Mylow Motor was a fake

[WilbyInebriated]

I have no idea what you're worried about.  When was the last time a great discovery was destroyed because nobody would believe it after it was properly demonstrated with adequate evidence?  Name ONE in recent history.  Even one that was delayed more than a few years because of such neglect.

well, not "destroyed" but since you're asking for one that was delayed...
amorphous semiconductor devices by stanford r. ovshinsky. ignored for more than a decade.

edit:
i'm just curious. hypothetically speaking, what would you accept as "extraordinary evidence"? just want it clarified, it kind of gives you an out no matter what "evidence" is shown. furthermore, that argument is based on an unproven premise. i can easily rebut with:
“when a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right.  when he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.” -arthur c. clarke (1st law)

second edit:
why do you ask of mylow what you do not require from mainstream science?

“Even hopelessly flawed arguments posited by the pseudo-skeptic can have the power to flummox his opponents. In heated debates, he need not speak Truth to emerge "victorious." Games of semantics, creative ad hominem, and the deliberate misstatement of his opponents' positions are quite effective and oft-used tactics in his intellectual battles. The potential violence of King's English is brought to its greatest fruition by the pseudo-skeptic. With his back against the ropes, he will daze his opponent with a well-placed quote from Carl Sagan ("Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!"), send him reeling with the words "You can't prove a negative!", then slash his throat with Occam's Razor ("The simplest explanation is also the most likely!").

These ordinarily sound scientific platitudes are used as the ultimate "get out of jail free" cards for pseudo-skeptics who have no answers to inconvenient questions. Let's examine Sagan's assertion that "extraordinary" claims require "extraordinary" evidence. The problem with this statement is that popular science does not require extraordinary evidence for its extraordinary claims. Big Bang theory may be the most extraordinary claim in the history of popular science. Here we have an idea that can be neatly encapsulated in eight words: "At first, there was nothing...then it exploded." (Source: http://w3trid.com/~wboggs/comics.html) But how can NOTHING explode? Big Bang theory "defies gravity" and violates innumerable laws of physics, it remains a HYPOTHETICAL mathematical model, yet it is promoted as truth by NASA and institutions of higher learning around the world. Why has the mainstream never demanded the same standards of Big Bang theorists that it does of "paranormal" proponents?

Where are the "double-blind tests" validating Big Bang theory? Has Big Bang theory been tested by JREF or other skeptical organizations?

What about Einstein's theory of relativity? The general public seems unaware that it has always been and is stil a matter of contention among accredited scientists. As Marcus Coleman writes (From http://www.wbabin.net/physics/marcus.htm):

"Einstein's relativity was not accepted by a number of his contemporaries. Rutherford, widely thought of as the 'father of nuclear physics', considered it to be nonsense. Columbia University astronomer C.L. Poor in 1922,'26 & '30 gave unassailable refutations of the claims of Eddington, i.e., that observations of the 1919 South American solar eclipse confirmed Einstein's predicted gravitational attraction of light. (Poor also documents a similar situation existing with the 1922 West Australian eclipse and the claims of Campbell & Trumpler.) It was this 'proof' espoused by Eddington however, which brought Einstein his first acclaim and greatest fame.

"Poor showed clearly that the actual observations were not what was claimed and that they did not support Einstein's prediction. This is still a valid refutation of Einstein's presumed gravitational attraction of light, and notwithstanding the 'Gravitational Lensing' phenomenon, still remains standing as an unanswered challenge to Einstein's general theory of relativity and theory of gravitation. As a side issue, this relegates the concept of 'black holes' to pure science fiction as many non-conventional scientists contend - that is, despite evidence of the most recent discoveries being claimed as proof of their existence (even to including the latest data concerning the centre of the Milky Way), such 'proof' does not survive close scrutiny."

My point here is not to argue one side or another in debates over specific cosmological questions, but rather to demonstrate that these most sacred "truths" of popular science are in reality EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS which have never required EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE.

A more accurate phrase to describe the standards of pseudo-skeptics (and, I'm sorry to say, much of the mainstream) is, "UNPOPULAR claims require extraordinary evidence." In its time, Galileo's thesis was considered quite extraordinary, as was Newton's. Why should this have been held against them? What is wrong with judging the evidence of a claim on its MERIT, while ignoring all pre-conceived notions of what is possible and impossible?”

http://www.rense.com/general51/embr.htm
emphasis added by me.

[markdansie]

http://touko.cjb.net/mylow/

[rMuD]

Just stick to the facts of the case at hand. Any evidence? No. Just talk. All talk. Did you try and do a logical rendering of Video 6. No. Just talk. Did you bring up any strong points on why it is fake. No. Just talk.

Here is a fact, mylow used a video tape and uploaded it, it wasn't a live webcam, he could take as many attempts to make video 6 work as he wanted.

[wattsup]

@md

Thanks for re-posting your link in this thread.
Very useful for my next observation and request for help.

@all

OK, so we now have pictures of both the High Res and Regular Couch Motor Shot.

I also grabbed the one below at frame 3:51 from the original YouTube played on my FVL Player.

Now if anyone is good in drawing straight lines. We will assume the string leaves the two inch wheel shaft from both sides, both travel 11-12 inches and pass to the left side of the stator vertical bridge support and both head out to the motor shaft for a good 8-10 feet. Can anyone tell me the distance that there should be between the two strings when they arrive at the bridge. Then compare this distance to the photo put up in @md link showing the strings over with the three arrows.  I think the answer should be obvious from the angle but I will let you see it for yourself. Now pay close attention to the fact that the stator side vertical is positioned off center to the right of the wheel center. What does this do the the string distance that should be at the bridge? OK compare this.

[utilitarian]

What is wrong with judging the evidence of a claim on its MERIT, while ignoring all pre-conceived notions of what is possible and impossible?”

Forget extraordinary evidence.  How about some ordinary evidence for these claims?  With regard to Mylow, something as ordinary as a single successful replication by anyone even slightly trustworthy would be a good start.