Marty McFly taking his first look at a hoverboard in Back to the Future.
The Nassikas thruster II and III failed the helium test. For more go to:
Introducing the Nassikas Superconducting Thruster, Version III
Here we announce for the first time a new version of the Nassikas superconducting thruster which we believe will produce fantastic results at liquid helium temperatures. But to make this happen, we need your help; see below.
Key Steps in the Development and Testing of the Nassikas Thruster
- October 2015: LaViolette lectures about both Nassikas Superconducting Thrusters at the Secret Space Program Conference.
- March 2016: LaViolette posts about the Nassikas Thruster Version II on etheric.com.
- April 2016: Fundraising Campaign is begun on Indiegogo.com to raise money to perform a liquid nitrogen test.
- October 2016: Liquid nitrogen test is performed on thruster version 2 at Superpower Corp. facility in Schenectady, New York. Test results are disappointing; posted at: https://etheric.com/test-results-nassikas-thruster-ii-idea/. (However, now we know the reason; see the new simulation results described below).
- January – June 2017: Dr. Nassikas performs computer simulations on thruster versions 2 and 3 using the finite elements analysis program. Results are very important.
- June 2017: Nassikas files a patent on his version 3 thruster.
- July 8, 2017: LaViolette to lecture at the Energy Science & Technology Conference in Hayden, Idaho.
- August 2017: Target date for helium test of the Nassikas thrusters 2 and 3.
Before describing this new thruster design, it is important to state that we think that we now understand why the October liquid nitrogen test of the version II thruster produced a null result. For background on this thruster and its potential capabilities, visit our crowd funding page: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/superconducting-levitation-thruster#/. Before performing the October test, we had the expectation that the thruster would produce a fairly large force. This was based on computer simulations that one company had performed for us last year. These overly optimistic results had predicted that a coil with a 3° winding inclination should generate a thrust of 66 kg, and that a coil with an 8° winding inclination should produce a force of about 170 kg. When we did not see the expected force during our test, we were very dismayed and puzzled.
But now, the reason for the poor results seems clear. During the first half of this year, Dr. Nassikas and others carried out a series of computer simulations on his second superconducting thruster design and got results very different from those that had been done two years ago. These new simulations indicate that that the coil’s axial force should have been about 10,000 times less than what we thought it would be. They indicate that, at liquid nitrogen temperatures, the Nassikas thruster II coil with an 8° winding inclination should generate a force of no more than 30 grams, provided that the coil had been properly wound. However since our coil was wound in such a manner that its windings did not have a consistent inclination, we estimate that the generated force was much less, perhaps no more than 10 to 15 grams, or in other words less than half an ounce. This would explain the null result of our October liquid nitrogen test. Random forces from currents in the liquid nitrogen bath would have pushed on the coil with more force than what the coil would have been generating, thus erasing any remaining evidence of an axial force.
The new simulation results also indicate that the version 2 thruster should generate a force of only about 3 kg (30 Newtons) at liquid helium temperatures. Such a force acting on a 50 kg dewar could be seen in a pendulum test (as a 3° angle of the pendulum), but certainly not enough to get a rig off the ground.
At this point Dr. Nassikas began considering ways of boosting the coil’s magnetic field strength in order to get it to produce more Lorentz force thrust. He then hit on the idea of adding a superconductive shield layer beneath the coil’s REBCO windings. Recent studies have shown that by repelling the coil’s magnetic field lines such shield layers modify the field strength in the vicinity of the coil windings in such a way as to dramatically increase the coil’s Lorentz force. Computer simulations on this coil design, which we call Nassikas thruster version III, indicate that at liquid helium temperatures it should be capable of generating a force of 185 kg (1800 Newtons)! This force certainly could certainly lift a 50 kg dewar off the ground.
So we plan to have the Nassikas thruster II coil rewound to transform it into the version III design. We begin with a superconducting shield made from 10 winding layers of REBCO tape. This winding will be passive (unpowered). It serves only as a magnetic field reflector. Over this we will wind the 50 layers of our powered REBCO tape, and the coil should be ready to test; see schematic below.
Schematic design of the Nassikas thruster III. Label 4: Current source, Label 5: powered REBCO tape windings. Label 6: unpowered REBCO tape magnetic reflector windings.
