Howard Johnson Replication Tube Claim

[RunningBare]

And I whole heartily agree, but we must not accept things at face value, trust is a good attribute, but I'm not going to continue this line of thinking.
The reason being, is that I too believe in a conspiracy without the facts to back it up, I believe there are people in the FE community that do not really believe in the conspiracies they perpetuate, they do it to sell, they do not even have to be tied directly to those selling dubious products, as proved by Mylow himself, people will still purchase products to a proven fake.
The FE community has all the con artist need in one place, and from the comfort of their computers.

...but just to humor you, I meant the quote to be in relation to "just because it's never been done before - doesn't mean it can't be"... but I do like how you twisted it to your own means .

[maw2432]

I wonder how much it cost this replicator......  very nice job

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBkdgMQj0-4

Do you think Milow is laughing at us all..... calling us all suckers

[Psyclone]

Psyclone, I get what you're doing and I'm all for it.

I'm one of those, who, for various reasons,always KNEW that Mylow was faking it. Why? Suppose someone told you that he could go up a tall building, jump off, and land safely in front of you without spilling his decaf latte, in his shirtsleeves and civvies.
Yes, for that reason.Some things really are impossible, without hidden aids.

So when I started looking at Mylow's vids, my question wasn't "how am I going to build an exact duplicate of what I'm seeing, which appears to be a real running magnet motor" but rather " what I'm seeing cannot be as represented, so how could he possibly be faking it".
Sure, my intellectual and experimental bias is obvious here. But my bias has certain bases in fact. I'm not going to abandon them for a different set that is based on innuendo, anecdote, fuzzy thinking and weird theories.

Hey TK,

Understood.  Each person will have thier own biases, based on belief systems, experiences, education and other things and your gut told you it just couldn't be true - I have no problem at all with that.  Related to this subject, you're a "glass is half full" kinda guy and that's a healthy approach.

But if I can try to explain my (general) concern by way of an example (try not to read too much into it - I'm speaking in general terms here)...

Remember back very early on, you had already created your test-rig and started your quest to 'debunk' Mylow (presumably, from the outset, but possibly with some bit of 'hope' that it could possibly be true or at least that you'd learn something new by playing with it).

One of the early demands/requests you made (based on your scientific method / process of proving / disproving the thing) was that anyone trying to reproduce the thing needed to do the "weighted string test" (ie. use a weighted string to start the thing, as a means of a repeatable 'startup force').  The idea being that you could measure *spin-down* times in various configurations (with and without rotor/stator mags) to see whether the mags helped at all - or ultimately hurt.

When I first saw this demand/request, my first thought was along the lines of "well, assuming this thing works as advertised, the above "string test" request is completely and uterly useless".  In other words, it assumes that there *will be* a spin-down - which  shows your bias, but - more importantly (if you believe in this kind of thing) - it may also be setting up a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Of course now I'm babbling about metaphysics instead of scientific methods, so I'll just leave it at that (I'm guessing that you're not a big fan of "The Secret" kinda guy ) - I just use this as a (very) generalized example of how bias could potentially influence results.

[No offense intended in any of the above btw and ultimately, the string test/mechanism did prove usefull in providing reapeatable data for the acceleration analysis that was done - no doubt about that]

EDIT: while I'm at it, I'd also point out that because of you and others who either tried to make it work or debunk it (both usefull) - I was afforded the luxury of sitting on the sidelines in observer mode to watch the story unfold itself - so my thanks to you and the other replicators (!)

[TinselKoala]

Hey TK,

Understood.  Each person will have thier own biases, based on belief systems, experiences, education and other things and your gut told you it just couldn't be true - I have no problem at all with that.  Related to this subject, you're a "glass is half full" kinda guy and that's a healthy approach.

But if I can try to explain my (general) concern by way of an example (try not to read too much into it - I'm speaking in general terms here)...

Remember back very early on, you had already created your test-rig and started your quest to 'debunk' Mylow (presumably, from the outset, but possibly with some bit of 'hope' that it could possibly be true or at least that you'd learn something new by playing with it).

One of the early demands/requests you made (based on your scientific method / process of proving / disproving the thing) was that anyone trying to reproduce the thing needed to do the "weighted string test" (ie. use a weighted string to start the thing, as a means of a repeatable 'startup force').  The idea being that you could measure *spin-down* times in various configurations (with and without rotor/stator mags) to see whether the mags helped at all - or ultimately hurt.

