-
#40
by
rfmwguy
on 09 Apr, 2016 13:30
-
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
-
#41
by
Divine Falcon
on 09 Apr, 2016 13:42
-
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.
-
#42
by
rfmwguy
on 09 Apr, 2016 13:53
-
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?
-
#43
by
zen-in
on 09 Apr, 2016 14:47
-
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.
-
#44
by
rfmwguy
on 09 Apr, 2016 15:17
-
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.
-
#45
by
Divine Falcon
on 09 Apr, 2016 15:22
-
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.
-
#46
by
rfmwguy
on 09 Apr, 2016 17:47
-
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?
-
#47
by
zen-in
on 09 Apr, 2016 17:49
-
...
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 T
c, the magnetic field is not displaced. Flux pinning is a well-known property of type II superconductors.
-
#48
by
zen-in
on 09 Apr, 2016 17:56
-
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?
-
#49
by
rfmwguy
on 09 Apr, 2016 19:40
-
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.
-
#50
by
SeeShells
on 09 Apr, 2016 22:06
-
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/000926149180240XAbstract
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.
-
#51
by
Acryte
on 10 Apr, 2016 03:37
-
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.
-
#52
by
zen-in
on 10 Apr, 2016 06:20
-
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 N
2 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.
-
#53
by
Divine Falcon
on 10 Apr, 2016 12:04
-
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/000926149180240XAbstract
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.
-
#54
by
Divine Falcon
on 10 Apr, 2016 12:11
-
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.
-
#55
by
Divine Falcon
on 10 Apr, 2016 12:33
-
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?"
-
#56
by
zen-in
on 10 Apr, 2016 16:39
-
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.
-
#57
by
zen-in
on 10 Apr, 2016 16:58
-
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 N
2 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.
-
#58
by
Divine Falcon
on 10 Apr, 2016 17:47
-
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.
-
#59
by
Rodal
on 10 Apr, 2016 20:02
-
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.