the effect...haven't dug into the theory much.
...Your explanation of pendulum action is incorrect. A pendulum is a second order system. It's response to a constant force that forces it from a vertical position is as follows: There is a transient underdamped response. and a steady state response. The transient response is a damped oscillation. This is the overshoot you mention. This overshoot is gone after a few seconds (or less). The steady state response is an angular displacement of the pendulum. After the oscillations die off the angular displacement will remain. A steady force acting on a pendulum will produce an angular displacement. You can test this concept on your pendulum by using a test force such as a very weak spring. Since your experiment does not show the characteristic pendulum response to a force, there is no force.
Quote from: Divine Falcon on 04/09/2016 03:22 pmQuote from: zen-in on 04/09/2016 02:47 pmYour explanation of pendulum action is incorrect. A pendulum is a second order system. It's response to a constant force that forces it from a vertical position is as follows: There is a transient underdamped response. and a steady state response. The transient response is a damped oscillation. This is the overshoot you mention. This overshoot is gone after a few seconds (or less). The steady state response is an angular displacement of the pendulum. After the oscillations die off the angular displacement will remain. A steady force acting on a pendulum will produce an angular displacement. You can test this concept on your pendulum by using a test force such as a very weak spring. Since your experiment does not show the characteristic pendulum response to a force, there is no force. I stick to my explanation as the best that describes what's happening. Your suggestion that there is no force is way off the mark.Is that all you can say? Have you tried pushing on the pendulum to simulate a small force? If you do that does the pendulum oscillate in perpetuity?
Quote from: zen-in on 04/09/2016 05:56 pmQuote from: Divine Falcon on 04/09/2016 03:22 pmQuote from: zen-in on 04/09/2016 02:47 pmYour explanation of pendulum action is incorrect. A pendulum is a second order system. It's response to a constant force that forces it from a vertical position is as follows: There is a transient underdamped response. and a steady state response. The transient response is a damped oscillation. This is the overshoot you mention. This overshoot is gone after a few seconds (or less). The steady state response is an angular displacement of the pendulum. After the oscillations die off the angular displacement will remain. A steady force acting on a pendulum will produce an angular displacement. You can test this concept on your pendulum by using a test force such as a very weak spring. Since your experiment does not show the characteristic pendulum response to a force, there is no force. I stick to my explanation as the best that describes what's happening. Your suggestion that there is no force is way off the mark.Is that all you can say? Have you tried pushing on the pendulum to simulate a small force? If you do that does the pendulum oscillate in perpetuity? Flux pinning...just studied up on it. Magnetic lines of force trapped in a type II (non-metallic) superconductor. Seen vids, didn't know the correct term. From what I can tell, the Nassakis device has a niobium magnet surrounded by a cone of superconducting material...not sure if it was type I or II. Magnetic fields would be "frozen" in cone material, but not pulsating...sort of a steady-state force not applying pressure forward or aft, but if it is, it should be pushing against itself using standard logic...thus no movement.The swinging still has me puzzled as well as the 2 gram force claimed. Then again, I'm still struggling with all theories on reactionless propulsion. Have given up temporarily and simply went into the replication mode to see for myself.
Your theory that the pendulum should be expected to stay stationary at an angle does not hold. We explain in our documentation why the oscillation occurs. The propulsive thrust causes the pendulum to develop momentum and this momentum causes it to overshoot its equilibrium angle. No other explanation is needed to explain why it oscillates.
Flux pinning...just studied up on it. Magnetic lines of force trapped in a type II (non-metallic) superconductor. Seen vids, didn't know the correct term. From what I can tell, the Nassakis device has a niobium magnet surrounded by a cone of superconducting material...not sure if it was type I or II. Magnetic fields would be "frozen" in cone material, but not pulsating...sort of a steady-state force not applying pressure forward or aft, but if it is, it should be pushing against itself using standard logic...thus no movement.The swinging still has me puzzled as well as the 2 gram force claimed. Then again, I'm still struggling with all theories on reactionless propulsion. Have given up temporarily and simply went into the replication mode to see for myself.
Any oscillator only requires a small periodic stimulus to produce a higher amplitude response, provided the damping is minimal (high Q). I think what is happening here is the experimenters have let the experiment run for a long time before capturing video. In the beginning, right after the LN2 is poured into the tub, the movement of the pendulum would be chaotic. Over time the release of N2 bubbles, movement of the pendulum, and movement of the LN2 all get into synch so the damping is greatly reduced. The released bubbles are microscopic and not easily seen. It is a very interesting phenomena. However it is just a curiosity of science and not a means of propellantless propulsion.