When I first saw this demand/request, my first thought was along the lines of "well, assuming this thing works as advertised, the above "string test" request is completely and uterly useless".  In other words, it assumes that there *will be* a spin-down - which  shows your bias, but - more importantly (if you believe in this kind of thing) - it may also be setting up a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Of course now I'm babbling about metaphysics instead of scientific methods, so I'll just leave it at that (I'm guessing that you're not a big fan of "The Secret" kinda guy ) - I just use this as a (very) generalized example of how bias could potentially influence results.

[No offense intended in any of the above btw and ultimately, the string test/mechanism did prove usefull in providing reapeatable data for the acceleration analysis that was done - no doubt about that]

EDIT: while I'm at it, I'd also point out that because of you and others who either tried to make it work or debunk it (both usefull) - I was afforded the luxury of sitting on the sidelines in observer mode to watch the story unfold itself - so my thanks to you and the other replicators (!)

Nope, the spin-down test does not assume that there will be a spin-down at all. The idea is to use the weight instead of Mr. Hand to bring the motor just over the potential hill to start the motor. That is, the Mr. Hand system brings the rotor magnets into proximity of the stator (storing energy) and then takes it just over the top...then releases it from that "just barely over the hilltop" position. I say that's unfair, and the weight/string method should be used, starting in the bottom of the valley, with just enough weight (if you are that picky) to get the thing just into the first gate and just barely over the first hill, just like Mr. Hand, only exactly repeatable and exactly adustable (add more or less solder, BBs, water, or whatever to your weight).
If it starts up and doesn't stop, that's totally fine with me, I don't care...as long as I can see the fishing line!!
So, no assumptions like you say in my method. Others certainly, but not the one of "must be a rundown."
The runup to a known RPM is even better, because on the RUNDOWN the machine passes through all possible gate entry speeds, thus cancelling the objections of starting too slow/too fast. IF there was some "Sweet speed" (tm) the motor would have passed through it on the rundown--or runup-- and "caught"--just like an ICE. As long as the initial runup is fast enough.
What's wrong with this scenario?

[Psyclone]

...snip... What's wrong with this scenario?

Nothing in particular - in fact, quite usefull.  Again, I was just trying to come up with some example and this may not have been the best to use, but...

Let's suppose we start with Mr. Hand, as you describe:

"...the Mr. Hand system brings the rotor magnets into proximity of the stator (storing energy) and then takes it just over the top...then releases it from that "just barely over the hilltop" position..."

...you say this is unfair (?), but let's even assume that some small amount of force (in the form of "pushing") is also imparted, either deliberately or not.  Also, assume that you are the replicator/experimentor, drawing observations for your own purposes - not trying to prove anything to anyone, other than yourself.

So, the disc starts spinning... if it goes around more than once, then you start getting excited, but remember, we might have added some additional force with Mr. hand, so we're cautious to not draw any conclusions...

It spins around a second complete time... and then a third... and then a fourth... and then - "hey, this thing looks like it's speeding up!"...

... and then a 5th, 6th...
... 10 mins later and it's noticably faster than the initial (few) cycles...
... 20 mins later and it seems to have peaked in speed at some point, but seems to now be running at a steady state...
... after 6 hours of running, it now seems to be slowing down...
... another hour or so and it's clearly grinding towards a halt...
... yep - it stopped.

So, obviously the thing did in fact "spin down" at some point, but clearly not as a result of any 'natural' / expected friction-like mechanism - more likely the magnets deguassed or (the earth spun around? or the moon set? someone turned off the big-ass cieling fan in the room?) or some other mechanism that needs to now be investigated.

In other words, whether Mr. Hand is 'fair' (repeatable, at any level of fine precision) or not, that doesn't mean that you can't produce usefull results with that method.  If it accelerates - beyond the initial force imparted on it - over the course of many revolutions, then there must be some other force at work - in this particular case, it was a string - but remember, we're assuming it's you doing the testing and presumably you're not using a string, trying to fool yourself.

But anyway, getting back to the point I was trying to make... it is this:

If someone's sole purpose (bias) is to debunk/disprove it, then is it possible that someone less rigorous than you are with your testing might not test all possible configurations?  That they might not try (very) hard to understand why one configuration might not work (or at least as well) as some other configuration?  Is it possible that (perhaps even subconciously) they left out some crutial step?

...that's the only point I was trying to make - I just get carried away sometimes in my explanations .