Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

 JREF Forum Nucci's Newton's 3'rd law challenge

 Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

 18th October 2004, 10:52 AM #1 roger Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: May 2002 Location: Mountain View, CA Posts: 11,021 Nucci's Newton's 3'rd law challenge As posted by Kramer: Quote: ============================================= My claim is of an apparatus that can demonstrate action without reaction, violating Newton's Third Law. Our demonstration apparatus is contained in a cylinder measuring approximately 10" in diameter, 12" tall and weighing 3 pounds. The device is self-contained, powered by a small battery pack contained inside the cylinder (the weight and size given includes the internal battery pack). Upon being switched on the apparatus will rotate on its axis in free space We can select to ghave it rotate either clockwise or counter clockwise. It ejects no mass and does not use friction. It "pushes back" on nothing while generating a constant rotational force. We demonstrate the device suspended from a rope with the rope as it's only connection point. The rope has a low friction bearing at the end where the device is attached. This allows the device to rotate without twisting and winding up the rope. Now, I didn't do brilliantly in physics in college, but doesn't the rope provide a means for the device to exert a force. To wit: imagine the claim said that the device was hung from the rope as described, but that it moved up and down. It would be clear to anyone that the device was using the rope to move up and down. Now, shouldn't it be possible for the device to exert force against the rope, and translate that 90 degrees into rotational energy? The bearing is not frictionless, so it should allow a small transfer of energy without being visually apparent. I'm thinking along the lines of - when the power is turned on, the device shifts fractionally from a pure vertical position. Now when the motor tries to rotate the device, most of it will be bled away uselessly in the bearing, but a small component will be directed up the rope, providing the action/reaction needed to rotate the device. As I say, I'm not that good at physics, but is this plausible?
 18th October 2004, 11:05 AM #2 Matabiri Graduate Poster     Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 1,734 Yes; the force would be exerted against gravity. I would guess a way to test it would be to suspend it on two thin wires/ropes across a space: attachment===device===attachment Provided the wires are thin and close together, any torque generated by the device would cause them to twist around one another. __________________ "That's the kind of thing you can't look up on the internet, because it's the kind of thing you get taught at school." - Ashley Pomeroy
 18th October 2004, 11:45 AM #3 Hellbound Abiogenic Spongiform     Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: In a handbasket Posts: 8,911 Spinning from a single rope or thread could also be attributed to a gyroscope effect, using a motor to spin it. This translates downward force (gravity) into a 90 degree rotational force (spin). Not sure how all the variable could be controlled for this.
 18th October 2004, 02:34 PM #4 Avian Student   Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Wichtia, KS Posts: 29 Foucault You! Also be careful of having it appear to move with respect to an observer's position on the earth surface. I'm speaking of the 'ol "Foucault's Pendulum" effect where the rotating earth will make an object suspended by a rope or wire appear to change direction. To see this, the test would have to last some period of time, and a few other factors come into play (including changing their assertation that they can spin it whichever way they want), but who knows how the challenge test will eventually evolve! __________________ Aural Moon - The Net's Progressive Rock Garden The Best Progressive Rock Radio anywhere http://www.auralmoon.com/
 18th October 2004, 03:04 PM #5 apoger Muse   Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 563 It's in contact with a rope and the air, both of which will provide reaction versus the devices action. I'm unsure how this device violates Newton's third law. Quote: It ejects no mass and does not use friction. It "pushes back" on nothing while generating a constant rotational force. This sounds more like a violation of Newton's first law. It seems as if they are claiming to get rotational effect without the use of force. Honestly... it sounds like nothing more than a gyroscope. Ho hum. __________________ I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
 18th October 2004, 08:30 PM #6 Brian Graduate Poster   Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 1,780 Correct me if I'm wrong. If the bearing is attached to the rope... If the machine goes this-a-way, the rope has to go that-a-way. __________________ O' beautiful, for spacious skies But now those skies are threatening They're beating plowshares into swords For this tired old man that we elected king Armchair warriors often fail And we've been poisoned by these fairy tales The lawyers clean up all details Since daddy had to lie -Don Henley
