Split Thread Nassikas Superconducting Lorentz Thruster

malbec

Muse
M
Joined
Feb 2, 2016
Messages
960
The Nassikas Superconducting Lorentz Thruster: Levitation with essentially zero power draw and heavy payload capability
Enter Nassikas into the Search Engine and then pick out your favourite dismissive snorts .
Let's hear it from the Experts in 10 seconds Brigade .
P.S. Check out NASAs work in the same area --- how many times inferior ? But at least they are on the right track .
 
I can make perfectly serviceable dismissive snorts of my own, thankyouverymuch.
 
Malbec said:
The Nassikas Superconducting Lorentz Thruster: Levitation with essentially zero power draw and heavy payload capability
Enter Nassikas into the Search Engine and then pick out your favourite dismissive snorts .
Let's hear it from the Experts in 10 seconds Brigade .
P.S. Check out NASAs work in the same area --- how many times inferior ? But at least they are on the right track .
Click to expand...

I find that popcorn and sriracha sauce or red curry has the same demonstrated effect.

Please check referenced sources at JPL
 
Edited by kmortis: 
Removed to comply with Rule 12 & Rule 0
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"Will not" is not "cannot."

I might read a link if you post one, but I'm not going to search anything out on your behalf. Too much foolishness out there.

Dancing David said:
I find that popcorn and sriracha sauce or red curry has the same demonstrated effect.

Please check referenced sources at JPL
Click to expand...
Lately I've been using berbere spice on popcorn. Gives it a nice earthy taste and a little kick.

But I don't know NASA's stance on the combination. It probably isn't stratospheric enough for them.
 
Last edited:
Malbec said:
The Nassikas Superconducting Lorentz Thruster: Levitation with essentially zero power draw and heavy payload capability
Enter Nassikas into the Search Engine and then pick out your favourite dismissive snorts .
Let's hear it from the Experts in 10 seconds Brigade .
P.S. Check out NASAs work in the same area --- how many times inferior ? But at least they are on the right track .
Click to expand...

Are you seriously suggesting that you fell for that baloney?
 
Malbec said:
The Nassikas Superconducting Lorentz Thruster: Levitation with essentially zero power draw and heavy payload capability
Enter Nassikas into the Search Engine and then pick out your favourite dismissive snorts .
Let's hear it from the Experts in 10 seconds Brigade .
P.S. Check out NASAs work in the same area --- how many times inferior ? But at least they are on the right track .
Click to expand...

Ah that is nothing.

My 'Used Kitty Litter Thruster' works at least fifty times better than that model.

You can have one of your own for a mere $1,000.00 in one of three colors.
 
Hi, Malbec. I'm glad to see you are well; I was worried about you when you abandoned your claims, whatever they were, in the "oil" thread.

Malbec said:
The Nassikas Superconducting Lorentz Thruster: Levitation with essentially zero power draw and heavy payload capability
Enter Nassikas into the Search Engine and then pick out your favourite dismissive snorts .
Click to expand...

I will do your work for you this one time. As I pointed out before, if you're going to bring up a topic, it's up to you to specify what it is you're talking about, so this is the only time.

So I looked at this "thruster". It attempts to thrust against itself. That won't work, sorry.

But I'm not snorting derisively. All that is needed for me to be convinced is to see it work in deep space, with the advertised zero power draw (excepting any power needed to keep the superconducting materials cooled). Speaking of which,...

Malbec said:
P.S. Check out NASAs work in the same area --- how many times inferior ? But at least they are on the right track .
Click to expand...

Well, let's see. One of your links had a nice comparison of the thruster used on the Dawn mission vs. the Nassikas machine. I would only add a couple of entries to that table:

NSTAR thruster
Actual space flight missions used on: 2 (Deep Space 1, Dawn)
Technology Readiness Level: 9 (demonstrated in flight operation)

Nassikas "thruster":
Actual space flight missions used on: 0
Technology Readiness Level: ~ 1 (basic principles reported, but neither verified nor compliant with physics)

Malbec said:
Let's hear it from the Experts in 10 seconds Brigade .
Click to expand...

Can't help you there. I'm from the Experts in 25 Years Brigade.
 
sts60 said:
Can't help you there. I'm from the Experts in 25 Years Brigade.
Click to expand...

To be honest, if you have a technology that seems to claim to violate either the conservation of momentum or conservation of energy, you don't really need 25-years...
 
jimbob said:
To be honest, if you have a technology that seems to claim to violate either the conservation of momentum or conservation of energy, you don't really need 25-years...
Click to expand...

