Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Thought experiment that shows hor the 3rd principle fails on spirals

  1. Apr 19, 2005 #1
    im in a 10 m tower, a 1kg cannonball is shot underneath me horizontally at 10 m from me and im holding a cable that is tight to the ball, for the ball to make a circle the tension shown in a dinamometer put in the cable would be v*v*m/r= 1000N being the speed of the ball 100 m/s

    i shoot the ball again and this time i let the cable slip or glide away in my hands in such a way that the tension shown is 100 N, lets neglect transformation of friction into heat, gravity and cable weight

    how long will it take the ball to reach my horizontal?

    what radius will have the cable when the ball is at my horizontal?

    when the ball is at my horizontal going to my vertical what constant tension would show the dinamometer if when the ball reached my vertical had to have 10 m radius again by my having pulled the cable?

    how long will it take it to reach my vertical?

    the cable is pulled or let away by crancking the cable(rigid in this case) and the spinning axe in such a way that for every grade the axe spins the cable retracts or spands one meter or whatever necesary
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 22, 2005 #2
    Well Aviator I am not quite sure about the question and do not really know how to solve this in pure maths . For the first part since you eliminated gravity and whatnot
    I translated this to the horizontal plane and assumed your vertical occured when the ball has moved by 90 degrees rotation . I assumed just 100N tension , 1 kgm mass
    and an initial velocity of 100 m/s. Then I simulated the whole lot with very small time steps in QBasic . My answer was about 0.64 seconds .I also got an answer for the distance at that time it was 48.3 meters .
    The second I got ~10.4 meters at 180 degrees rotation. vertical
    My simulation correctly gives a circle at 1000n force
    but at 100n yields precessing elipses , the rope being both let out and pulled in again.
    I would rather like to see your approach and what exactly you meant by the original question . I.E. whether I am correct or not What principle has been broken and why .
    Yours Ray. :rofl:
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2005
  4. Apr 24, 2005 #3
    my point is that if you have the ball spinning with a certain tension in the cable so it makes a circle and suddenly you apply a minor tension the ball will make a spiral for a while, if you aply a bigger tension than the one necesary to make a circle it will start making an inwards spiral

    therefore if the ball makes an outwards spiral the tension will be lower that if it makes an outwards spiral

    this seems obvious to me and i must be really bad explaining it since i cant convince nobody that the principle of action reaction fails on spirals :zzz:
  5. Apr 24, 2005 #4
    before i meant that in an inwards spiral the tension is bigger than in the simetrical outwards spiral
  6. Apr 24, 2005 #5
    How can you suppose it will make a circle around you? You only talk about a horizontal velocity. In order to make a circle it needs a perpendicular velocity. Explain.
  7. Apr 24, 2005 #6
    by aplying a tension on the cable of v*v*m/r the horizontal v becomes circular now

    if you aply a tension minor it makes an outwards spiral if you aply atension bigger it makes an inwards spiral

    therefore 3rd principle fails on spirals if you take two quarters of simetrical spirals one inwards and the other outwrds like in the cannon example you get un upwards force that have no reaction
  8. Apr 24, 2005 #7
    In the case you think the ball will rise to your level it is not matter of force. It is matter of iniritia. As the radius becomes larger, the angle between radius and cable decreases and Y component decreases as well. Eventually, the angle and the Y component will both be equal to zero when the ball will rise to your level.

    If I am not talking about the right thing I would like to explain more precicly. Do you pull the cable in upward direction, or sideway?
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2005
  9. Apr 25, 2005 #8
    it took me quite long to understand it myself

    if you accept that by aplying a tension of v*v*m/r the ball will make a circle (neglecting gravity) what trouble do you have accepting that if you aply a tension lower than that one it will make a spiral? (eventually the spiral will end in a circle when the 100N tension applied is equal to v*v*m/r ending in a circular trajectory where the radius makes the v*v*m/r equal to the aplyied tension)

    you cant figure this out by using vectors since the use of vectors implies the aceptance of reaction as undiscusible while im trying to prove a case in which theres no reaction, i would say that vectors fail in this case as well as the 3rd principle
  10. Apr 25, 2005 #9
    the way the ball is let away or pulled in is by crancking with gears the spinning axe with the pull or let away of the cable which in this case would be rigid

    you can simply transform the horizontal velocity of the ball into vertical velocity by simply tighting the cable to an axe which would keep spinning and reversing linear momentum forever if there was no friction
  11. Apr 26, 2005 #10