 19th October 2004, 03:34 AM #7 Vim Razz Critical Thinker     Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 367 Re: Nucci's Newton's 3'rd law challenge Quote: Originally posted by roger I'm thinking along the lines of - when the power is turned on, the device shifts fractionally from a pure vertical position. Now when the motor tries to rotate the device, most of it will be bled away uselessly in the bearing, but a small component will be directed up the rope, providing the action/reaction needed to rotate the device. It appears that you're talking about getting traction from the bearing? Personaly, I'd consider that a rather negligible concern. The most likely setup involves a counter-rotating unit within the drum. Suspended in our approximation of free-space (hung by a rope with a low-friction linkage) if a motor inside starts spinning one way, the rest of the unit will respond by spinning the other way -- conservation of angular momentum; one part of the device pushes against the other part to spin each other around in opposite directions. Now, if there's no counter-rotating body inside, then that would be interesting. Such a case may-or-may-not be a violation of Newton's 3rd law, but it would certainly be a fun problem. Umm... To the extent that any physics problem is fun... *cough* (time to back off before I reveal too much of my geeky nature.) __________________ The chief deficiency I see in the skeptical movement is in its polarization: Us vs. Them -- the sense that we have a monopoly on the truth; that those other people who believe in all these stupid doctrines are morons; that if you're sensible, you'll listen to us; and if not, you're beyond redemption. This is unconstructive. It does not get the message across. -- Carl Sagan, The Demon Haunted World
 19th October 2004, 01:43 PM #8 patnray Graduate Poster   Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 1,008 Athletes (high divers or trampoline jumpers, for example) can change the direction they are facing in midair by using counter rotation to maintain the total angular momentum. NASA has studied these moves and astronauts learn how to change their orientation while weightless without touching any part of the ship. NASA has also developed the "torqueless" wrench which allows astronauts to tighten bolts while floating freely. So the first question is what is the total angular momentum of the system, as Vim Razz points out. Without more details about the device it is impossible to tell what is really happening.
 20th October 2004, 12:08 AM #9 Zombified Back From The Dead     Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Inside my brain Posts: 1,373 Oops, I missed this thread and started my own... oh well. It looks to me like this device is based on conservation of angular momentum. It just has a motor inside that spins some mass in the opposite direction. As long as the angular momentum of the outer shell going one way cancels whatever the inner angular momentum is going the opposite direction, Newton is happy. Not paranormal.
 20th October 2004, 09:38 AM #10 Ron Nucci New Blood   Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 6 Hello Everyone Interesting thread. FYI - We usually test the device on an air flotation table (a fancy air hockey table) instead of the rope. The device does not use a flywheel or gyroscope.
 20th October 2004, 09:44 AM #11 Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur     Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,873 Quote: Originally posted by Ron Nucci Hello Everyone Interesting thread. FYI - We usually test the device on an air flotation table (a fancy air hockey table) instead of the rope. The device does not use a flywheel or gyroscope. What is a possible application of this device? __________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
 20th October 2004, 10:02 AM #12 Ron Nucci New Blood   Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 6 Hi Diogenes The important thing is the underlying process by which we are able to create force without requiring a counterforce. The implications of this process are enormous. The rotary device is just the simplest embodiment we could devise for testing purposes. As for the rotary device itself there are several aerospace applications such as use in satellites.
 20th October 2004, 10:21 AM #13 roger Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: May 2002 Location: Mountain View, CA Posts: 11,021 So, for example, you should be able to make a device that, when placed on a scale and turned on, apparently weighs more (by creating force down onto the scale platform). That'd be interesting.
 20th October 2004, 10:24 AM #14 Ron Nucci New Blood   Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 6 Yes, it should be possible.
 20th October 2004, 10:27 AM #15 roger Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: May 2002 Location: Mountain View, CA Posts: 11,021 "should be". Have you tested this in other than a rotating device? How have you ruled out conservation of angular momentum? I'd understand if you didn't want to answer - you may not want to spill your secrets to the world yet, but I'm sure you understand why we may be curious about this device.
