Howard Johnson Replication Tube Claim

[TinselKoala]

Welcome jfhoss.

(snip)

Hopefully the lesson of independent verifications being ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED before moving ahead will remain as the legacy for this episode.

Overall that's an excellent summary of the facts--I don't agree with some of the interpretations but that's my problem.

But the last statement deserves a comment.

I don't think, in cases like this one (someone claims the impossible) that independent replications should even BEGIN until the claims of the inventor or builder about the original device are verified.

That is, if you are actually trying to replicate. Because how do you know what you are replicating? The present case is a perfect example.

Now, me, I'm in a different boat in a different sea. I build things to prove they Don't Work, IF I CAN, so my motivations are different and my work is harder--because it is actually possible.

[Pirate88179]

I appreciate the honest response, but isn't it ironic that several members here, while touting the 'quality' of this site often invoke the "free speech!" card?  Does the free speech only apply to those with the "proper street cred" on this site? 

I think that goes directly to what the poster above was trying to point out - there's a fair amount of (unecessary) bullying that takes place here - not that other forums (every other existing forum/community) don't have the exact same issues, of course - but it's worth pointing out every now and then.

Psyclone:

Boy, you sure missed the entire meaning of my post if you are referring to me.  I made no reference to the guy being a newbie and not knowing anything and that he has no right to post....where did I do that?  How the heck could you read that into my post?  I simply pointed out that he missed the most important thing about the OU folks solving this mystery and while he was busy saying how everyone here abuses folks, he had left out the one truly fantastic thing that they did accomplish.

I simply noted a possible discrepancy in his post (note, I said "possible") where he said he was following this from Nov. 2008 and yet he joined the end of the first week in May 09.  I also pointed out that possibly, he meant he had been following this on Youtube since that time.  No where did I ever say he didn't know anything because he was a newbie.  I don't care if he had 10,000 posts, it would not have changed a word that I posted.  Maybe I am such a terrible communicator and this is my fault but, I in no way even meant to imply that someone's knoweldge or IQ is related to the number of posts they have made.  That makes no sense at all.

Maybe my passion for seeing the guys here that busted this story wide open through diligent, scientific and, might I add, voluntary research, get the credit they deserve clouded my choosing the exactly correct words.  I reread my post 3 times and I still can't see how someone could even possibly think I called somone ignorant because they have only a few posts.  Like I said, maybe it's me.

Bill

[nyctuber]

Thanks.

"The north element (vortex) is dominant, and has proven to be the stronger vortex with higher gauss ratings." (sic)

Is there a peer-reviewed reference on this claim that I can look up and read, or are we depending on HJ's experimental methodology for this?

Take 4 identical magnets. Pair them off, stack them in tubes vertically and repusively. So 2 tubes each with 2 magnets. One pair N poles facing, the other pair S poles facing. Measure the separation. Pair the magnets the other ways (I get 4 possible combinations to test) and measure the separation. If the N pole is stronger than the S pole, the repulsion height for the N-N pairs should be greater than the height for the S-S pairs. Or v-v.

Shouldn't it?

I'm not aware of a peer reviewed analysis. @ The experiment, it seems that you might need a very precise instrument to measure the height difference?

[tournamentdan]

I did the experiment with the (neo) magnet sliding along a steeply inclined aluminium plate as show in X00000013's video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqL3Byy9mDA

My findings confirm the effect visible in the video:
Depending on which magnetic pole faces the aluminium plate, the magnet was sliding slowly down or - when the other pole faces the plate -  it jumped off the steeply inclined plate.

My theory:
The movement of the magnet relative to the plate - i.e. the sliding movement - creates eddy currents in the plate which in turn possess (or create) a magnetic field.

Depending on which pole of the magnet faces the plate, the sliding magnet gets attracted to the plate (or the field that is created in the plate by the eddy currents, see above) or the magnet gets repelled from the plate.

If the magnet gets (slightly) repelled from the plate it will slide faster or even jump off.
If the magnet gets (slightly) attracted to the plate, it slides slower due to increased drag/friction.

Attention @ all:



There is no attraction in eddie currents in aluminum or copper. eddie currents create the exact pole that is facing it. The aluminum creates a eddie current charge right below the magnet and gravity keeps the mag on the bar. As I said in a previous post one pole is stronger than the other. When you put the weaker side down it  does not create enough eddie currents, and the stronger magnetic flux  will start to create eddie and the small mag  starts to tumble kicking it off the plate. To make the mag stop tumbling try using a magnet with a lager surface area. If you are worried about the magnet being to strong use a ceramic.




EDIT: when you increase the angle gravity can not hold the mag on the bar.

[Psyclone]

Psyclone:

Boy, you sure missed the entire meaning of my post if you are referring to me.  I made no reference to the guy being a newbie and not knowing anything and that he has no right to post....where did I do that? ... snip ...

Hi Pirate,

First off, I wasn't "only" referring to your post - as I mentioned, this (percieved) type of thing has happened multiple times within this thread.  And while I'm at it, I certainly didn't mean to attribute all my following rambling on the subject (ie. limited IQ, etc) to your post - I just didn't insert the proper segway (sp?) between the initial statement and my rambling, I guess.

Also, forum discussions are an inexact form of communications, so I appologize if I misinterpreted anything (or any motive behind anything) you said and can appreciate the idea that you may have misinterpreted what the OP said as well.

Just to clarify my take on it though, here was his opening comments...

Hello all. I'm new to the site and have not posted because what I could have said in the past was already stated, or most likely had been. I have been interested in magnets for roughly 25 years of my 34 years on this earth.

...so he starts out by explaining that this is his first post here and some reasoning behind it.  He then (skipping a paragraph) says...

I've been following Mylows work since about November of 2008 (I believe) and brought a very skeptical mind. However, I do believe in learning from others success and mistakes. His work is what brought me to this forum.

...note that he didn't say that he'd been following threads here since Nov. 2008, he said that he basically already knew about Mylow (yes, presumably from earlier YT vids (?)) since Nov. 2008.

Then in your response, you start it with...

Interesting that jfhoss (newbie, 1 post) has been following all of this from the beginning yet he joined this forum on May 4th, 2009?  I guess he must mean he has been following all of this on Youtube since last year.

...I readily admit that I may have mistinterpeted your meaning behind that sentence (statement/ponder is often indistinguishable from sarcasm in forum threads), but what jumped out at me was the part I marked as bold, above - "newbie, 1 post" - when clearly he had already mentioned that, up front and had also explained that he'd been following "Mylow's work" since last year (without qualifying the source of reference).

Anyway, my objection was really more general in nature and not just directed at your post - you just used the "newbie" keyword and it triggered my response mechanism .