Author Topic: Nassikas Superconducting Lorentz Thruster - related to space flight applications  (Read 41842 times)

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
  • Liked: 2713
  • Likes Given: 1134
This is a place-holder Topic for a possible alternative to EMDrive propulsion. The below information was obtained from:

Source info: http://etheric.com/nassikas-thruster-II/

Patent 2/15/2015 pdf download is: http://tinyurl.com/jsabhog

Crowdfunding site: http://tinyurl.com/jylwxmu

Should the topic gain interest, it can continue. If not, it will be deleted.

"A YBCO superconductor casting shaped in the form of a nozzle with a permanent magnet secured within its throat.   Dr. Nassikas received a U.S. patent on this version last year  (US 8,952,773). 

(snip)

It is also found that it even out performs the Q Thruster (or EMDrive), a reactionless thruster that NASA is currently researching for possible future deep space missions.  Not only does the Nassikas thruster I have a thrust-to-mass ratio 10 times greater than the EMDrive, it also achieves its thrust with zero power input.  The EMDrive, on the other hand, requires 1 kilowatt of power for every 30 grams of force (0.3 Newtons) it delivers.

But in this posting we would like to announce a new superconductor thruster idea that Dr. Nassikas has come up with which should be able to produce 30,000 to a million times more thrust than his previous version.  The implications of this new thruster invention are mind boggling."

« Last Edit: 04/09/2016 01:58 am by Chris Bergin »

Offline tchernik

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 274
  • Liked: 315
  • Likes Given: 641
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.

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
  • Liked: 2713
  • Likes Given: 1134
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.
Good point, its why I put it here. DIY validation testing is far easier with this than the pesky microwave radiation and mechanical elements of the EMDrive. When I get some more design elements, I'll try and post them. Seems like the only exotic material is liquid nitrogen.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
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)
« Last Edit: 04/05/2016 11:56 am by rfmwguy »

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
  • Liked: 2713
  • Likes Given: 1134
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.

Offline as58

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 835
  • Liked: 300
  • Likes Given: 186
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.

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.

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
  • Liked: 2713
  • Likes Given: 1134
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.

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.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
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.

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.

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
  • Liked: 2713
  • Likes Given: 1134
Each person can decide on their own what qualifies as a threshold for undertaking a project. Mathematic and logical assumptions rely on others previous endeavors. Many are looking between the lines of textbooks for something missed. Simply stated, applications advanced beyond the wildest dreams of original authors. The space age alone brings in new applications unimagined before the 20th century.

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.

Innovation can be happenstance, a gut feel or a by rigorous research. The Lorentz Thruster seems like an easier experiment to conduct whether falsification or confirmation is the assumption.
« Last Edit: 04/07/2016 09:59 pm by rfmwguy »

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
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.

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.

Offline tchernik

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 274
  • Liked: 315
  • Likes Given: 641
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.

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.

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
  • Liked: 2713
  • Likes Given: 1134
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.

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.
Agreed. DIY as I found on emdrive is a phenomena in itself. Most including myself collaborate before moving forward. Its not for everyone. Id like this different technology Topic to stand by itself...progress or stagnate will be up to the kind membership. I have no stake in it other than to start a new tech topic for space flight...its in the same general family of reactionless thrusters. Whether or not this family is a viable alternative is still under private and some institutional research. Interesting times...




Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
  • Liked: 2713
  • Likes Given: 1134
I've invited special guests to post here who are directly associated with this Project. As usual on NSF, a warm welcome and respectful dialogue is required, even if you do not agree with the theory. Having moderated EMDrive for a while, with Chris Bergin's guidance, its been a pretty successful Topic in this Section. Thanks - Dave

Offline zen-in

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 541
  • California
  • Liked: 483
  • Likes Given: 371
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.

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.

 would say go ahead and test the idea but not on my dime.   I don't think the inventor has considered what happens when the device is cooled or assembled.  There are 2 scenerios:   If the device is assembled (magnet inside room temp TBCO cone) and it is cooled below TC, the magnetic field will be trapped by vortex structures in the superconductor so will not exert any force.   On the other hand if the device were assembled while cold it would just squeeze the magnetic field between the magnet and the YBCO cone.   There is always some space for the magnetic field lines between the two.  Any force would act to enlarge the hole that the magnet was in.  So the net effect would not be much different than the interaction between two permanent magnets.

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5564
In the above posts, an article from the http://etheric.com website was posted, as well as a patent, and a crowdfunding site.

For anybody interested in reading a paper on this, see:

Experimental Verification of Superconducting Self Propulsion
A. A. Nassikas
Prof. at Technological Institute of Larissa, retired
Albuquerque, NM 2012 PROCEEDINGS of the NPA
Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance (NPA), Volume 9, 2012  (*)

http://worldnpa.org/abstracts/abstracts_6697.pdf

Quote from: A. A. Nassikas
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 measured
through the slope of a pendulum created by the device mentioned hanged by means of a string from a constant point.

