Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

    • CommentAuthorbr
    • CommentTimeApr 5th 2016
    Posted By: Andrew PalfreymanAnd now, for humanity's next trick, we presentThe Nassikas Propellantless Thruster:
    Oh for goodness sake. A long thread pendulum oscillated for a while then settled down. Duh!
    • CommentTimeApr 5th 2016
    Both wrong. Sorry.
    • CommentTimeApr 5th 2016
    Duh! Is wrong?
    • CommentTimeApr 5th 2016
    Duh! Is not wrong for an inconclusive, badly presented demonstration of who knows what, presented in the guise of evidence of reactionless thrust. Whether or not there is a really truly genuinely revolutionary reactionless thrust to be shown.
    Cabbage. Potato. Narwhal.
    Do I really have to watch that video? I cringed away at PLV's first few sentences.
    • CommentTimeApr 6th 2016
    I'm disappointed. You kept your breakfast when Hope Girl spoke. You were able to look directly at LMM's stuff. Perhaps woo is finally beating down your professional detachment.
    The "null test" isn't. The centre of gravity is different between tests.
    OK, so I even watched it, and also found this one from late 2012 already:

    Look, no power supply is even needed! It just thrusts away on its own.

    And in the "V2" version that LaViolette is talking about, apparently once current is flowing in the conical SC coil, the power supply can be removed, since the current even keeps flowing in the coil as long as it is kept below Tc.

    So it's even more of a Free Energy device than an "ordinary" reactionless thruster since it doesn't need a continuous source of power. It just needs to be kept cold!

    (Is this a case of "not even wrong" ... meaning "not even right"?)
    Like, totally!

    With identically zero input power, the breakeven velocity for overunity operation (v=1/k) is zero. It just sits there being bloody magic.

    I recall your run-in with a shifting centre of gravity too. This is similar I believe. Taking out the magnet makes the "null" somewhere else.
    But wait...the "null" result of significance wasn't the rest position, but the observation that the magnet-less article did not swing pendulously but just hung there motionless, whereas the unit replete with magnet oscillated, seemingly without stopping. This can't be explained by a mere difference in CG.

    At the moment I'm wondering if the effect (if it isn't completely artefactual) is related to the spontaneous rotation of a Meissner-effect-levitated magnet over a YBCO superconducting torus, which is attributed to a thermal gradient. The swinging of the Nassikas article in the LN2 vapour might produce a similar gradient or variation in cooling of the SC which might affect its interaction in a cyclic manner with all those metal chairlegs in the laboratory (or lunchroom...)
    Yabut - swinging in and of itself is boring, because there are numerous reasons why that could be so, and you "even" mention some of them. It's the equilibrium point about which the swinging's happening that's of interest. The point being made was that this point was not the null line, and my point is that the null line - wasn't. Because they'd rebuilt the bloody thing.
    Uncertain Propulsion Breakthroughs?

    You couldn't wish for better reviewers (except al and I, of course)
    There but for the grace of God go we ...
    I know most of the guys on the author list and most of the authors of the EagleWorks paper. The only one I don't recall is Jordan Maclay. Is that you?
    • CommentTimeDec 31st 2016
    I have met him.
    Which doesn't rule me out, since you've met me too.
    • CommentTimeDec 31st 2016
    True, he says inscrutably.