Sometimes you only need to look at the name of the claimant. That doesn't even need 25 seconds of experience or expertise.
 
Malbec said:
The Nassikas Superconducting Lorentz Thruster: Levitation with essentially zero power draw and heavy payload capability
Enter Nassikas into the Search Engine and then pick out your favourite dismissive snorts .
Let's hear it from the Experts in 10 seconds Brigade .
P.S. Check out NASAs work in the same area --- how many times inferior ? But at least they are on the right track .
Click to expand...

When we ask for any scientific back-up of these claims, will you laugh at us along with some friend in some university somewhere? Or this time, for the first time, do you think you might actually be able to back up your ********?
 
jimbob said:
To be honest, if you have a technology that seems to claim to violate either the conservation of momentum or conservation of energy, you don't really need 25-years...
Click to expand...

I just think it's funny that Malbec is basically saying that everyone else is just a self-appointed pretend expert from Google U., and pretty dumb compared to his splendid intellect. Name-dropping the assistant professor of sociology from the University of Wherevistan is just that extra little fillip.

Unfortunately, it takes more than a superior air to get his claims accepted. Assuming he even bothers to define them, that is.
 
As to your last point, I was careful to say, "seems to claim" rather than, "claims"... for that reason.
 
Malbec said:
That's why I stay here awhile .
Comedy and profound ignorance .
The patent's office tried your tack for years .
It finally collapsed .
Click to expand...

It's nice to see you returning to this thread. Do you intend to actually support your claim? I did you work for you, just this once, and pointed out (a) why it won't work, (b) that the engine you deride has actual space missions under its belt, unlike the Nassikas machine, and (c) I am no "10 second expert". I also said I would accept the machine works, somehow, if it can actually do what it claims in space.

Again, do you intend to actually support your claim? Or will you abandon it the same way you abandoned your claims about NASA using "portals" and "salt fuel"?

Pro tip: telling me to Google something is not defending, or even explaining, your claim.
 
sts60 said:
It's nice to see you returning to this thread. Do you intend to actually support your claim? I did you work for you, just this once, and pointed out (a) why it won't work, (b) that the engine you deride has actual space missions under its belt, unlike the Nassikas machine, and (c) I am no "10 second expert". I also said I would accept the machine works, somehow, if it can actually do what it claims in space.
.
Click to expand...

All you have to do is read details of the present Mark 2 machine and examine the underlying science .
Do you really imagine that you will pick up on sub quantum kinetics in a flash ?

http://etheric.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Nassikas-Thruster.jpg

I am not really interested in whether you support it . You make your own choice . I do support it . End of story .
Just say , thanks for telling me about it . Good afternoon .
 
Malbec said:
All you have to do is read details of the present Mark 2 machine and examine the underlying science .
Do you really imagine that you will pick up on sub quantum kinetics in a flash ?

http://etheric.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Nassikas-Thruster.jpg
Click to expand...

Oh, dear. You really think that diagram's got something to do with anything other than incompetence at understanding simple geometry? The whole principle expressed in that drawing is that you can somehow set up a magnetic field so that it pushes more in one direction than it does in the other. In reality, whatever difference in force may appear from dF1>>dF2 is balanced by an equal and opposite force at some other point on the device. It's nothing more than an overbalanced wheel updated to use 19th century technology.

By the way: Doctorate in physics, and extensive experience in high magnetic fields dating back over 30 years. And even if there were such a thing as sub-quantum kinetics, it would be obvious that this diagram would have nothing to do with it; it's a simple misunderstanding of the properties of static magnetic fields.

My advice to you, Malbec, is to scrape up every penny you can beg, borrow or steal [1] and invest it in the company selling this device. The outcome may be a little painful for you, but I suspect it's the only way you'll ever learn anything.

Dave

[1] This is just a figure of speech. I am not seriously advocating that you steal money.
 
Malbec said:
Do you really imagine that you will pick up on sub quantum kinetics in a flash ?
Click to expand...

You're totally right, Malbec. There's just so much that conventional science can't explain. Check out this great free energy device:



Here's another great video about an exciting new technology, the turb-encabulator:

 
Dave Rogers said:
Oh, dear. You really think that diagram's got something to do with anything other than incompetence at understanding simple geometry?
Click to expand...