This statement in the paper (and the rest of the paper) may help the readers to further form their own conclusions:

Quote from: A. A. Nassikas
if the system works, we should have an interaction between the
magnetic field and the gravitational one since the system motion
implies a mass creation (relativity). However this interaction has
not been until now accepted and theoretically stated according to
the dominant theories as the GRT and the QM. This interaction
can be interpreted on the basis of a minimum contradictions
point of view according to which space time is matter itself either
as mass or as charge field

_______________
(*)
[The Natural Philosophy Alliance is listed in Wikipedia's List of organizations opposing mainstream science:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organizations_opposing_mainstream_science 

Quote from: Wikipedia List_of_organizations_opposing_mainstream_science 
Natural Philosophy Alliance An organization which believes there are fundamental flaws in theories such as relativity, the big bang, and plate tectonics

while its mission's statement is

http://worldnpa.org/about/mission-statement/
Quote from: NPA Mission Statement
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.

 ]
« Last Edit: 04/07/2016 03:14 pm by Rodal »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5564
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 model
A. A. Nassikas
AIP Conf. Proc. 1479, 1024 (2012); http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4756319
Conference date: 19–25 September 2012
Location: Kos, Greece

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/proceeding/aipcp/10.1063/1.4756319

Quote
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.

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.

« Last Edit: 04/07/2016 03:50 pm by Rodal »

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
  • Liked: 2713
  • Likes Given: 1134
This will be a useful thread for serious analysis and commentary on theories, hardware and experimentation for the Nassikas Thruster, as is the emdrive thread. Staying on topic will include a high standard of discussion on:

Theory
Hardware
Experimentation


Financial discussions are off-topic except for the original funding link which provides more detailed information on the device.
« Last Edit: 04/07/2016 04:03 pm by rfmwguy »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5564
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 model
A. A. Nassikas
AIP Conf. Proc. 1479, 1024 (2012); http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4756319
Conference date: 19–25 September 2012
Location: Kos, Greece

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/proceeding/aipcp/10.1063/1.4756319

Quote
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.

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.

As Nassikas has not addressed the fluid-mechanics/heat-transfer convection effects in his experiment (in the papers quoted above), here is a short U.S. Particle Accelerator School/Fermilab/MIT course on the subject of cryogenic fluid mechanics:


USPAS Short Course Boston, MA 6/14 to 6/18/2010

uspas.fnal.gov/materials/10MIT/Lecture_3.1.pdf

It is important to remark, to understand the experiment by Nassikas that:

1) for the problem of a rigid body with heat transfer in a cryogenic fluid, the heat-transfer and the fluid-dynamics are coupled

2) two-phase flow is common in cryogenic fluids

3) as the heat is applied to the flow, the temperature will increase resulting in an acceleration of the fluid

4) bodies with asymmetric heat transfer and asymmetric shape (as the tested "Nassikas nozzle") will accelerate in one direction due to the asymmetric heat-transfer/fluid-mechanics effect

There is no fluid convection in space, hence the test should be performed with the device in a vacuum chamber instead of being immersed in Liquid Nitrogen.  The test in a vacuum chamber will show no propulsion.
« Last Edit: 04/07/2016 10:50 pm by Rodal »

Offline Tcarey

  • Member
  • Posts: 45
  • Arlington, Tx
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 24
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.

Offline zen-in

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 541
  • California
  • Liked: 483
  • Likes Given: 371
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.

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.
« Last Edit: 04/08/2016 06:56 am by zen-in »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5564
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.

Your point is well taken.  However, due to the fact that the free-surface of the liquid Nitrogen in this experiment is in a constant state of boiling-off and therefore there is a constant state of two-phase flow, with significant convection of the entire liquid Nitrogen bath, there is really no long-term static state of the fluid on a long-term basis (due to boiling-off boundary condition at the free-surface).

However, your goal of an easy test to perform that will obviate the need of crowdfunding is quite worthwhile, I agree.

In addition to zen-in's excellent recommended experiment:

* run at the same time, another Nassikas nozzle, identical in geometrical shape, but instead of being made of a superconducting material, made out of a conducting material with similar thermal conductivity but not superconductive at liquid nitrogen temperatures


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 !:





__________________

(*) since superconductivity of Nassikas' nozzle depends on the temperature of the nozzle, there is the issue of ensuring thermal conductivity between the nozzle and the sphere, so the space in between them would need to be filled with thermally conductive material or waiting long enough for diffusivity to take place.  If superconductivity is part of the phenomena involved, the difference in behavior with time (until the nozzle cools down to the superconducting range) would also be informative.
« Last Edit: 04/08/2016 03:14 pm by Rodal »

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
  • Liked: 2713
  • Likes Given: 1134
Wow, excellent points and Experimental suggestions by all...congrats. The bubble off effect was not on my radar, if that is what's happening. Theories, Hardware, Experimentation...well done.  :)

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2442
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 3186
  • Likes Given: 2708
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.


This concentration of the magnetic fields will act on the diamagnetic properties of the N2 and create a repelling force against the N2. Thereby a apparent thrust is generated.

If on the other hand he used liquid O2 you should see the pendulum swing the opposite way as O2 is paramagnetic and attracted to the magnetic field.

Just thinking.


Shell

Added

« Last Edit: 04/08/2016 04:26 pm by SeeShells »

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
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}

Hot oxygen is very corrosive. Can a thruster be built that does not boil the oxygen propellant?