 20th October 2004, 10:39 AM #16 Ron Nucci New Blood   Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 6 Hi Roger >>> Have you tested this in other than a rotating device? No. >>> How have you ruled out conservation of angular momentum? The rotary device violates conservation of angular momentum. We can rotate the device in one direction with the device beginning at a zero energy state and ending at a zero energy state. >>> I'd understand if you didn't want to answer - you may not want to spill your secrets to the world yet, but I'm sure you understand why we may be curious about this device I appreciate any respectful, considered, response or question. I will do my best to answer them without giving away anything proprietary.
 20th October 2004, 10:43 AM #17 Zombified Back From The Dead     Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Inside my brain Posts: 1,373 Quote: Originally posted by Ron Nucci I appreciate any respectful, considered, response or question. I will do my best to answer them without giving away anything proprietary. Hmm... it's difficult to evaluate the claim without knowing something about the internal structure of the device. Because you could build a device with the same external appearance and behavior based on conservation of angular momentum. What can you tell us about it's structure or mode of operation? Can you confirm there are no internal motors, for example? Thanks for participating.
 20th October 2004, 10:48 AM #18 IXP Muse     Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 832 Quote: Originally posted by Ron Nucci Hello Everyone Interesting thread. FYI - We usually test the device on an air flotation table (a fancy air hockey table) instead of the rope. The device does not use a flywheel or gyroscope. The device does not have to explicitly have a flywheel or gyroscope to operate as you described it without violating any of Newton's laws. Simply connecting the shaft of a motor to the outer container along the central axis of the cylinder will make it perform exactly as you state. Can you state unequivocally that: 1. there is nothing inside the cylinder spinning in the opposite direction to offset the angular momentum of the spinning container. 2. the container simply spins on its central axis and does not also precess as a whole, i.e. the point at which the rope is attached does not move in a circle. These are just 2 ways I could come up with of making a device that does what you claim without breaking any laws of physics. There are certainly others. You need to give a fuller description before I would be convinced that, IF it does what you say, it would be violating Newton's laws.
 20th October 2004, 10:49 AM #19 rppa Muse   Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 794 How have you ruled out conservation of angular momentum? The rotary device violates conservation of angular momentum. We can rotate the device in one direction with the device beginning at a zero energy state and ending at a zero energy state. That doesn't answer the question. The device does NOT violate conservation of angular momentum if there internally moving elements with opposite angular momentum to the part we see. Now if this is your claim, then you should be willing to let the good folks at JREF examine the interior, right?
 20th October 2004, 11:07 AM #20 Ron Nucci New Blood   Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 6 Hi Rppa >>That doesn't answer the question. The device does NOT violate conservation >>of angular momentum if there internally moving elements with opposite >>angular momentum to the part we see. When I said the device begins at a zero energy state and ends at a zero energy state I meant externally and internally. >>Now if this is your claim, then you should be willing to let the good folks at >>JREF examine the interior, right? We have not ruled this out. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi IXP >>The device does not have to explicitly have a flywheel or gyroscope to operate >>as you described it without violating any of Newton's laws. Simply connecting >>the shaft of a motor to the outer container along the central axis of the cylinder >>will make it perform exactly as you state. Sorry but you are incorrect. >>Can you state unequivocally that: >>1. there is nothing inside the cylinder spinning in the opposite direction to >>offset the angular momentum of the spinning container. Yes. >>2. the container simply spins on its central axis and does not also precess as a >>whole, i.e. the point at which the rope is attached does not move in a circle. Yes. >>These are just 2 ways I could come up with of making a device that does what >>you claim without breaking any laws of physics. There are certainly others. >>You need to give a fuller description before I would be convinced that, IF it >>does what you say, it would be violating Newton's laws. Sorry but you are incorrect here also.
 20th October 2004, 11:15 AM #21 Ron Nucci New Blood   Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 6 Hi Zombified >>Hmm... it's difficult to evaluate the claim without knowing something about the internal structure >>of the device. Sorry but you are incorrect. Because you could build a device with the same external appearance and >>behavior based on conservation of angular momentum. Sorry but you are incorrect. What can you tell us about it's >>structure or mode of operation? Can you confirm there are no internal motors, for example? The devices internal structure is proprietary. >>>Thanks for participating. Your welcome.