    Doc Al

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Your example is unclear (at least to me). For some reason, you seem to believe that Newton's 3rd law is being violated. Please start over and clearly state what forces you think are involved in your example and why you think Newton's 3rd law is violated.
  12. Apr 27, 2005 #11
    a cannonball is shot horizontally 10 m under my vertical and is tight to an axe(me) with a cable, the tension (pulling force) is kept for the first quarter of spin in 100 N, so the radius of the cable grows

    in the second quarter i aply a tension to the cable bigger than 100N, such force that the cable radius now shrink

    the trajectory in the first quarter is simetrical to the trajectory in the second quarter and no extra energy is aported to the ball so the speed of the ball is the same in the first quarter than in the second

    if i have a tension that pulls the axe down with a force of 100 N during lets say 1 second and a force of lets say 1000N pulling up during 1 second also the result is a pull of 900N up during one second

    this that im saying is very old the first to discover the reactionles properties of spirals was schauberger

    what im trying is to give explanation to schauberger ideas

    i would have given up this 4 years old idea if it wasnt because schauberger also said that this spiral stuff leads to free energy

    i think the main point of my idea is that the ball if with a tensionof 500N makes a circle with more or less tension makes an inwards or outwards spiral

    spiral that eventually ends in a circle as well when the radius and tension (force) adjust to satisfy the formula v*v*m/r=F

    if theres anything i can do for this to be understood better just let me know

    if you are spining around you a ball tight to a cable at a constant speed and in the middle of the cable theres a dinamometer that shows the tension

    when the dinamometer shows 500N the ball is making a circle

    if you want the dinamometer to show 100N without varying the speed of the ball you let the cable glide away in your hand in such a way that the ball makes an outwards spiral, now the dinamometer shows 100N, eventually when the radius is big enough it wont grow any more and the ball will end making a circle

    if you want the dinamometer to show 1000N you have to pull the cable at the same time you spin it in such a way it makes an inward spiral, eventually the ball ends in the center of the axe spinning with no tension in the cable

    is not that i believe the 3rd principle to fail i see it failing

    schauberger would have said about the 3rd principle failing how is it posible that im the only one to see it and i feel now just the same
  13. Apr 27, 2005 #12

    Doc Al

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I'm still not getting what all this has to do with Newton's 3rd law. If the cable pulls on the cannonball with a force X, then the cannonball will pull on the cable with the same force, oppositely directed.

    Free energy? I don't think so! :smile:

    Why not leave gravity out of it and have your ball move along a frictionless table? But if you are pulling and releasing a cable, even this problem may be difficult to analyze. But I see no basis for a violation of Newton's 3rd law or free energy.

    (I see this is all coming from the ideas of Viktor Schauberger, who, as far as I can see was quite the crackpot. Don't waste your time.)
  14. Apr 27, 2005 #13
    if the ball is spinning in a circle and the axe is floating in space in the first quarter the ball will pull the axe down with a force of 500N and in the second quarter will pull up with a force of 500 N so the axe will vibrate in space being pulled each time with a force of 500N forever if there was no friction. The axe doesnt remain stationary it moves in oposite direction to the ball

    but in my example this eternal bivration (if there was no friction) is of 100N down and 1000N up so it vibrates acelerating upwards

    you are getting thrust without giving away mass nor holding on anything but empty space

    in the first quarter the ball pulls on the axe 100 N in the second it pulls 1000N

    so in the first quarter the axe pulls on the ball 100N and in the second it pulls 1000N

    maybe 3rd principle is not violated but still this idea shows the posibility of building an engine that would produce thrust without giving away any mass

    by the way either the universe is eternal and has no begining or energy-matter is created from nothing or even both because of nothing theres infinite
  15. Apr 27, 2005 #14
    said with another words the pull when the ball is above the axe is of 1000 N and when is below of 100N
  16. Apr 27, 2005 #15


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    No it doesn't. It shows the possibility of building a device that will flop around like a beached salmon.
  17. Apr 28, 2005 #16
    most probably my idea will flop

    but first at least i try for free energy like tesla, joseph newman or john hutchinson

    second i dont take scientific data as matter of faith i think by myself

    theres no diference between a person who takes physics principles as matter of faith and afghans who take the wearing of burka by women as undiscusiblle because of being a milenary matter of faith, older than newtons principles

    im like an afghan who thinks by himself instead of using faith an says hey maybe the burka is wrong and people will say are you crazy this is milenary
  18. Apr 28, 2005 #17


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    You forgot one other possible option - that your ignorance of what you have is causing you to think that you have something new. How can you tell if what you have is new when you don't know what is known already?