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2442
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 3186
  • Likes Given: 2708
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}

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

Offline Divine Falcon

  • Member
  • Posts: 13
  • U.S.A.
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
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)

I have been working with Dr. Nassikas on the research into his superconducting thruster invention.  I recently read the portrayal of our work made by ChrisWilson68  (CW68) and found it to be extremely inaccurate.  So I felt it important to take the time to set the record straight, also to uphold one of the fundamental premises of this site which is that the subject being discussed is accurately represented.

CW68 begins by claiming that this is "all nonsense" presumably referring to the Nassikas thruster invention and as his reason states:
Quote
"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.”

First, let it be clear that the invention concerns a superconductor coil, not a “semiconductor coil” as CW68 implies.  It is well known that such coils develop very strong Lorentz forces due to the interaction of the magnetic field they are producing with the very strong currents flowing in their windings.  Our above referenced crowd funding campaign description states that the Lorentz force equation used to calculate the magnitude of these forces is standard physics.  These force calculations are well known to designers of superconducting coils.  The conclusion that this Lorentz force produces a reactionless force component propelling the coil stems from the coil’s conical geometry.  The cross sectional diagram shown at the top of this thread illustrates the direction of the Lorentz forces in relation to the wall of the superconducting coil.  We use superconducting tape for the coil’s windings and, due to the conical geometry, the surface of this tape is pitched at an angle relative to its central axis.  Hence in the vicinity of the tape’s surface the magnetic field will also be pitched at a similar angle, as indicated by vector B.  Hence in calculating the Lorentz force using the standard right hand law, the resulting force will be directed normal to the tape surface, at an angle to the coil’s axis, this being indicated by vector FsubL.  Using simple vector analysis that is understandable to even a high school student, it is found that this vector can be resolved into two vector components: FsubR (the radial component perpendicular to the coil’s axis) and FsubA, (the axial component parallel to the coil’s axis).  Due to the coil’s symmetry in the plane perpendicular to its axis, the radial component on one side of the coil will be exactly counterbalanced by its counterpart on the other side of the coil, resulting only in an outward directed force attempting to expand the coil.  This expansion force is well known to coil designers.  However, the axial component FsubA is itself unbalanced since there is no counterpart force opposing it, this being due to the coil’s asymmetry in the plane of the coil’s axis.  It is this unopposed force that we maintain should propel the coil upward in an axial direction and that generates its reactionless propulsion.  It is, however, absent in standard superconducting coil’s which are wound with a cylindrical geometry.  This is all straightforward standard physics. 

CW68 implies that “standard physics” has been “mathematically proven to never give reactionless thrust.”  Here he cites no source for this proof.  Indeed there is what we all know as Newton’s Third Law which came forth from a set of experiments that Newton carried out. Physics has adopted this “Law” as an axiom, but there is no proof I am aware of showing that this axiom is universally applicable.  Besides there is a whole class of reactionless thrusters that are very real devices, that have been studied for many years by the scientific community, and that have been shown to produce a reactionless thrust.  One of these is the EMDrive which NASA is currently studying. Others are inertial propulsion engines such as the control moment gyroscopes that NASA uses to orient the space station.  One could also mention asymmetrical capacitor devices such as those developed by T. Townsend Brown, Jean-Claude Lafforgue, and Alexander Frolov.  To these we should add the Nassikas thruster-I device which has been researched for many years by our group and which has been found to produce a reactionless thrust.  This is an YBCO superconductor casting shaped as a nozzle with a permanent magnet secured in its throat.  As we have mentioned in the above links, pendulum tests of this thruster on various occasions have been observed by five Greek physicists and two Cambridge university physicists and the universal conclusion has been that it produces a propulsive thrust.  We have provided videos of some of these tests in the links posted at the top of this thread.

As for the inviolability of Newton’s First Law, which is not under discussion here but nevertheless is interesting to point out, I suggest that people view the youtube interview of Boyd Bushman, former Lockheed-Martin Skunkworks senior scientist who has also worked for Hughes Aircraft on topsecret aerospace projects: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNPBYtJyfZo&feature=youtu.be[/tt]]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNPBYtJyfZo&feature=youtu.be.  Look in particular at the section between minute 3:00 and minute 4:00 where he gives a table top demonstration of a violation of Newton’s First Law.  Bushman gives wise advice that anomalies such as these should not be swept under the rug and rejected when discovered but should be intensively researched with the result that they may lead us to discover new physical principles that may require us to modify our current so called “laws of physics”.

Anyway, unless I am missing something, I fail to see the “logical contradiction” that CW66 refers to. 
Yes, we admit that these thrusters violate Newton’s third law, as many other devices do, and we admit that they seemingly violate the law of energy conservation to the extent that no known material sources can be pointed to as the source of their energy.  But this is not so much of a problem as it may first seem.  The integrity of the First Law of Thermodynamics can be maintained by proposing, as Dr. Nassikas has done, that the source of energy must come from quantum space-time itself.  So the issue of maintaining the integrity of the First Law concerns how you draw the boundaries of your box.  Maybe it comes down to semantics.  If one is willing to admit that physical phenomena can be sustained by processes that are not directly visible to our senses and measuring instruments, whose existence can nevertheless be inferred on the basis of theory, then the energy conservation principle can be salvaged.  Indeed, this admittedly involves the discussion of New Physics, which is what this forum is all about.   