 20th October 2004, 11:38 AM #22 Dr Adequate Banned   Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897 Quote: Originally posted by Ron Nucci Hi Zombified >>Hmm... it's difficult to evaluate the claim without knowing something about the internal structure >>of the device. Sorry but you are incorrect. He is quite correct. Something which rotates, but we don't know what's inside it? Then how can we evaluate the claim that its rotation breaches the third law? Quote: Because you could build a device with the same external appearance and >>behavior based on conservation of angular momentum. Sorry but you are incorrect. Well, you've described its external behaviour, and there's nothing strange about that... and I can't see how its appearance of the casing to the claim, but if it is, please post a photo of it (that's not proprietary, surely?) So it looks like Zombified is right. We could build a device which rotates and looks like yours, by, as has been pointed out, having something counter-rotating inside. So again, Zombified is quite correct. The crucial thing is the internal workings. Quote: The devices internal structure is proprietary. Well, I think given the objections raised, you're going to have to reveal all to the JREF if you want to claim. Obviously, if they accepted this sort of claim based just on the assurances of applicants that the inards of the devices are what they say they are, then they'd have lost their million long ago. Good luck!
 20th October 2004, 12:11 PM #23 IXP Muse     Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 832 Quote: Originally posted by Ron Nucci Hi IXP >>The device does not have to explicitly have a flywheel or gyroscope to operate >>as you described it without violating any of Newton's laws. Simply connecting >>the shaft of a motor to the outer container along the central axis of the cylinder >>will make it perform exactly as you state. Sorry but you are incorrect. Ron, I do have a degree in physics, and I am (or was) able to spin through two complete rotations in mid-air when jumping on a trampoline and come down with no net change in angular momentum, so don't just tell me I am incorrect, this is not convincing. Perhaps the problem is that we are mis-interpreting your description of the behavior of your device. Would you care to elaborate on how your device would behave differently than the one I describe? I am talking about the externally visible behavior, not the internal behavior which I suspect you will not divulge.
 20th October 2004, 12:26 PM #24 Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur     Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,873 Quote: Originally posted by IXP Simply connecting the shaft of a motor to the outer container along the central axis of the cylinder will make it perform exactly as you state. .................... I wonder if there are any detectable magnetic fields around this device.. I don't see how it could pass the paranormal challenge if there are.. __________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
 20th October 2004, 12:31 PM #25 IXP Muse     Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 832 Can we take a vote here? Who is more likely to be incorrect, Ron or all of us that he has called incorrect?
 20th October 2004, 12:40 PM #26 Rob Lister Suspended   Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Virginia Beach, VA Posts: 8,523 Quote: Originally posted by Diogenes I wonder if there are any detectable magnetic fields around this device.. I don't see how it could pass the paranormal challenge if there are.. I'm not sure how this even qualifies for the paranormal challenge. That said, I suspect a device could be constructed to behave in the same manner without using any visible interal motors or flywheels. One example is allowing a fluid to flow downward through a spiral tube. I'm sure there are many even less obvious examples. Let's make a puzzle of it!
 20th October 2004, 12:44 PM #27 Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur     Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,873 Quote: Originally posted by IXP Can we take a vote here? Who is more likely to be incorrect, Ron or all of us that he has called incorrect? If you haven't noticed, we are trying to be very tolerant here.. Surely you realize our gut reaction is to scoff, but the true skeptical reaction is to wait for the tests.. We are waiting.. I'm with the physicists on this one, but am hoping, along with the physicists I'm sure, that I am wrong. If Mr. Lucci is correct, the world (universe ) as we know it will change dramatically, and JREF's million is inconsequential... __________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
 20th October 2004, 12:49 PM #28 Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur     Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,873 Quote: Originally posted by Rob Lister One example is allowing a fluid to flow downward through a spiral tube. I'm sure there are many even less obvious examples. Let's make a puzzle of it! It does contain batteries. To power what? The fluid device would require a pump of some kind if it were to operate for any significant length of time.. __________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
 20th October 2004, 12:50 PM #29 Dr Adequate Banned   Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897 Quote: Originally posted by Diogenes I'm with the physicists on this one, but am hoping, along with the physicists I'm sure, that I am wrong. If Mr. Lucci is correct, the world (universe ) as we know it will change dramatically, and JREF's million is inconsequential... And money well-spent.
 20th October 2004, 12:54 PM #30 Rob Lister Suspended   Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Virginia Beach, VA Posts: 8,523 Quote: Originally posted by Diogenes It does contain batteries. To power what? The fluid device would require a pump of some kind if it were to operate for any significant length of time.. Okay, how about a magneto-hydrodynamic pump. No detectable moving parts. Just a circular tube with stuff around it.
 20th October 2004, 01:04 PM #31 Zombified Back From The Dead     Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Inside my brain Posts: 1,373 Quote: Originally posted by Ron Nucci Sorry but you are incorrect. How so? Are you saying I can't build a machine that spins without exerting an external force?
 20th October 2004, 03:04 PM #32 rppa Muse   Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 794 There appears to be a contradiction here. I said: Now if this is your claim, then you should be willing to let the good folks at JREF examine the interior, right? And got the response: We have not ruled this out. But when Zombified asked: What can you tell us about it's structure or mode of operation? Can you confirm there are no internal motors, for example? the response was: The devices internal structure is proprietary. So which is it? Will physicists be allowed to study it to make the determination as to whether angular momentum is being conserved or not?
 20th October 2004, 03:39 PM #33 Ladewig Hipster alien     Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: not measurable Posts: 16,792 The positions are not necessarily contradictory. The claimant may ask that any examiners sign non-disclosure agreements. ...................... Does such a device have any practical value other than demonstrating physics laws? __________________ Is the JREF message board training wheels for people who hope to one day troll other message boards? It is not that hard to get us to believe you. We are not the major leagues or even the minor leagues. We are Pee-Wee baseball. If you love striking out 10-year-olds, then you'll love trolling our board.
 20th October 2004, 04:58 PM #34 Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur     Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,873 Quote: Originally posted by roger So, for example, you should be able to make a device that, when placed on a scale and turned on, apparently weighs more (by creating force down onto the scale platform). That'd be interesting. Artificial gravity? Truly interesting! __________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
 20th October 2004, 07:15 PM #36 Zep Banned   Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,985 Y'know, if I wasn't so sure Kumar lived in California, I could SWEAR this was his patent application...
 20th October 2004, 07:16 PM #37 Zombified Back From The Dead     Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Inside my brain Posts: 1,373 Quote: Originally posted by Zep Y'know, if I wasn't so sure Kumar lived in California, I could SWEAR this was his patent application... ...except it's missing "and therefore homeopathy works."
 20th October 2004, 07:20 PM #38 Zep Banned   Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,985 Quote: Originally posted by Zombified ...except it's missing "and therefore homeopathy works." True! But if it WAS Kumar, that would not be long in following, I'm sure. Really, I haven't seen such childish misrepresentations of physics in years: Quote: Likewise on earth or any planet, if we want to keep some body at some distance just above earth's surface, like that of stationary helicopter in air, constant supply of energy and air is needed. Using conventional means, it is not possible to keep some body stationary just above earth's surface in vacuum. Any body just falls on earth or any planet in absence of gas and propellant.
 21st October 2004, 03:37 AM #39 Dr Adequate Banned   Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897 Quote: Originally posted by rppa There appears to be a contradiction here. I said: Now if this is your claim, then you should be willing to let the good folks at JREF examine the interior, right? And got the response: We have not ruled this out. But when Zombified asked: What can you tell us about it's structure or mode of operation? Can you confirm there are no internal motors, for example? the response was: The devices internal structure is proprietary. There's a difference between revealing all to the JREF for a cool million, and just posting the details on a public site, surely?
 21st October 2004, 03:42 AM #40 Dr Adequate Banned   Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897 Quote: When in two or more systems points, from which the opposite reaction in said systems is supposed to start, are connected to each other in such a way that these points are forced to travel in different directions, then due to connectivity, the opposite reaction in said systems is halted and only action takes place in these systems. Er...

JREF Forum

 Bookmarks Digg del.icio.us StumbleUpon Google Reddit