Howard Johnson Replication Tube Claim

[markdansie]

nice post wattsup,
your logical mind seems to overcome the emotion. Keep it up.....before long we will be calling you spock
Mark

[TinselKoala]

Watts, my respect for you has shot up a thousand percent. (That is possible by the way, it means that I respect you ten times more now.) At least.
BBQ!! Thaat's right, rub it in. It's a major national holiday where I am, the restaurants are all closed, buses on short schedule...beer stores closed...nothing in the fridge...pizza?...no phone....grr. At least I remembered to pick up the booze yesterday. So that's covered.
I agree with "build if you like, spend what you can, and keep experimenting" if that's what floats your particular boat (like it does for me, CLaNZeR and a few others). But please don't mislead yourselves. I truly do not know, obviously, whether what we consider "free energy" can be attained. I do know that if you don't bet you can't play, so I am anything but anti-research. But I am very pro-science, and I truly do know the basics of the scientific method and experimental design. I maintain, as I have said before, that if there is to be a true science of overunity, whatever it may look like, it will have to respect the Scientific Method and its correct application. The SM is the very best way we have come up with for understanding and engineering the reality around us, and it's actually a fairly new development in the timeline of the species. It's not surprising from an evolutionary viewpoint that some of the SM is counterintuitive or difficult to comprehend. We survived as a species because we have cognitive heuristics, that is, shortcuts that work most of the time to keep us alive. This technology and physics bs really does require a new and evolutionary difficult way of thinking. I was lucky to have excellent teachers, so I was able to glimpse a bit of how to think in this "new" way. But I digest, er, I mean I digress.
What I"m trying to say is experiment yes, observe closely and realize you have cognitive biases that will color your observations. What you choose to do about those biases is up to you. Whatever, if you are doing science, and I hope you will be, you need to observe, theorize, hypothesize, experiment, observe, repeat, lather and rinse. And the experiment part includes : Objectification--Don't let Mr. Hand do too much work. Quantification: write stuff down. Do the numbers. Define the non-numerical terms you are using precisely (and don't try to re-write physics here, either...know your units.) Operationalize your constructs. There's a whole lot packed into that little three-word phrase.
And do not neglect the "control experiments." In Mylow's case the control condition would have been easy: Just take off the stator and see how well or poorly the wheel runs. In other designs it may not be so easy to find an appropriate control condition--but it must be done, or you can't know, really, if you are making progress.
If you are starting from scratch like me, you need to know the rundown of your blank disk and be able to repeat it at will, within a couple of percent accuracy at least. Then when you add a bunch of magnets you need to compare with an equally-weighted disk with no magnets (or keepers on). Ditto on the repeatable part. Move the magnets systematically and see if you get a systematic change in behaviour. If you do you can use that info to "tune" your search.
But if you have no comparison data and you are using Mr Hand...you are just, shall we say, going to go blind doing that so much. Or grow hair on your palm, or something.
And for goodness sakes please PLEASE don't announce that you have a self-runner, until you DO. I mean really in reality, not a simulation, and really runs, not runs for 15 minutes, or whatever. Now folks have more of an appreciation for how long a good flywheel takes to run down, I think...that huge thing in HJ's picture, if it had good bearings and balance, could probably easily go an hour on a good spin. Just on inertia. Take out the magnets and replace them with equal chunks of lead...did anybody do this? Why not?
See what I mean?

I'm not against the search or the belief. I just want you to do it right.
Sometimes Ockham's razor is misapplied, but in this case ANY physical explanation for the motor running is to be preferred over the "magnet interaction" hypothesis, because that one is SOOO contrary to what we (are pretty sure we) know about reality. So I think the correct attitude for Sterling, especially, would have been to hold off on buying into Mylow, assume it had to be fake, wait for outside validation before doing ANYTHING else. Like especially selling plans and high-res vids.

[nyctuber]

Probably redundant, but if no one's actually looked:

You don't need the high res download from Sterling's site.

Fishing line is clearly visible @ 8:19 (HQ mode)

http://www.youtube.com//watch?v=uLzh5cibTKE

[TinselKoala]

Probably redundant, but if no one's actually looked:

You don't need the high res download from Sterling's site.

Fishing line is clearly visible @ 8:19 (HQ mode)

http://www.youtube.com//watch?v=uLzh5cibTKE

I can't see it. I do see the tripod leg...? Could you say where to look?

But the stopping sequence is still very telling, to me. Look how he stops it, and compare to my last video. Sure looks like it's still powered to me.

[nyctuber]

I can't see it. I do see the tripod leg...? Could you say where to look?

But the stopping sequence is still very telling, to me. Look how he stops it, and compare to my last video. Sure looks like it's still powered to me.

The light hits it while it's passing over the brown mat. It's brief and it's the width of the pedestal base. Just look at the section he used in the debunk video.