If we were to religiously maintain that only the physics paradigm that we were taught in college is the correct and only paradigm and that anything challenging that view should automatically be cast aside, repressed, or accused as being pseudoscience, the result would be that society would be left technologically frozen in the past.  On the other hand, if we are we to boldly “go forward where nobody has gone before” we might discover new technologies that will one day propel us to the stars even if they challenge the current belief system.

In the case of the Nassikas thruster-I, the  claim for the existence of propulsive force is based on experimental observation.  We admit that the Nassikas thruster-I experimental results challenge the standard model and require that we explore “new physics” options.  CW68 maintains that one should be obligated to “defend new physics”.  I would respond that the reality of the observation of the Nassikas thrust phenomenon should give enough reason for exploring new physics platforms.  But as it turns out Dr. Nassikas’ quantum space-time theory actually preceded the discovery of his Nassikas thruster-I phenomenon.  This theoretical basis was 20 years in development in his “minimum contradictions physics” paradigm which is set forth in his book by that name and published in various papers, such as the one presented at AIP’s SPESIF-2010 (Space Propulsion & Energy Sciences Forum).  Based on the results of this theory, he was led to conclude that space should behave essentially as matter itself and that it should therefore be feasible to treat the magnetic field around a magnet and superconductor using the mathematics of fluid mechanics.  With respect to a converting nozzle shaped YBCO superconductor having a magnet fixed within its throat, these fluid mechanical equations predicted that the magnet’s field should create unbalanced Meissner effect forces on the superconductor resulting in its propulsion towards its narrow end.  These results were also confirmed by finite element analysis simulation of the magnet-superconductor combination.  So based on his predictions and his view of past successes that other researchers had in the development of electrostatic asymmetrical thrusters, he constructed his superconducting nozzle device and tested it.  The positive result of these tests confirmed his theory’s predictions and opened a new chapter in the field of the physics of superconductors.

One more thing, CW68 also states:
Quote
"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.”

I am puzzled by this misrepresentation.  How does he conclude that Dr. Nassikas used nothing about the quantum vacuum in his derivation?  Did he read his book, or published papers, I am guessing he did not.  Indeed we did not go into much detail on the theoretical physics aspect in our crowd funding posting or other posted papers since these details would have been boring to the average person.  But we did provide references where this information could be learned.  For the benefit of this forum I will also post separately an explanation given by Dr. Nassikas of the theoretical background to his invention.

Paul LaViolette, Ph.D.

Offline Divine Falcon

  • Member
  • Posts: 13
  • U.S.A.
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0

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.


We have already ruled out nitrogen boil off as a possibility for the pendulum thrust.  Zen-in apparently has not taken the time to view our videos nor read the material we posted both on etheric.com (http://etheric.com/nassikas-thruster-ii/) and on the crowd funding campaign (https://igg.me/at/levitation-thruster).  These boil off claims are entirely unfounded.  If one reads carefully our posted material and looks at our videos, one can see that our video shows the nitrogen dewar itself being suspended in pendulum fashion (with the thruster inside) and developing an asymmetrical sideways thrust.  This is also seen midway through the video posted in this forum.  Any nitrogen convection currents, if present would be confined to the interior of the dewar and should not affect the pendulum's motion. 

Anyway, contrary to what zen-in implies, in our tests we always let the thruster come to thermal equilibrium in its nitrogen bath before carrying out our measurements.  Any bubbling would be due to heat escaping through the sides of the styrofoam container not due to cool off of the superconductor.

Finally, as shown in one of our posted videos, we did an experiment in which the magnet was removed from the YBCO nozzle and the nozzle and its bath was suspended pendulum fashion.  The bath is shown to hang plumb without oscillating.  Hence this proves that zen-in’s hypothesis is invalid.

In addition, we show a video in which the nozzle is suspended in air out of its nitrogen bath and it is shown to exhibit an asymmetrical thrust to one side.  Hence this effectively rules out that the thrust is due to convection currents in the liquid nitrogen. 
Additionally, this rules out that the thrust is due to any diamagnetic effects exerted between the thruster magnet and the liquid nitrogen, as SeeShells has suggested, since here the liquid nitrogen coolant has been eliminated.  Also note that in this video when the YBCO warms above its critical temperature and ceases to be superconducting, the oscillation gradually ceases and the pendulum eventually hangs in a plumb position.

P. LaViolette

Offline Divine Falcon

  • Member
  • Posts: 13
  • U.S.A.
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0

I am posting this explanation on behalf of Prof. Athanassios Nassikas, inventor of the Nassikas thrusters who writes as follows:
 
There have been two types of postings made in this forum regarding my thruster inventions: a) postings that are in favor of the experiment we are proposing in our crowd funding campaign and which consider its performance as an agreeable goal, and b) postings requiring that some logical theoretical background be provided that would explain what led up to the creation of the thruster inventions and the results we have observed in the experiments that have been carried out. I will address here this second category of inquiry which has raised some concerns or doubts in the forum.

So the purpose of this posting is to discuss the theoretical background to the thruster inventions, that preceded their development.  Namely, the minimum contradictions physics theoretical grounding I had developed led me to the conclusion that quantum space-time is itself matter. This in turn led me to believe that the energy conservation principle is properly construed by taking into account the material nature of the quantum space-time that surrounds us, and this facilitated me to understand the nature of the operation of my inventions which have unexpected results from the standpoint of standard physics. 

This second category of postings (b) are generally based on the assumption that a quantum vacuum exists, but that it is not present everywhere, i.e. that it is present only in certain privileged areas. This is in accordance with the general theory of relativity (GTR), which holds that there is a clear distinction between matter and space-time and that matter does not exist everywhere.  However according to quantum mechanics (QM), there is an infinite number of probability densities whose integral is equal to 1, this being by proof, not by assumption, and this in turn implies that matter should exist everywhere.  Later we will further explore this fundamental contradiction between GTR and QM.

But let me tell a bit about my approach which is basically concerned with achieving simplicity and elegance in physical theory, something that most physicists would agree is a worthy objective.  Let us begin by considering what is correct on the basis of Aristotelian Logic (AL).  AL, which consists of Classical Logic and the Sufficient Reason Principle, forms the basis of all our logical communications as human beings.  It is inevitably valid beyond any further axioms that we happen to propose, such as those of the QM and the GTR.
 
Now the following theorem can be proven: "Any system that includes logic AL and a statement which is not theorem of logic AL leads to a contradiction." [1,2,3]
 
Consider for example, the anterior-posterior (AP)  axiom that we automatically use when we speak or write in anterior-posterior terms, e.g., in sequencing events as  1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.  Alternatively, we find this in language where the letters forming a word have an anterior-posterior relation to one another, or where the words forming a phrase, as in subject-verb-object, have an anterior-posterior relation to one another.  This AP axiom is not a theorem of AL.
 
QM also is not a theorem of AL.
 
GTR also is not a theorem of AL.
 
Other axioms are also not theorems of AL because otherwise they would necessarily constitute a tautology with AL.
 
Because of the aforementioned theorem, the introduction of each of  these axioms into our conceptual framework or paradigm leads to the creation of additional contradictions in the overall paradigm.   Since contradictions are inescapable, it is desirable to devise a theory whose axioms engender a minimum number of mutual contradictions.  Now, we can have such a minimum number of contradictions when we state a theory founded only on the AP axiom whose use is inevitable and necessary if we are to communicate with one another.  For example, try stating something out of the anterior-posterior process and you will find very quickly that it is very difficult not to include use of this axiom.

Thus, the most mentally consistent attitude is to state a theory in anterior-posterior terms, hence one having extension in both spatial and temporal terms.  Since a theory based only on the AP axiom has extension in space-time and is also inherently contradictory, it follows that this space-time should be of a stochastic-quantum nature.  Furthermore due to the fact that this theory should express everything, this quantum space-time should be matter itself. 
 
On this basis we reach the notion of “quantum space-time” which is the “substance” within which all things exist and from which all things are made.  On this basis also, by the aid of the Fourier analysis, we can reach the Schrödinger relativistic equation; i.e., the space-time quantum mechanics which all physicists are familiar with, where the psi function expresses any complex space-time relative magnitude and which holds physical significance through the aid of the probability density function [1,2,3].  Note that classical QM deals with particles, while the space time quantum mechanics proposed here deals with quantum space-time itself.  This proposes that there is (g)-mass space-time and (em)-charge space-time which interact-communicate with one another through the exchange of photons [(g) or (em) particles, quantum space-time formations with zero rest mass] [4].
 
In the U.S. patent for Thruster I [5], (US 8,952,773 B2), one may notice that by use of magnetostatics equation [Eq. (1)] one reaches the conclusion [Eq. (6)] that a net propulsive force should exist on the nozzle shaped superconductor, on the condition that this superconductor acts as a magnetic field shield, which we know to be the case.  The resultant force acting on the conical superconductor casting (1) is found to propel the nozzle towards its direction of convergence.  We reach similar results when we apply finite element analysis (a program such as Quick Field) to a conical superconductor-magnet combination. 

In Thruster II we reach the conclusion for the existence of a propulsive force by taking into account that the magnetic field created by the coil passes through the surface of the REBCO tape to interact with the current flowing within the tape.  By taking into account the existence of superconductor magnetic shielding effects, one is led to more complicated models of this interaction which are used by companies specialized in the manufacture of REBCO CC magnet coils.  So such calculations are preferably carried out using such programs.
 
It is noted that thruster I and thruster II have strong similarities; thruster I ( which has been experimentally tested) operates as a superconducting nozzle where the magnetic field is created by means of a permanent magnet, while thruster II operates as a superconducting nozzle where the magnetic field is created by means of the superconducting nozzle itself, the REBCO tape being both a superconductor and a current carrier at the same time.
 
Thus, in both of these cases the application of classical physics mathematical models to superconductors leads to the existence of a propulsive force, a result that is in contrast to the principles of classical physics itself.  From this we may conclude that superconductors cannot be described by classical physics.  However, we believe that the aforementioned space-time quantum mechanics is able to resolve this contradiction by proposing that the surrounding quantum space-time  behaves as matter itself and thereby plays an active role in the conservation principles applicable to the kinetic behavior of the superconductor.

For more information on the minimum contradictions physics paradigm, please read the references cited below.
 