    I think both chronos and doc al have been rather "generous" in their comments. I, on the other hand, will not. I've seen several of your postings claiming this and that, and now I will tell you why I think this thing IS a flop based on your faulty understanding.

    The clearest example of this is the fact that you are just picking on JUST the 3rd Law? Now why is that? Are you saying that your "experiment" doesn't violate Newton's 1st and 2nd Law, just the 3rd?

    This is where you show your ignorance. ANY physics student worth his/her salt can tell you that Newton's 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Laws are really just ONE law or description. They are not 3 different things, but rather the SAME thing but under different circumstances. What this means is that you can't violate one without violating the others!

    Secondly, have you ever re-read what you have written? I'll be the first to admit that I make typos all the time and my sentence structure can run on and on and on... but really, c'mon now! Go look at the way you are trying to present your idea and tell me if you think it makes any sense!

    Third, Joe Newman? Puhleeze! If his machines truly work, he would have produced something by now! Go read Bob Park's book "Voodoo Science" where he has shown you the details on why this guy is a quack.

    But the most important issue in all of this is the very same question I have asked all quacks both on here and ever since I bump into the first of them on the 'net back in 1989 (yes, I've been "connect" THAT long): What makes you think that you have understood the subject matter THAT much to be able to challenge it?

    You haven't made anything to show that it works. All you have is simply something in your head that you are convinced violates something you barely understand. And if you think you're ... er.. "special", you're not! We get one of these very often, and there are more of you on Crank Dot Net that are making even MORE outrageous claims, and frankly, more entertaining quackeries than you.


    P.S. I'm recommending that this thread by shoved into the TD section.
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2005
  19. Apr 28, 2005 #18
    this is not new

    schauberger was beaten to death after he visited the usa for these ideas on spirals

    clem died after he sold his spirals engine to the general electrics the very next day

    tesla got many patents clasified as secret maybe they were free energy as well

    the nazis work in an space time bending project called the bell that were two counterotatory cylinders just like the engine i deviced that now i try to explain its functioning

    joseph newman says the electrons move in an atom in inwards and outwards spirals just like the cannonball of my idea and like newman im unable to hold property of the patent, first for having a psicotic episode the very same week the patent got published which unable me to take posesion of the patent and secondly for having a second psicotic episode the very same week i try to recover posesion of the patent, certainly i wont go for a third so i forget the patent

    this makes sense if we take in consideration the 400 witness of the disclosure project that say that the biggest secrets in this moment are extraterrestrial life free energy and antigravity they also say that tesla discovered both antigravity and free energy but is kepts secret ever since

    i have already said i was wrong my idea doesnt violate the 3rd principle because the principles dont say that you cant produce aceleration without giving away mass although most people interpret them this way, my engine acelerates without giving away mass i think

    english is my second language so im not very clear but if you dont understand something i say you just have to ask me and ill be more than pleased to answer you

    joseph newman machine has been avalated by 20 engineers

    do you think that if free energy was discovered would it be made public?

    so gold has the same value than plumb, petrol is valueless as well and the poor countries become rich suddenly breaking the balance between poor and rich

    my understanding might be better than most peoples because i dont believe anything, i must understand it by myself while most people has some principles they take as a matter of faith and therefore undiscusible

    i think the best and less risky way to take this away is by convincing smarter people than me that can prove my ideas right like frolov the russian physicist that believes that gyroscopes of varying radius like mine produce thrust

    i belive myself to be special as special as everybody else since there are not two equal persons, everybody is new

    certainly my ideas prove me a crackpot but that doesn necesarily mean im wrong just that im able to accept any idea as posible however weird is it
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook