RON NUCCI, Seattle Robotics

This came in this morning, from Seattle...

============================================= 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.

You may contact me at any time to arrange the conditions of the preliminary test.

=============================================

I have responded to this applicant by accepting his claim, while encouraging him to conduct a private test with an expert in physics before submitting to the potentially embarrassing (and more public) JREF test.

Just trying to be certain...

Hi Kramer,

Our demonstration apparatus is contained in a cylinder measuring approximately 10" in diameter, 12" tall and weighing about 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 have 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 can 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.

Thank you, Ron A. Nucci
Seattle Robotics

==============================================
Hello Ron,

What if the device was suspended horizontally by two ropes at either end? Would your device still "spin"? We're just trying to be as certain as possible (prior to testing) that there isn't some other explanation for the force at work here. Are you absolutely sure you're not getting something like a gyroscopic effect? What tests have you conducted on your own to verify your claim? Have you consulted a physicist? Please advise.
-Kramer, JREF

Latest email (& my response)

Hi Kramer

>>> What if the device was suspended horizontally by two taught ropes at either end? Would your device still "spin"?

Yes.

>>> We're just trying to be sure prior to testing that there isn't some other explanation for the force at work here.

Understandable.

>>> Are you absolutely sure you're not using a gyroscope of some sort?

Yes.

>>> What tests have you conducted on your own to verify your claim?

This device has been thoroughly and exhaustively tested to perform as I have indicated.

>>> Have you consulted a physicist?

No.

Thank you,
Ron A. Nucci
Seattle Robotics
www.seattlerobotics.com

==============================================
Hello Ron,

Thoroughly and exhaustively tested by whom? Since your claim is based in physics, wouldn't it be minimally prudent of you to enlist the participation of experts who might offer you some alternative explanations for what you believe is taking place?

We strongly suggest that you test this device in the presence of a physicist before going further with this claim.

Please understand that JREF publishes the results of all paranormal testing (including names of applicants).

We say this ONLY to help you to be sure that your claim is able to be demonstrated under the conditions we require.

I'm not trying to dissuade you from being tested. I'm simply trying to get you to examine all the possibilities before publicly claiming that you have broken one (or more) of Newton's immutable Laws of Physics.

-Kramer, JREF

More from Seattle Robotics

Mr Randi,

There seems to be some confusion as to whether or not I qualify to compete in the JREF Million Dollar Challenge. I sent you an email a while back asking you if my claim qualified to compete and you said yes and in looking at your web site it appears to me that debunking pseudo science (free energy, etc) is a part of what you do. On your web site the Million Dollar Challenge has been mentioned in relation to free energy type pseudo science as well.

Below is a copy of the email correspondence from Mr. Kramer and Michael Dennett and my original email to you. You will see in my original email to you below I said nothing about any paranormal claims.

Mr Kramer does not think my claim qualifies because it is not paranormal.

Could you please clarify for me and Mr. Kramer if my science claim qualifies for the challenge.

Thank you, Ron A. Nucci
Seattle Robotics

======================================================

Dear Mr. Nucci:

Thank you for your recent e-mail. The Society for Sensible Explanations has no formal relationship with the JREF. We have agreed in the past to pre-screen applicants for the one million dollar challenge where we feel we can properly conduct a test. In your case however, we have no expertise and no way to test your claim. However, it seems obvious to us that you need to go to the market with your device. If it works as you claim the one million dollars offered by the JREF would be chump change. Alternatively, you might seek out someone at UW. If, as you claim, you have overturned the law of conservation of energy and if, you received no remuneration you would still rank with Newton and Einstein in the history of science. I would urge you to forget the petty one million challenge and go for the real prize: a place in history.

Michael Dennett

Co-chair, SSE

=====================================================

Dear Ron,

I agree with this email wholeheartedly.

Additionally, with further investigation, I'm sure that we would eventually agree that your claim is NOT a paranormal one.

-Kramer, JREF

============================================

Hi Randi,

What we are doing is straight forward science. However science that is deemed impossible by the current scientific establishment like "free energy" or a violation of a long held law of physics is often labeled pseudo science or paranormal.

We have a machine that we can demonstrate that proves our claim of violating Newton's third law and the law of conservation of angular momentum. In observing the machine operate it is self evident that it is doing the impossible by today's standards.

I have no idea what Kramer means when he says, "Will you allow the device to be examined in order to insure that nothing "explainable" is at work?"