Quote from: zen-in on 04/10/2016 06:20 amAny oscillator only requires a small periodic stimulus to produce a higher amplitude response, provided the damping is minimal (high Q). I think what is happening here is the experimenters have let the experiment run for a long time before capturing video. In the beginning, right after the LN2 is poured into the tub, the movement of the pendulum would be chaotic. Over time the release of N2 bubbles, movement of the pendulum, and movement of the LN2 all get into synch so the damping is greatly reduced. The released bubbles are microscopic and not easily seen. It is a very interesting phenomena. However it is just a curiosity of science and not a means of propellantless propulsion.You are imagining things. The movement of the pendulum is not chaotic as you imagine it to be. From the moment it is immersed in the liquid N2 it begins its asymmetric swinging motion. We did wait a period for the any temperature difference between the thruster and its liquid nitrogen bath to equalize, but during that time, the thruster behaved in the same fashion as in the video when it had thermally equalized with its bath. We are not trying to surreptitiously hide anything from the public as you imply.
Earlier in this blog there were concerns that Dr. Nassikas did not have a theory to describe the superconducting thruster phenomenon. After I had posted Dr. Nassikas theoretical expose, these concerns appear to have disappeared. Now, however, the postings appear to concentrate on claiming that the thruster's movement is due to convection currents or nitrogen bubbles. These explanatory attempts, however, fail to take account of all our pendulum experiments. Instead they fixate only on one of the experiments in isolation. To hopefully eliminate these futile attempts which unfortunately fill up blog space, I will present this response from Dr. Nassikas:"We present the following in our various cited postings: 1) We present video footage showing the dewar hanging with the superconductor and its magnet located inside the dewar.2) We present video footage showing the dewar hanging with the superconductor inside the dewar, but the magnet not included.3) We present video footage showing the superconductor and its magnet being hung in air outside of its N2 bath. In cases 1 and 3 we have the same kind of oscillation (oscillation due to momentum causing an overshooting of the equilibrium.)In case 2: THERE IS NO OSCILLATION!!In case 3: AFTER A FEW MINUTES THE OSCILLATION STOPS (DUE TO LOSS OF THE SUPERCONDUCTING STATE)!!! All these results cannot be simply due to coincidence!!! Is somebody able to give a serious answer taking into account all of these i.e. both the theoretical supporting evidence and ALL of the experimental data? Furthermore according to the magnetostatic model applied onto the mechanism which we have analyzed using the Quick Field simulation program, the results predict the existence of a propulsive force!! Quick Field is widely applied in electrical industry. Is somebody able to give us a serious alternate explanation which takes all of this into account?"
There are problems with using videos to present a case for a newly discovered phenomena. Anyone looking at the video will not see the effect as clearly is you would see it in a lab. There is no way of confirming the viewing angle is the right one, etc. In the case of your videos there is too much possible error due to parallax, and oscillation of the plumb line to confirm anything. The oscillation most likely comes from N2 bubbles escaping from the cone. Your statement that a constant force will produce a sustained oscillation is completely wrong and goes against everything that is taught on the subject of pendulums in high school physics classes around the world. That by itself is enough to completely reject any claims you are trying to make.I have seen many cases where an individual using a simulation program has made incorrect initial assumptions and produced a simulation that is completely at odds with the physical world. Many of your initial assumptions are incorrect. You have a sintered YBCO cone that appears to be a solid piece of YBCO or possibly a YBCO film coating a substrate. This article will exhibit flux pinning. Why do you claim there is no flux pinning? If you could derive a mathematical model that describes how your device produces a thrust there would be many here who would find that most interesting.
The author explains experimental results by claiming that the vacuum is an unconventional fluid medium, with a mathematical behavior that runs contrary to mainstream physics as taught at major universities .Yet, the experiments involve dynamics of a pendulum immersed in conventional fluid media (liquid nitrogen or air, covered by frozen liquid) and ablation of frozen layers and convection which is subject to conventional computational fluid mechanics and heat transfer, but such conventional analysis has not been attempted to explain the experimental results. Mainstream-physics explanations are dismissed outright while non-mainstream explanations are embraced.
IF I understand this correctly, the claim is purely a magnetic effect based on geometry. If that is true, superconductivity is not necessary. Diamagnetism is essentially the same effect but much weaker. But because it does not require cryogenic fluids a much simpler test system may be possible.Superconductivity results in a diamagnetic effect that is "1" - that is, a 100% reflection of the magnetic field. Pyrolitic graphite (PG) has a diamagnetic constant of 4e-4, and copper 1e-5. But since PG exhibits this effect at room temperature, a very small vacuum test object could be built quite cheaply that would require no super cooling and no electronics. The testing apparatus would have to be quite delicately built, but seems to me it is quite within the realm of a device that is doable.If I DON'T understand the claim correctly, this comment is null and void.