-
#20 by Rodal on 08 Apr, 2016 12:20
-
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. -
#21 by rfmwguy on 08 Apr, 2016 13:25
-
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.
-
#22 by SeeShells on 08 Apr, 2016 16:16
-
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
-
#23 by A_M_Swallow on 08 Apr, 2016 17:10
-
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? -
#24 by SeeShells on 08 Apr, 2016 17:25
-
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 -
#25 by Divine Falcon on 08 Apr, 2016 19:10
-
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. -
#26 by Divine Falcon on 08 Apr, 2016 19:34
-
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
-
#27 by Divine Falcon on 08 Apr, 2016 19:38
-
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.
-
#28 by Divine Falcon on 08 Apr, 2016 19:51
-
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 -
#29 by rfmwguy on 08 Apr, 2016 20:29
-
Thanks Dr Paul for taking the time to address some of the issues raised before you arrived. Look forward to an enlightening discussion. - Dave
-
#30 by Rodal on 08 Apr, 2016 20:29
-
Concerning:
We have to be careful how we spend our time and we are operating on a very limited budget. It is basically a one man operation here, not a laboratory full of scientists and engineers. We have been able to portray what we have done up to this point. As for experiments leary of fluid effect causes of the thrust, I have already explained in a previous post that we have conducted pendulum experiments with the thruster hung out of its liquid nitrogen bath, which thereby eliminates any concerns of liquid nitrogen fluid effects on the thruster.
I have not yet seen any coupled fluid mechanics/heat transfer analysis performed by Nassikas or others to scientifically address what is going on in Nassikas' experiment with the device immersed in Liquid Nitrogen.
The proposed experiment was to address the fluid mechanics issues with a simpler geometry. Why can't you position the magnet within the throat of the YBCO nozzle, and all of that be within an enclosing sphere? In any case, if you cannot do that, then at the minimum a computational fluid mechanics analysis of the experiment should be performed to understand the fluid mechanics convection involved in the experiment.
Experiments involving fluid flow in the aerospace industry (the subject of the NSF threads) are analyzed using fluid mechanics computational codes, not with words.
Since the device is proposed for space propulsion, and there is no fluid surrounding the device in space, a valid experiment should be conducted in a vacuum chamber.
<<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 -
#31 by Divine Falcon on 08 Apr, 2016 20:48
-
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/ -
#32 by Rodal on 08 Apr, 2016 21:00
-
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=WYZFoAk6gqYQuotePublished 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.
-
#33 by Divine Falcon on 08 Apr, 2016 21:18
-
I just looked at the device hung out from pendulum, outside the liquid nitrogen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=WYZFoAk6gqYQuotePublished on Mar 30, 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. -
#34 by VAXHeadroom on 08 Apr, 2016 21:52
-
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.
-
#35 by birchoff on 08 Apr, 2016 22:07
-
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. -
#36 by Rodal on 08 Apr, 2016 23:06
-
...
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.
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.
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, -
#37 by rfmwguy on 09 Apr, 2016 01:07
-
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.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. -
#38 by zen-in on 09 Apr, 2016 05:16
-
...
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. -
#39 by Divine Falcon on 09 Apr, 2016 07:00
-
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.