Oh, but that's the figure for his old thruster. Here's his new one:


http://etheric.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Fig.-1.jpg


This is based on the notion that, since Lorentz forces in a cylindrical coil act uniformly outwards parallel to the radius of the coil, the forces on a tilted coil must also be simply tilted by an angle equal to the coil angle, despite the fact that the Electromagnetic force calculations for a conical coil are so involved that there was actually a paper published on that very topic in 1993.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Oh, dear. You really think that diagram's got something to do with anything other than incompetence at understanding simple geometry? The whole principle expressed in that drawing is that you can somehow set up a magnetic field so that it pushes more in one direction than it does in the other. In reality, whatever difference in force may appear from dF1>>dF2 is balanced by an equal and opposite force at some other point on the device. It's nothing more than an overbalanced wheel updated to use 19th century technology.

By the way: Doctorate in physics, and extensive experience in high magnetic fields dating back over 30 years. And even if there were such a thing as sub-quantum kinetics, it would be obvious that this diagram would have nothing to do with it; it's a simple misunderstanding of the properties of static magnetic fields.

My advice to you, Malbec, is to scrape up every penny you can beg, borrow or steal [1] and invest it in the company selling this device. The outcome may be a little painful for you, but I suspect it's the only way you'll ever learn anything.

Dave

[1] This is just a figure of speech. I am not seriously advocating that you steal money.
Click to expand...

All very well but there are shortcuts:

MikeG said:
jimbob said:
To be honest, if you have a technology that seems to claim to violate either the conservation of momentum or conservation of energy, you don't really need 25-years...
Click to expand...
Sometimes you only need to look at the name of the claimant. That doesn't even need 25 seconds of experience or expertise.
Click to expand...

I am still not entirely sure what the claims are, except that my 17-yr old daughter has sufficient scientific knowledge to point out that it won't work.
 
Malbec said:
All you have to do is read details of the present Mark 2 machine and examine the underlying science .
Click to expand...
You were bragging about how the great Nassikas machine compared to NASA's work. After doing your work for you by searching, there was a site comparing the "Mark 1" to the NSTAR thruster. I examined the underlying science. It won't work; it pushes on itself.

Malbec said:
Do you really imagine that you will pick up on sub quantum kinetics in a flash ?
Click to expand...

The device is alleged to work in two different ways; one, an appeal to (badly misunderstood) classical electrodynamics, the other handwaving about pushing against the quantum background. Whatever "sub quantum kinetics" is supposed to be, it's not even necessary, unless there's yet another completely different explanation for how this doohickey's supposed to fleece the suckers provide thrust in any environment.

Malbec said:
http://etheric.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Nassikas-Thruster.jpg
Click to expand...

That's nice. I've seen lots of pictures of TRL ~1 gadgets that won't work.

Malbec said:
I am not really interested in whether you support it . You make your own choice . I do support it . End of story .
Just say , thanks for telling me about it . Good afternoon .
Click to expand...

Yeah, sure, thanks for telling me about it. It was good for a chuckle. But your claim that this machine (either version) is better than the NSTAR ion thruster, or any other ion thruster, or any other engine ever flown in space, is still unsupported.
 
jimbob said:
I am still not entirely sure what the claims are, except that my 17-yr old daughter has sufficient scientific knowledge to point out that it won't work.
Click to expand...



The claims are actually quite straightforward, if you're willing to do Malbec's homework for him.

http://etheric.com/nassikas-thruster-ii/

The Nassikas thruster-II is basically a superconducting coil that has a slight taper so that it has the form of a frustrated cone, rather than a cylinder; see diagram above.
Click to expand...

You can get the link to a diagram in my post above.


Superconducting coils are normally wound as cylinders; hence their Lorentz forces necessarily push radially outward on the sides of the coil. Since the forces on opposite sides of the coil oppose one another, the result is only to produce a stress on the coil that attempts to radially expand it, but which is counteracted by the tensile strength of the coil’s windings. This is something known by all engineers who wind superconducting coils. However, in the case of the Nassikas thruster, the coil is conical rather than cylindrical. Hence there is a Lorentz thrust component resultant directed along the axis of the coil in its vertical direction toward the coil’s narrow end; see force vector FA in Fig. 1b. Because there is no opposing force to counterbalance this force, the coil should develop a net upward thrust that should propel it upward. This should not manifest merely as a static stress in the coil itself, but should be capable of actually levitating the coil.
Click to expand...


So, essentially, via a naive, but somewhat understandable, attempt to model the forces on their tapered coil via a model based on a cylindrical coil, they claim to have found an arrangement that would seem to produce a net imbalanced force.

