Added to above post.

Added to above post.

Quote... 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...

Acceptable evidence for a wild claim isn't something fixed in stone.  For sure, though, it's NEVER a Youtube video.  A Youtube video can be useful in attracting attention or documenting an event witnessed by several sources which is transient in nature.  If someone claims a self running magnetic motor, it isn't rocket science to prove whether it really exists and works as stated.  For openers, giving a copy to Sterling would have been a (nonclusive) start.  Nonconclusive because Sterling while IMHO honest, is pretty gullible. 

But that Mylow would NOT show the motor to anyone speaks volumes against his claims.  So does that nobody can replicate the piss-simple devices illustrated in the videos and "plans". 

Definitive proof of an overunity motor would require independent testing by a reliable lab or other institution.  Replication would cinch it, again if done by reliable people and confirmed independently.  That would result in technical papers, news releases and all sorts of things-- NONE of which happened for Mylow's "motor".  When first announced, whether a discovery is real can be a bit indeterminate.  For most things, it clarifies quickly.

As to your more general questions, some are silly.  Should Earthtech be able to test the Big Bang theory, and whatever else you asked?   Well... no.  Earthtech is specifically setup to test claims of new sources of energy, not cosmic theories.  What else did you want to know?

Quote from: maryyugo on May 26, 2009, 07:34:00 PM
Acceptable evidence for a wild claim isn't something fixed in stone.  For sure, though, it's NEVER a Youtube video.  A Youtube video can be useful in attracting attention or documenting an event witnessed by several sources which is transient in nature.  If someone claims a self running magnetic motor, it isn't rocket science to prove whether it really exists and works as stated.  For openers, giving a copy to Sterling would have been a (nonclusive) start.  Nonconclusive because Sterling while IMHO honest, is pretty gullible. 

But that Mylow would NOT show the motor to anyone speaks volumes against his claims.  So does that nobody can replicate the piss-simple devices illustrated in the videos and "plans". 

Definitive proof of an overunity motor would require independent testing by a reliable lab or other institution.  Replication would cinch it, again if done by reliable people and confirmed independently.  That would result in technical papers, news releases and all sorts of things-- NONE of which happened for Mylow's "motor".  When first announced, whether a discovery is real can be a bit indeterminate.  For most things, it clarifies quickly.

As to your more general questions, some are silly.  Should Earthtech be able to test the Big Bang theory, and whatever else you asked?   Well... no.  Earthtech is specifically setup to test claims of new sources of energy, not cosmic theories.  What else did you want to know?

nothing. you've avoided the question three times now, i know all i need to about you.

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 26, 2009, 03:49:57 PM
If LR's graph is good (and I'm sure it is) there are 2 indications that the hand is not the culprit:
First, the accelerations are too slow. A hand spin results in an acceleration that lasts less than one second; in the graph LR shows that the periods of acceleration are several seconds long, as much as 6 or 7 seconds.
Second, there are periods of constant speed. This is impossible to achieve with hand spinning.

EDIT: Note the right half of this graph. The accelerations due to my hand, even trying to be as smooth and slow as possible, still result in very steep acceleration curves, with NO constant speed at the peaks, since the wheel is not being driven.
The acceleration curves that LR has shown for Mylow's vid are not consistent with a hand push, but rather a slipping drive line that was readjusted several times and never really got stable.
IMHO.

TK,
   
I would like to use your graphic for further analysis.
The objective would be to validate or disprove this hypothesis (or the pratical result in your case)

hypothesis:
"A hand spin results in an acceleration that lasts less than one second; in the graph LR shows that the periods of acceleration are several seconds long, as much as 6 or 7 seconds."

If you still have the original graphic,
Can you do a zoom in one section (400sec to 500sec). (or section that you've done your best for a smooth acceleration).
   
It is difficult to evaluate the "seconds" on this graph with a scale of 100 sec / grid


Thanks,
LightRider