How Does the Ruler and Hammer Balance Trick Defy Physics?

AI Thread Summary
The ruler and hammer balance trick does not defy physics but rather illustrates principles of mass distribution and center of mass. The addition of hammers alters the mass distribution, allowing the system to remain balanced as long as the center of mass is supported. The trick appears counterintuitive, but it adheres to physical laws; the hammers must be arranged such that each subsequent hammer is lighter than the previous one. The sensational claims made by the Discovery Channel about disproving physics are misleading, as similar balancing tricks are common. Overall, the experiment is consistent with physics, demonstrating how mass distribution can create surprising effects.
Newtonfalls
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Hi,

yesterday i saw this video on discovery channel.
<link to video deleted>
in the documentation it was said that this trick with the three hammers and
three rulers doesn´t match with actual laws of physics! does anyone can give more
information about this?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Engineering news on Phys.org
Hi Newtonfalls,

Any object will escape falling over an edge as long as its centre of mass is supported. The position of the COM depends on the mass distribution within the object. It looks like the effect of adding the hammer is to alter this distribution. More specifically, it looks like the first hammer is added such that the centre of mass of the ruler-hammer system moves under the table where it is supported. A hammer is a useful object to do this because most of its mass is concentrated in one end. As long as all the hammers are arranged to keep enough mass far enough under the table so that more force pulls down into the table than into empty space, it should be possible to extend the system like in the video.

The idea of disproving all laws of physics seems like a bit of sensationalism on the part of the Discovery Channel, since I'm sure PF would be abuzz if that really were true :P
 
With one hammer, you can find the trick everywhere. The extension looks nice, but it is nothing fundamentally new. The second hammer has to be much lighter than the first one, and the third has to be much lighter than the second one, so all rulers stay balanced.

I changed the thread title. The experiment is well in agreement with physics, it just can look counterintuitive if you don't think about the mass distributions.
 
 
mfb said:
With one hammer, you can find the trick everywhere. The extension looks nice, but it is nothing fundamentally new. The second hammer has to be much lighter than the first one, and the third has to be much lighter than the second one, so all rulers stay balanced.

I changed the thread title. The experiment is well in agreement with physics, it just can look counterintuitive if you don't think about the mass distributions.

This demonstrates the same principle in a clearer fashion, where density is more even. It is also much more impressive in my book:
 
  • Like
Likes mfb
I well remember Balance Goddess when it first appeared. Most impressive.
 
Hi all, I have a question. So from the derivation of the Isentropic process relationship PV^gamma = constant, there is a step dW = PdV, which can only be said for quasi-equilibrium (or reversible) processes. As such I believe PV^gamma = constant (and the family of equations) should not be applicable to just adiabatic processes? Ie, it should be applicable only for adiabatic + reversible = isentropic processes? However, I've seen couple of online notes/books, and...
I have an engine that uses a dry sump oiling system. The oil collection pan has three AN fittings to use for scavenging. Two of the fittings are approximately on the same level, the third is about 1/2 to 3/4 inch higher than the other two. The system ran for years with no problem using a three stage pump (one pressure and two scavenge stages). The two scavenge stages were connected at times to any two of the three AN fittings on the tank. Recently I tried an upgrade to a four stage pump...
Back
Top