Malbec's personal claim would seem to be that all these other claims are true.


Of course, if you check my previous post, you'll see that others have done more detailed analyses of such tapered coils. The fact that their work was deemed sufficiently new and useful to be worth publishing, and yet did not apparently lead them to the conclusion that such coils might produce the net thrust as claimed above, suggests that the naive model used is insufficiently rigorous.
 
Last edited:
Horatius said:
The claims are actually quite straightforward, if you're willing to do Malbec's homework for him.
http://etheric.com/nassikas-thruster-ii/



You can get the link to a diagram in my post above.





So, essentially, via a naive, but somewhat understandable, attempt to model the forces on their tapered coil via a model based on a cylindrical coil, they claim to have found an arrangement that would seem to produce a net imbalanced force.

Malbec's personal claim would seem to be that all these other claims are true.


Of course, if you check my previous post, you'll see that others have done more detailed analyses of such tapered coils. The fact that their work was deemed sufficiently new and useful to be worth publishing, and yet did not apparently lead them to the conclusion that such coils might produce the net thrust as claimed above, suggests that the naive model used is insufficiently rigorous.
Click to expand...

Thanks, but that is where I have a problem - why should one have to do his homework in order to work out that he is claiming "an overbalanced wheel updated to use 19th century technology"? (Thanks for that phrase, Dave).
 
jimbob said:
Thanks, but that is where I have a problem - why should one have to do his homework in order to work out that he is claiming "an overbalanced wheel updated to use 19th century technology"? (Thanks for that phrase, Dave).
Click to expand...


One shouldn't have to, but one does, if one wants to have any sort of meaningful discussion. Malbec on his own is essentially thread poison.
 
Horatius said:
One shouldn't have to, but one does, if one wants to have any sort of meaningful discussion. Malbec on his own is essentially thread poison.
Click to expand...

So I've spotted - I still think that my approach or Mike G's is more parsimonious.

Yes I appreciate the kicking that you, Dave Rogers and sts60 are giving, but is is a bit of overkill, when discussing something that could be rigged up as a perpetual motion machine if it worked...
 
Malbec said:
That's why I stay here awhile .
Comedy and profound ignorance .
The patent's office tried your tack for years .
It finally collapsed .
Click to expand...

Someone should teach Malbec how to make haikus.

Magic thrust engines?
Comedy and ignorance
fool born each minute
 
jimbob said:
So I've spotted - I still think that my approach or Mike G's is more parsimonious.

Yes I appreciate the kicking that you, Dave Rogers and sts60 are giving, but is is a bit of overkill, when discussing something that could be rigged up as a perpetual motion machine if it worked...
Click to expand...



Well, there's two main reasons I get involved in such threads: 1) I consider this practice for my actual job, where I sometimes see nonsense like this, and 2) The claims as I showed above are just naively convincing enough that someone without a lot of physics knowledge could fall for it, so I'm hoping to keep some of them out of the muck.

For sure Malbec and his ilk will never listen to reason, but he does serve an at least minimally useful function: He finds this stupid ****, so I don't have to troll woo fora myself to find the latest stupid ****.
 
Horatius said:
So, essentially, via a naive, but somewhat understandable, attempt to model the forces on their tapered coil via a model based on a cylindrical coil, they claim to have found an arrangement that would seem to produce a net imbalanced force.
Click to expand...

This seems to be the classic error that they've resolved the magnetic force into orthogonal components, but not bothered to do the same to the tensile forces that balance them out. It's more or less the same fallacy that the em-drive is based on, which is that you can take a pair of inherently balanced forces and change the direction of only one of them, even though the other will in reality automatically oppose it.

Oh, and I'm happy to stand by the prediction that the em-drive will never turn out to work either. It's worth looking at, but it won't pan out.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Oh, and I'm happy to stand by the prediction that the em-drive will never turn out to work either. It's worth looking at, but it won't pan out.

Dave
Click to expand...



The problem with a bet that includes "never" is, they never have to pay out. As we've seen with the cold fusion guys, no matter how many times they fail, or how long it takes, the mantra of "Maybe this time!" is strong.
 
Horatius said:
The problem with a bet that includes "never" is, they never have to pay out. As we've seen with the cold fusion guys, no matter how many times they fail, or how long it takes, the mantra of "Maybe this time!" is strong.
Click to expand...

I realize it's a prediction that can never be proved right, and the best outcome is that I'm never actually proved wrong. I'm still happy to stand on that ground.

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom