Posted by: Paul LaViolette
October 6, 2017
This is a follow up to an earlier posting on the Nassikas thruster.
In August we carried out a helium test on version II and III of the Nassikas thruster at SuperPower Corp. in Schenectady, NY. We fixed the coil in a liquid helium dewar with its axis pointed in a horizontal direction. The dewar in turn was suspended from a ceiling beam so that it could move from side to side. Any side deflection of the dewar, due to any internally developed force, would have been measured on an electronic scale which was in mechanical contact with the wall of the dewar. The scale would have been able to register a force as small as 20 grams (0.7 ounce). However, the coil showed no evidence of axial thrust even when the current to it was increased to 175 amps. So we have concluded that this invention is impractical. This does not apply to version I, which instead uses a conical YBCO casting with an attached permanent magnet. That version still has potential application.
In my opinion, the reason why the test failed has to do with a flaw in physical theory. Conventional thinking is that due to the self interaction of its magnetic field and current a coil develops Lorentz forces which try to expand the coil diameter. But physicists have ignored that there is another force which can strain coils and cause them to expand which is called the Ampere force. Both forces increase according to the square of coil current. The difference is that the Ampere force causes a longitudinal tension, along the length of the wire, whereas the Lorentz force would cause a transverse force, perpendicular to the coil windings. If the Lorentz force were the predominant force causing tension in a coil, we should have seen an axial propulsion in our experiment. Since our experiment showed no force, we must conclude that the Lorentz force is essentially absent as a self acting force in coils and that instead the coil expanding force is due to the Ampere force. Since the Ampere force acts along the length of the coil windings, an axial force component would be unable to develop in a conically shaped coil. So I believe that all we have accomplished with this experiment is to point out a flaw in physical theory. The reason why our Finite Element Analysis simulations showed that an axial force should have been developed is because that program assumed that coils develop Lorentz forces when energized. If physical theory was correct, we should have seen a propulsion, just as the simulations showed. But Nature does not always behave as we might think or like.
Dear Dr. LaViolette, if you were to mount your original thruster on a horizontal disc at the perimeter and mount a counterweight on the opposite side of the same weight to balance the unit, then have a vertical thin shaft with needle ends as bearings, very little friction would occur.
With the super conducting nozel cooled, it should rotate!
If this unit was then placed in a hermetically sealed container and the remaining liquid and gas nitrogen sucked out by a standard suction pump, this then removes all impediment of gas friction.
The disc then in theory, would continue to accelerate indefinitely. A small alternator could be connected to the shaft to produce power. Since all gas is removed from the container, there is then nothing to conduct heat back into the container, so the disc should then run for a very long time.I am always looking for free energy methods. In space, of course where the temperature is permanently low, the unit should then rotate for ever!! Obviously, the larger the diameter of the disc, the more torque is produced.
Also you could of course, have several thrusters on the perimeter of the disc. You could also have several discs stacked above each other on the same shaft. The alternator would have to have an electrical load connected. If not, the disc would continue to accelerate till it self destructed at very high speed. You definitely have something here!
Keep up the good work.
I don’t think that the apparatus would develop enough force to rotate based on our experience so far.
I’m a big fan of your work and am working on a device based off of your book Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion using Hv Pulsed DC, Hv capacitors and spinning mercury.
Would you be interested in joining this effort?
No, thank you. Good luck with your research.
I hope this doesn’t seem too simplistic a question, but what is the difference between the sloped coil wires and an equivalent series of nested, non-sloped individual wires? (How can an individual wire be “sloped?” Wouldn’t we call that a “twist” instead? And why would the current itself be “sloped” to produce “sloped” Lorentz forces?)
It seems to me that tilting the aggregate slope of the coil wires is a drawing convenience that apparently gives rise to vector forces that would produce the desired result. But, if I pretended I was one of the individual wires “standing on one step of the sloped staircase,” I would not be generating any sloped forces. I would still be generating Lorentz forces perpendicular to the current flowing through me, flowing along the longitudinal direction of the step that I was standing on.
According to this line of thinking, the sloped winding would not produce any net effect.
As another question, how is the optimal slope determined? If the vectors accurately capture the forces, why wouldn’t a steeper slope like 45 degrees produce more output force? Thank you
We were limited in the amount of slope for the windings because the wire that is available contains hi strength steel which is difficult to bend. This is needed to keep the coil intact. But with a big budget we could have made a coil with a greater slope. Don’t know if your explanation is correct. But it is something to think about.
So what is the next step?
Next Dr. Nassikas plans to improve and test his first thruster which does not use Lorentz forces.
I’ve been following your coverage with great interest. How many tests were done on the nassikas I?
Are you fully convinced that it works? How come no other tests were conducted by other groups/scientists? The breakthrough is so immense if real, so how come there are no massive engagements of others ever NASA in exploring the concept?
I have witnessed at least three tests live and other tests were performed on other occassions, some of which were videotaped. Yes, I am convinced that it is producing a thrust. For reasons of patent protection we have not sent the thruster to others to duplicate the experiment. At some point though I am sure Dr. Nassikas will share more openly his invention. He has plans to do further research on this first version this year.
Have you tried making a gravity pulse generator?
thanks for the update, please let your public know whether a theoretical explanation for the failure of the latest trials should emerge.
I gave a theoretical explanation in the posting. Namely, that the force is due to the Ampere force and not to the Lorentz force. Our experiment seems to prove this.
If this disproves Lorentz, and confirms Ampere, then it is an extremely successful experiment. Seems like your team should be pounding your drums quite a bit more.
Dr LaViolette, thanks for sharing this valuable information as well for the efforts in this type of research. May I ask whether there are plans for further development of Version I ? I believe the use of tape multilayer superconductors introduced in Version II and III may have introduced further effects or phenomena which eventually led to a suppression of the effect.
The matter is now in the hands of Dr. Nassikas to decide how he wants to proceed. The version I thruster needs repair before testing can continue. There is more to do on his first version to improve the amount of the thrust. I will help him if he needs further help, but there are no plans in the works right now.