We can explain the devices operation using scientific terminology however it is new ground breaking science and many physicists may not agree with us on how we believe the internal mechanism operates.

In keeping with the terms of the JREF - "All tests must be designed in such a way that the results are self-evident, and no judging process is required."

The device can simple be visually observed to break the law of conservation of angular momentum with no interpretation or judging required. I can explain this in the necessary detail when you are ready.

My understanding of this process is that your main function is to detect deception or fraud. We are willing to meet any reasonable request to help you rule out fraud. We are willing to take the cover off of the device and allowed it to be observed before during and after operation however we would want to limit the people who observe this and they would need to sign the typical non disclosure/non compete agreement to protect our intellectual property.

Thank you,

Ron A. Nucci, Seattle Robotics

========================================================

Ron,

Do you actually have this black box ready and working? Are you prepared to demonstrate it? Will you allow the device to be examined in order to insure that nothing "explainable" is at work?

And once again I must remind you to stop emailing Randi and deal directly with me, as I speak for the JREF in this capacity.

-Kramer, JREF

======================================================

Mr Randi

Our machine is working and ready to test.

Thank you,

Ron A. Nucci, Seattle Robotics

=============================================

Ron,

I now repeat the request made to you repeatedly by both Mr. Randi and myself:

Please address ALL future emails to me. Your continued refusal to acknowledge the fact that you have been instructed to deal with me on this will NOT help you to be tested. If you want my attention in this matter (which you need in order to get anywhere in all of this), address your emails to me, and stop emailing Randi.

This is my final request of this nature.

Please reply to this email asap. If I receive no confirmation from you affirming your understanding of this, the JREF will stop corresponding with you until you comply with our requests.

-Kramer, JREF

A reply from Ron Nucci...

Kramer,

I only emailed Randi when you seemed confused as to wether or not my claim qualified to compete in the JREF and because many months have pased with no action on your part.

Randi responded back to me directly so I replied to him directly. At no point did Randi ask me to stop emailing him and only email you or I would have done so.

In accordance with my conversation with Randi we are now actively looking now for an independent person to observe our device in operation and certify that it works as we claim. As soon as we find someone we will email information on that person and a proposed test protocol to you.

Thank you, Ron A. Nucci...Seattle Robotics

============================================

That's what I wanted to hear, Ron. Your speedy reply was a welcome close to a miserable day.

Now that you are willing to allow your device to be examined, we are most anxious to test your claim.

Let's get the ball rolling asap. I've sent you several addresses in Oregon, as we know of no other qualified investigators in the Seattle area. If you are successful in locating someone closer to you, please advise, and we can begin the protocol negotiations.

And thank YOU!!!

-Kramer, JREF

=============================================

Mr. Kramer

Thank you for the references. I would prefer to use a more legitimate, main stream organization. I have colleagues at local universities and we are talking to physicists there.

A friend of mine with a local major television news organization has expressed interest in taping the preliminary test for use on air. Do you or Randi have any objections to this ?

Thank you, Ron A. Nucci...Seattle Robotics

============================================

Dear Ron,

We have absolutely no objection whatsoever to your preferences in this matter.

-Kramer, JREF

Vanishing Act?

We have not heard a peep from this applicant in over 8 weeks.

Such deafening silence speaks volumes, I believe.

An Inquiry...

Hello Mr. Nucci,

We cannot help but notice that you (and your claim) have fallen off the radar in the last 10 weeks. What is the present degree of interest you hold regarding following through with your Challenge application? Are you withdrawing your claim?

Please advise.

A Reply

Hi Kramer,

Thanks for the follow up.

We have a physics professor from the University of Washington looking at it now. He wants to see some changes in our test device which we are doing now.

Thank you,
Ron A. Nucci
Seattle Robotics

============================================

Hello Ron,

Well, you just let us know if you ever come up with something.
Your application expires 12 months following its submission, after which you can re-apply.

Dear Mr. Nucci,

It has been more than 12 months since you submitted a JREF Paranormal Challenge application to us, along with your claim letter involving your ability to demonstrate perpetual motion via a device you claimed to have produced.

As we have not heard from you (as you'd promised we would), we now reject your claim and close your Challenge file, accordingly to the Challenge rules.

Please feel free to re-apply in one year, if you feel confident that you have indeed found a way to successfully demonstrate your claim.