1. Nassikas, A. A, Miminum Contradictions Everything. Reviewed by Duffy, M.C., Ed. Whitney, C.K., Hadronic Press, pp. 185, ISBN: 1-57485-061-X, 2008. Amazon.
 
2. Nassikas, A.A., Theorem Proving the Existence of Contradiction, Minimum Contradictions, Fuzzy Thinking and Physics in Logical Communication 
Scientific Journal of Mathematics Research  2013  Vol.3 No.6  2013-12-25.
 
3. Nassikas, A. A.  Minimum Contradictions Physics and Propulsion via Superconducting Magnetic Field Trapping. AIP Conf. Proc. 1208, pp.339-349,  SPESIF 2010. Abstract published at SAO/NASA.

4.  Nassikas, A. A. Superconducting self propulsion requires beyond the standard   model AIP Conf. Proc. 1479, 1024 (2012); http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4756319
 
5. Nassikas, A. A. U.S. Patent No. US 8,952,773 B2, 2015.
 

Offline Divine Falcon

  • Member
  • Posts: 13
  • U.S.A.
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0

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 !:




Your sphere experiment misses the entire point of the Nassikas thruster.  You will not get any propulsive force by putting the YBCO superconductor inside a sphere and having a magnetic field source positioned somewhere near the sphere.  The magnet must be carefully positioned within the throat of the YBCO nozzle.  Only then will a thrust be generated.

P. LaViolette

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
  • Liked: 2713
  • Likes Given: 1134
Thanks Dr Paul for taking the time to address some of the issues raised before you arrived. Look forward to an enlightening discussion. - Dave

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5564

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.

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.
Concerning:
<<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.>>

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 describe such experiment:

1) Experimental Verification of Superconducting Self Propulsion
A. A. Nassikas
Prof. at Technological Institute of Larissa, retired
Albuquerque, NM 2012 PROCEEDINGS of the NPA
Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance (NPA), Volume 9, 2012 

2) Superconducting self propulsion requires beyond the standard model
A. A. Nassikas
AIP Conf. Proc. 1479, 1024 (2012); http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4756319
Conference date: 19–25 September 2012
Location: Kos, Greece

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/proceeding/aipcp/10.1063/1.4756319

http://worldnpa.org/abstracts/abstracts_6697.pdf

Thanks
« Last Edit: 04/08/2016 08:50 pm by Rodal »

Offline Divine Falcon

  • Member
  • Posts: 13
  • U.S.A.
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0

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

http://etheric.com/nassikas-thruster-ii/

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5564

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

http://etheric.com/nassikas-thruster-ii/

I just looked at the device hung out from pendulum, outside the liquid nitrogen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=WYZFoAk6gqY

Quote
Published on Mar 30, 2016
Pendulum 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.
« Last Edit: 04/08/2016 09:08 pm by Rodal »

Offline Divine Falcon

  • Member
  • Posts: 13
  • U.S.A.
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0

I just looked at the device hung out from pendulum, outside the liquid nitrogen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=WYZFoAk6gqY

Quote
Published on Mar 30, 2016
Pendulum 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.

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.

Offline VAXHeadroom

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 209
  • Whereever you go, there you are. -- BB
  • Baltimore MD
  • Liked: 287
  • Likes Given: 173
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}

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

Better yet, solid state cryocoolers meant to operate in space can cool things to <4K so it can be done with no fluid at all.
Emory Stagmer
  Executive Producer, Public Speaker UnTied Music - www.untiedmusic.com

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 273
  • United States
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 95
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.

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.

While I agree with your arguement. Personally it is only valid if the inventor is only offering a paper proposal of an idea. If they have experimental data showing their idea is working then whether or not mathematics and logic would seem to show that it shouldnt work. the only valid refutation should be a failed attempted replications that use the published instructions.

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5564
...

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.
Sincerely, I was expecting a technical answer to justify your assertion rather than getting a response that  <<No reasonable person would believe your theory.>>  I could answer that no reasonable person would propose your theory (that admittedly goes against known physics) to justify the motion of the pendulum in your experiment, but such discussion is moot since I am not interested to pursue personal judgements of what other people may believe. 

My interest was only to see what technical arguments could be made to support your proposed mechanism that goes against known physics.  Having found out that no computational fluid mechanics analysis was ever carried out, and your outright dismissal of explanations based on well known fluid mechanics and ablation of the frozen layer (hence asymmetric loss of mass and convection that can explain the measured forces ), I am more inclined at this point to use my money to bet against this than to follow your <<suggest contributing to our campaign >>.

Best regards,
« Last Edit: 04/08/2016 11:42 pm by Rodal »

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
  • Liked: 2713
  • Likes Given: 1134
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}

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

Better yet, solid state cryocoolers meant to operate in space can cool things to <4K so it can be done with no fluid at all.
Thanks Vax if you or any reader knows of a sscc lab that would be willing to donate or lower cost of chamber time perhaps on the weekend, please PM devine falcon with details. This may be of great interest.

Offline zen-in

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 541
  • California
  • Liked: 483
  • Likes Given: 371

...

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.

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.

Offline Divine Falcon

  • Member
  • Posts: 13
  • U.S.A.
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0

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.

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.

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
  • Liked: 2713
  • Likes Given: 1134

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.

