RON NUCCI, Seattle Robotics

[jmercer]

Read the claim... it's too much to bother posting here. I'm sure you engineering types here could figure out a setup using a gyroscope in a tube that would do the same thing as described.

[Lisa Simpson]

I have a migraine today and I'm feeling very stupid. What is this machine of theirs supposed to prove? It has a battery and it spins around on the end of a rope. How does that break Newton's Third Law? And please use small words. My head already hurts enough.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Lisa Simpson
I have a migraine today and I'm feeling very stupid. What is this machine of theirs supposed to prove? It has a battery and it spins around on the end of a rope. How does that break Newton's Third Law?I think it's supposed to spin in one direction without spinning the rope in the opposite direction.

[Lisa Simpson]

Oh...now I get it. Thanks for both the info and the small words. :)

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Beleth
I think it's supposed to spin in one direction without spinning the rope in the opposite direction.

Is that it? I thought it was supposed to simply spin without an apparent reason for it's motion. I'm trying to visualize this and not having much luck...

Man, now I have a headache - please pass the asprin, Lisa. :(

[IXP]

There was a long discussion of this claim, including input from the claimant before. Then he simply disappeared.

Here is the link:

Nucci's Newton Defier (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46930&highlight=nucci)

[jmercer]

Well, he states in the link that gyro's aren't involved. At this point, I think I'll just sit and watch because this is way beyond me.

[Beleth]

He can say gyros aren't involved all he likes. To win the million, he's gonna have to prove it. And I'm sure that'll involve looking inside.

If it's a coffee can spinning one way with something inside spinning the other way (or interacting with gravity to make the can spin) then it's not breaking any physical laws.

[Beanbag]

I can take an automatic watch movement out of the case and set it, face up, on the bench where it's resting on the winding rotor (the rotor serves as a low-friction pivot). After a couple of seconds, the whole movement starts a "hula" dance caused by the balance wheel rotating to and fro. Simple inertia, energy provided by the mainspring.

Big deal -- their cylinder has a power source inside (the batteries). Use an electric motor as a powered gyroscope, suspened with the gyro's axis of rotation at 90 degrees to the suspension rope. Now, turn the gyro mounting, and the whole assebly will rotate in the opposite direction because the gyro wants to stay pointing in the same direction. Basic dynamic stability.

I can't see how this could be so extraordinary. It's like a perpetual motion machine with a battery in it. About the only thing I could say is that they've figured out that it's better to place their ringer out in the open than try to hide it (never mind the man behind the curtain). Essentially, it would have to be shown that more energy was being produced than consumed.

Regards;
Beanbag

[Gulliver]

Please be tolerant of the errors in this post, as it's my very first in the JREF Forum.

The concepts of forward and clockwise are used arbitrarily. No prejudice for or against any Australian perspective should be inferred. :)

I'd like to suggest a thought experiment. Imagine a monorail engine (as in Walt Disney World) moving along a circular track as the only two items in the universe. The "battery" powers the engine. In obeying Newton's Laws, the engine would move "forward" or clockwise as the track would move "backward" or counterclockwise. No mass would be ejected.

Now imagine we add a third item to the universe, a hollow cylinder. If we place our monorail system inside the cylinder and attach a point on the inside of the cylinder to the engine, to the outside observer, the cylinder would appear to rotate as the engine would, clockwise. When we reverse the engine, the cylinder would slow and eventually rotate counterclockwise.

I humbly suggest that a battery-powered rotating cylinder (that does not eject any mass and can rotate either direction and does not contain a gyroscope) does not violate any of Newton's laws and is not paranormal.

[jmercer]

Mm... that's certainly very logical. I just wish I understood enough of both Newtonian physics and relativity frame of reference (if it even applies to this?) to decide if it's a valid perspective.

Sure sounds good to me, though. Oh, and welcome to the forums!

[Major Billy]

Originally posted by jmercer
Is that it? I thought it was supposed to simply spin without an apparent reason for it's motion. I'm trying to visualize this and not having much luck...:(

Does this help:http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/bgr0037l.jpg

[princhester]

Quite simply, this claim does not involve anything paranormal. I figured out how to make a device with an external appearance exactly as the claimant describes within seconds of reading his description, and I'm an *****' lawyer :).

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Beleth
He can say gyros aren't involved all he likes. To win the million, he's gonna have to prove it. And I'm sure that'll involve looking inside.
I agree with Beleth. The only way he can make this work is using a gyroscope. All other claims are bollocks, quite frankly. I built a similar contraption, which spun in one direction without countertwisting its suspending rope, when I was eight. (I built it in our backyard.) It used a gyroscope. (Although I couldn't pronounce "gyroscope" correctly at that age.)
What part of this does Nucci not understand? Or does he think he's Reed Richards?

[Major Billy]

Does this remind anyone of the "Dean Drive (http://www.jerrypournelle.com/sciences/dean.html#deandrive) "?

[Drooper]

What I find curious about this is that even if this device does break one Newtons Laws of motion, it is not necessarily paranormal.

Einstein found evidence that broke Newton's Laws of relativity, but there was never anything paranormal going on.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Drooper
What I find curious about this is that even if this device does break one Newtons Laws of motion, it is not necessarily paranormal.

Einstein found evidence that broke Newton's Laws of relativity, but there was never anything paranormal going on.

Interesting comment. If I devise a way to commuicate FTL*, would that qualify for the Randi challenge?

*is the Nobel prize for physics greater or less than the Randi prize? Could I get them in both? Would the violated causality cause the immediate destruction of the entire universe pissing God off to no end and condeming me to (really!) eternal torture?

[Metullus]

*is the Nobel prize for physics greater or less than the Randi prize?
Absolutely - you get a really cool medal with the Nobel Prize. Plus you get to go to Sweden and have dinner.
Could I get them in both?
Sure, but get Randi's money first. You might have to wait a while for the NP.
Would the violated causality cause the immediate destruction of the entire universe pissing God off to no end and condeming me to (really!) eternal torture?
Absolutely it will. Read the fine print...

[Placebo]

Originally posted by Drooper
What I find curious about this is that even if this device does break one Newtons Laws of motion, it is not necessarily paranormal.

Einstein found evidence that broke Newton's Laws of relativity, but there was never anything paranormal going on.

Paranormal = not understandable in terms of known scientific laws and phenomena

If telekinesis was found to be true (hypothetical), it would end up having a scientific explanation eventually. That still leaves it as paranormal at the time that the evidence is presented.

If he provides us with evidence of a device that is not explainable by CURRENT scientific knowledge it is paranormal. Nevermind the fact that it would become incorporated into scientific thought at some point.

"All great truths begin as blasphemies." - George Bernard Shaw