Howard Johnson Replication Tube Claim

[0c]

C'mon moderater, start moderating.

[poynt99]

Mylow is in the process right now, of removing all his videos.

Looks like he left one behind for posterity.

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

.99

[JRHall]

A couple of things as I watch the replications.  So far no one has placed their magnets in the same spacing as Mylow.  The spacing measurements all appear to be off the back of the magnets along the rim of the aluminum disk.  The spacing between magnets appears to be about 1/3 the width of the magnets.  Published width is .375 with a .125 spacing.  Depth of the magnet is .375.  Given the radius of 8.875 for the aluminum disk and a radius of 8.5 at the front of the magnets, arc length is S while radius is R, S/R = Angle between magnets in radians.  Using .5 as S for the shorter radius gives an angle of .059 radians between magnets.  .059 * 8.875 = .522.  Or a 22 thousandths difference in the spacing front to back of the magnets.  These are approximate numbers and I'm going off memory for the math so if the math needs to be corrected let me know.

This is my long winded way of saying the focus needs to be on the spacing facing the stator magnet. 

With Mylows spacing the stator magnet always has the stator magnet overlapping a rotor magnet and will overlap both adjacent magnets.  I've tried both the magnet width spacing and the 1/3 magnet width spacing and the later works much better.  What I haven't figured out yet is how to calculate the best number of magnets in a group and the spacing between groups.  I've tried the suggested spacing so the fields don't overlap between groupings but that didn't work as well as I had hoped.  The next experiment is to space the magnets so the output push from one group is used to overcome the input resistance to the nest group in parrallel.

[LightRider]

Mylow is in the process right now, of removing all his videos.

Looks like he left one behind for posterity.

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

.99

fake or not...
I BackUp all the 41 videos. (Names: VIDEO #1 to #41) at...
http://www.youtube.com/user/LRCan1
cheers,
LightRider

[JRHall]

Whether Mylows design is fake or not, its not the point here.  Rigerous analysis and design work based on data is.  What physic tells us today has a number of very flawed rules.  Electrodynamics is one example of an area where the equations engineers use are approximations since portions of the complete equations are removed because they are considered inconsiquential.  I'm sure most of you have used Ohms law which is one such equation.

While I'm an engineer I have learned over the years that our understanding of science, regardless of the area, has many flaws and many things are assumed and not proven.  There are even a number of laws that have grown from theories but are not proven and in fact have proofs that show the opposite.

About two years ago I did an analysis of potentual technologies for power harvesting.  I took a look at thermal, vibration, solar and a number of obscure technologies.  One of the proposals that came out of that anlysis was to put ~50 million diodes on a single die to look at ambient thermal energy capture.  While its based on sound science the cost benefits anlysis by our finance and marketing groups did not come out positive.  I think it was short sited.  This is very similar to what Paul keeps bringing up.  While some of you have dismissed Pauls persistance it is being worked on by a number of academics.  The company I work for is actually funding some of that research.

Where am I going with this?  Whether Mylows stuff is fake or not, I've had good success with my experiments so far and I intend to continue down this path to see where it leads.  Be data driven folks and learn to do design of experiments to move your investigations along faster with more concrete results that are repeatable.  What science taught as impossible 50 years ago is now common place.