-
Nassikas Superconducting Lorentz Thruster - related to space flight applications
by
rfmwguy
on 05 Apr, 2016 00:34
-
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/jsabhogCrowdfunding site:
http://tinyurl.com/jylwxmuShould 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."
-
#1
by
tchernik
on 05 Apr, 2016 00:45
-
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.
-
#2
by
rfmwguy
on 05 Apr, 2016 00:49
-
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.
-
#3
by
ChrisWilson68
on 05 Apr, 2016 01:53
-
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)
-
#4
by
rfmwguy
on 05 Apr, 2016 10:44
-
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.
-
#5
by
as58
on 05 Apr, 2016 11:10
-
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.
-
#6
by
rfmwguy
on 05 Apr, 2016 11:41
-
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.
-
#7
by
ChrisWilson68
on 05 Apr, 2016 17:06
-
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.
-
#8
by
rfmwguy
on 05 Apr, 2016 17:54
-
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.
-
#9
by
ChrisWilson68
on 05 Apr, 2016 18:19
-
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.
-
#10
by
tchernik
on 05 Apr, 2016 19:34
-
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.
-
#11
by
rfmwguy
on 05 Apr, 2016 20:58
-
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...
-
#12
by
rfmwguy
on 07 Apr, 2016 13:32
-
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
-
#13
by
zen-in
on 07 Apr, 2016 14:02
-
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 T
C, 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.
-
#14
by
Rodal
on 07 Apr, 2016 14:44
-
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 PropulsionA. 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.pdfThe 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:
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 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/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.
]
-
#15
by
Rodal
on 07 Apr, 2016 15:16
-
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/10.1063/1.4756319Conference date: 19–25 September 2012
Location: Kos, Greece
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/proceeding/aipcp/10.1063/1.4756319The 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.
-
#16
by
rfmwguy
on 07 Apr, 2016 15:18
-
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.
-
#17
by
Rodal
on 07 Apr, 2016 21:56
-
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
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.
-
#18
by
Tcarey
on 08 Apr, 2016 03:50
-
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.
-
#19
by
zen-in
on 08 Apr, 2016 06:39
-
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.