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

Offline Divine Falcon

  • Member
  • Posts: 13
  • U.S.A.
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
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

When 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.

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
  • Liked: 2713
  • Likes Given: 1134
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

When 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.
Thanks. You mentioned a critical temperature, is that something you can share with the group?

Offline zen-in

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 541
  • California
  • Liked: 483
  • Likes Given: 371
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

When 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.     

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
  • Liked: 2713
  • Likes Given: 1134
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

When 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.   
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.

Offline Divine Falcon

  • Member
  • Posts: 13
  • U.S.A.
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0

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.   

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.

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
  • Liked: 2713
  • Likes Given: 1134

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.   

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.
Thanks Dr Paul...does Dr Nassikas believe the oscillation is self-sustaining?

Offline zen-in

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 541
  • California
  • Liked: 483
  • Likes Given: 371

...

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.

A good analogy to this would be a capacitor in parallel with a resistor being charged with current pulses.  As each current pulse comes in the capacitor voltage climbs.   In between pulses it decays to 0 V and doesn't go negative.   The oscillating cone in LN2 is a bit more complex.   I can see why someone would be fooled by this strange phenomena.  It really calls for the counter-experiment I suggested earlier.

We don't know how the oscillation develops.  Only a few seconds are shown in the video and that is after everything is settled down.   In the beginning, when the LN2 boil-off is greater the pendulum may be swing on either side of the verticle.   However the LN2 dampens the movement of the pendulum and I believe it develops a periodic motion in synch with the pendulum.   Very slow LN2 boil-off will produce a force in just one direction; as each bubble escapes the cone.   Magnetic attraction to the Earth's field may also play a role.   I suspect the experiment starts off with the magnet aligned with the geomagnetic field.   If it wasn't aligned we would see the apparatus turning.   The geomagnetic field has a significant vertical component.  That may be contributing to what is observed.

From my own experiments with HTS (High Temperature Superconductors) I know there would be no net force on the HTS cone by the magnet and certainly no propulsion.   When the assembled device is cooled below Tc, the magnetic field is not displaced.   Flux pinning is a well-known property of type II superconductors.
« Last Edit: 04/09/2016 06:04 pm by zen-in »

Offline zen-in

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 541
  • California
  • Liked: 483
  • Likes Given: 371

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.   

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?     

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
  • Liked: 2713
  • Likes Given: 1134

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.   

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.

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2442
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 3186
  • Likes Given: 2708

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.   

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.
Not my specialty but this makes sense.

Not a lot of information out there in this area but I'm digging in how the YBCO cone shaped with a magnet inserted into the small end could effect the flow of liquid N2 around the DUT and show a thrust through accelerating the liquid Parametric N2 in the direction of decreasing magnetic fields that are around it.

I wonder if Dr Paul and Dr Nissikas could add their thoughts?

Shell

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/000926149180240X
Abstract
A flow of nitrogen gas in air is found to be accelerated when it travels in the direction of a decreasing magnetic field ( 1.3 T, −0.3 T/cm) available from an ordinary electromagnet.
« Last Edit: 04/09/2016 10:31 pm by SeeShells »

Offline Acryte

  • Member
  • Posts: 8
  • USA
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 8
I must be overlooking something obvious (which wouldn't be a surprise honestly). Why are we not more concerned about the entire Styrofoam cavity exhibiting the same effect? Clearly the conic shape of the device shouldn't have much affect on the behavior seen in the closed setup? If it were better sealed while verifying uniform surface temperature of the enclosure, and we still observed movement from the pendulum biased in a single direction, would that not be significant?

I don't believe the movement of the particles contained within would be responsible for that much force being applied to the walls of the enclosure, especially at such low temperature.

Offline zen-in

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 541
  • California
  • Liked: 483
  • Likes Given: 371

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.   

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.

YBCO is a type II superconductor and is often used in the magnet levitation demos most of us have seen.  One interesting variant of this demo is where the YBCO puck is cooled down with liquid Nitrogen and then picked up with tweezers and brought near a small magnet.   The magnet can be lifted even though there is an air gap between the YBCO puck and the magnet.   Some of the magnetic field of the magnet loops through YBCO puck and gets trapped in that path through the YBCO.  This is what is known as flux pinning.

I don't know where the 2 grams force is mentioned.   The inventor apparently has never tried using a test force because he believes any force acting on the pendulum will make it oscillate.

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.

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.
« Last Edit: 04/10/2016 06:27 am by zen-in »

Offline Divine Falcon

  • Member
  • Posts: 13
  • U.S.A.
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0

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.
Not my specialty but this makes sense.

Not a lot of information out there in this area but I'm digging in how the YBCO cone shaped with a magnet inserted into the small end could effect the flow of liquid N2 around the DUT and show a thrust through accelerating the liquid Parametric N2 in the direction of decreasing magnetic fields that are around it.

I wonder if Dr Paul and Dr Nissikas could add their thoughts?

Shell

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/000926149180240X
Abstract
A flow of nitrogen gas in air is found to be accelerated when it travels in the direction of a decreasing magnetic field ( 1.3 T, −0.3 T/cm) available from an ordinary electromagnet.
[/quote]

Actually, the object is not to have flux pinning.  The aim is to have the magnetic field exert a force on the superconductor through the Meissner effect without the field at the same time being pinned to the superconductor.  In this way the YBCO is free to accelerate relative to the magnetic field's instantaneous reference frame.