Our goal is to conduct the liquid helium test this August, i.e., in 5 weeks, but to do that we need to raise $11,000 to pay for the test. At this point we are needing donations from the public to help out. Those interested in donating $6,000 or more will receive a percentage of the future income stream coming from the version 2 thruster patent. Those interested in donating $2000 or more will be given the opportunity to view in person a test of the thruster. Those wishing to donate please write to me: ethericgate gmail.com. Those wanting to send donations via PayPal, send to the starcode (at) aol.com account. Although keep in mind they deduct an amount for their service.
why not go back to the version 1 which seemed to work, maybe it needs a permanent magnet? why not sell working version 1’s for people to test? I would buy one and a lot of other people would also, raise money that way??
We also have thought of that. Maybe one day Dr. Nassikas might do that.
It’s time to test the superconducting Emdrive
Any news on the experiment Dr Laviolette? We are very eager and happy to hear from you.
The experiment will be done this month. But we have agreed among us that we should not make the results publicly available until we are prepared to. So have patience. Eventually all will learn how the experiment turned out.
So what happened? It failed?
Yes the test failed. Here is the posting of the results: http://etheric.com/nassikas-lorentz-force-thruster-fails-helium-test/
Dear Mr. LaViolette, Thank you for your dedication to this research and for acting in such an open-source fashion. I understand your Nassikas Magnetic Thruster V III is proceeding. Wish your team success here. In regards to your future needs for investments, do you have documents that would present time table and funds needed to reach an actual working prototype, let’s say to power a small vehicle? Pascal.
No we have no such time table.
Thank you for your respond. How can potential investors contact your organization?
by email
Dr. LaViolette,
Great to hear tests are moving along. Will these tests be available for viewing this month? I am interested to see the results.
No, not this month. Can’t predict exactly when we will upload the results since there will be a period of studying the results and analyzing the data, regardless of whether the results turn out positive or negative.
Hello Mr. Laviolette,
In your Crowdfunding-Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTLkZ0jms3s for the Nassikas-Thruster (which will produce no thrust imo) at 4:25 a “thruster” is shown that oscillates off center. If there is resp. was a thrust, why then is it ocillating? It should swing to the side and STAY off-center and not swing. Explanation???
I have already answered this question in the comments to the Nassikas postings. I suggest reading the comments to find your answer. The swinging is an expected result.
Dr. Paul, good to hear of your progress up the learning curve. Will continue to refer people to you and your effort
Thank you.
If you use the same coil for economy. With the same imperfect structure.
You should read the posting again. It says that we will have the coil rewound. They have assured us that it will be better wound than before. But the problem was not with the winding. It was our overexpectation of the version II performance. As the posting says, we are now testing version III.
What do you think about him Dr Laviolette? Is he a scammer or legitimate? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zStndwC0LzQ
Judge for yourself. I have not heard him before.
You made my day when I read this. I remember a guy who replied to my post on another forum about the Mk II. He sent me a link to a youtube video which described a thruster with superconducting material used as a shield. I am concerned with this thruster having to use liquid helium. Will there be any new high temperature superconducting materials tested with the thruster? And finally, how much does this version weigh? Crossing fingers and impatiently waiting for the results! Best of luck to you both! Regards, Fred Koch
Liquid helium is not a big issue for space travel. NASA uses it in their missions to cool detectors in space. Cryogenic coolers have progressively dropped in weight. So liquid helium should not be a problem. No new materials. We use the same tape we used before. Currently we know of no other high temperature superconductors that are commercially available other than the one we are using. In 10 years maybe we will be able to buy room temperature superconductors, who knows. The coil weighs about 5 kilos without its dewar.
I was more concerned with liquid helium being used here on the plamet. I was hoping this technology would be available for public consumption.
Maybe when room temperature superconductors are developed, there will be no need for liquid helium.
Why was liquid nitrogen used if it really needed liquid helium?
Look, I think I explained this in the posting. We expected the thruster to develop a large measurable thrust at liquid nitrogen temperatures. So obviously it would be the first test to do. The liquid helium test costs about $8500 more. Which is why it was a less reasonable option at that time.
Is there another Go-Fund Me campaign put up yet?
No, we decided not to repeat the Indiegogo campaign because of lack of time. We need to do this test at the beginning of next month, August.
Paul, has there been any further testing/progress since the failure of the helium testing? Also I’ve become skeptical of the existence of “space”. Can you comment on why NASA never seems to go anywhere and keeps talking about things that are purely theoretical and only provable with mathematics and not repeatable scientific method?? For example,, how is a rocket able to make thrust in a vacuum?… So many questions and so few believable answers…
No further testing of the Nassikas thruster. Version 4 is beyond our financial resources to test.