As for the suggestion you make about the converging magnetic field producing a nitrogen wind toward the diverging direction, I am not aware of observing any such winds spontaneously arise in the vicinity of axial magnets in an air ambient which is mostly nitrogen.  If present, it would probably be on the level of micrograms of force, not grams of force. 

Offline Divine Falcon

  • Member
  • Posts: 13
  • U.S.A.
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0

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.

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.

Offline Divine Falcon

  • Member
  • Posts: 13
  • U.S.A.
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
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?"

Offline zen-in

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 541
  • California
  • Liked: 483
  • Likes Given: 371

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.

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.

If you would answer some of the questions I have asked and provide convincing evidence I would not need to speculate/imagine some details of your experiment.   In your videos there is some cutting in and out.  One moment the pendulum is barely swinging and then immediately it gains more amplitude.   You may not appreciate that scientists are a skeptical lot.   There is approximately 1 foot (30 cm) separatig the plumb line and the cord holding the HTS cone so there will always be some degree of parallax error in the videos.   How is this dealt with?   Is the camera hand held?   The plumb bob looks like it is just a random piece of metal.  If I was doing this experiment I would buy a proper plumb bob and survey an alignment line for positioning the camera.   The plumb bob line appears to be swinging the same way as the line holding the HTS cone + magnet, except 180 degrees out of phase.   That by itself would cancel out any claimed positive result.   What is the plumb bob made of?   If it is iron or has any other magnetic properties it could be interacting with the magnet.   That would explain why the test with no magnet inserted in the cone was null.   However I should add I did not see that experiment and am only taking your word.
Again I am asking you to please answer these questions concerning your experiment.   If you can't answer these questions and provide more convincing evidence I will have to assume my theories about the errors in your experiment are correct.
« Last Edit: 04/10/2016 04:39 pm by zen-in »

Offline zen-in

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 541
  • California
  • Liked: 483
  • Likes Given: 371
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. 
« Last Edit: 04/10/2016 05:44 pm by zen-in »

Offline Divine Falcon

  • Member
  • Posts: 13
  • U.S.A.
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0

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.

You still stubbornly stick to your bubble theory and fail to address the other tests that Dr. Nassikas outlined.  Your theory ignores the available evidence, hence is invalid. 

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5564
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.
« Last Edit: 04/10/2016 09:21 pm by Rodal »

Offline Chrochne

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 197
  • Liked: 133
  • Likes Given: 281
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.

Dear Dr. Rodal and Mr. Zen-in and Mr. Falcon,

I once again see that this will be new heated debate  :). I understand both of your scepticism in this case. However in this case it seems to have been shown to other professors and scientists. If I recall correctly this was / is one of main flaws in the EmDrive case.

Can be revealed by Mr. Falcon, who are the professors and scientists that checked on this drive?
It would be interesting to invite those people here. As you can see Dr. Rodal and Mr. Zen-in are well known for their critical obervation on this forum. I am afraid that if Dr. Rodal and Mr. Zen-in do not see any more respectable scientists and professors that saw this device operate they already dissmised - from their comments - this issue as not possible (they do not used the word hoax yet, but it is close to it). Of course I would be glad, if the final jugment can be passed after the tests of the crowdfunding campaing, but such is the current situation.

If I may Mr. Falcon I would also do not try to write off the "official" mainstream look on physics yet.
In EmDrive case both Dr. Rodal and Zen-In are able to provide very good insight and offer interesting criticism, even if it is many times quite harsh. If you and your colleague can try to answer on the questions of those critics it might be interesting debate. Of course Dr. Rodal and Mr. Zen-In will still oppose it, but it still maybe very intesting debate, that can give new ideas to us all.

Thank you all for your comments on this case and I hope to see more data from Mr. Falcon here.

PS: Quote from article "Pendulum tests of the first version have been witnessed on various occasions by two Cambridge University physicists, one of whom is a Nobel Laureate, as well as by five Athens university physicists" to specify which people we would you like to reveal, if it is possible.
« Last Edit: 04/11/2016 08:01 am by Chrochne »

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
  • Liked: 2713
  • Likes Given: 1134
Very nicely written, Chrochne. This forum will be a tough...and esteemed (for the most part)...critical audience, perhaps one of the more difficult ones Dr Paul and Dr Nassikas will face. This should be beneficial to both sides if a general understanding is reached that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". Tip from Carl Sagan.

If not, it has been enlightening to review commentary to a new physics device and the claims themselves.

Offline VAXHeadroom

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 209
  • Whereever you go, there you are. -- BB
  • Baltimore MD
  • Liked: 287
  • Likes Given: 173
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.  8)
Emory Stagmer
  Executive Producer, Public Speaker UnTied Music - www.untiedmusic.com

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
  • Liked: 2713
  • Likes Given: 1134
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.  8)
Neither do I Emory, I was hoping the inventors would stick around and answer these things specifically.

Offline rfmwguy

  • EmDrive Builder (retired)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
  • Liked: 2713
  • Likes Given: 1134
Its been an interesting topic for a few days and looks like we've reached the end of the replies from the inventors. Will keep on-line for reference but will lock it down.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0