Howard Johnson Replication Tube Claim

[nyctuber]

I'm assuming the rotors are all like-pole facing up?

Mylow also mentions something about 'pole switching.' due to the two stators.

[Mike Furness]

hi,
  I hate messages such as 'instead of making people think he's fake, you could be doing something yourself, from Nihilanth!
just think about what you've said, what right have you to ASSUME no one is doing this already, did you ASK first?
Just in case you're so wet behind your ears that you don't know; ALL the OU claims that include rotating magnet assemblies, have been proven to be false! of course that doesn't necessarily mean that the inventor set out to deceive, merely misunderstands what energy is!

FYI, one HP is 550ft pounds in 1 second, or in metric 83kg metres, or electrically 746 watts / second
do you really think a toy that, on a bad day can't produce enough energy to overcome the milliwatt bearing resistance is a real contender?

Please do your research BEFORE you produce a glib answer like ' of course experimentation will lead to a scaling factor,' because it hasn't in about 150 years; and, instead of criticising, what are you doing personally to advance this concept?

I DID post about 2 weeks ago that this energy comes from 'domain flipping', in which one magnet becomes very marginally cooler, taking energy from ambient. I also said that the only TRUE definition of OU is where the device accellerates rapidly, and needs electrical or mechanical braking to prevent overspeed; which, of course is a PTO (power take off)

Some people deflect all progress, by shouting loudly when a myth is broken, or a sacred cow is trodden on, but, until ALL GROUPS (bar very few) reject the dross and concentrate on what very little is left, we'll get NOWHERE!

BTW, for the 'uninitiated,' genuine OU, if attainable by us, without exotic and costly experimentation, will be VIA accepted physics, not in complete disregard of it!

To conclude, it doesn't need any testing whatsoever to see that this device, even if it could be persuaded to turn at a few hundred RPM on a good day is of no use whatsoever!

Mike.

Mike. J. Furness

[zapnic]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rv0Zn7vhIEI&feature=ch%20annel_page

about 1.30
and have people ever read "NOTES ON AN UNIPOLAR DYNAMO"

bye

[Mike Furness]

Hi,
   I have indeed studied 'unipolar dynamos', although i probably haven't read the literature you refer to!

They have one fascinsting aspect, which was discovered by Faraday, and called 'Faraday's Paradox', worthy of much thought! 

I'll explain simply, you have a vertical circular magnet, a disc or rod, with the N. pole upwards (only example), it doesn't matter which pole.

ROTATE a wire concentrically to this pole, and you produce a voltage and current, according to Fleming's rule.

NEXT, hold the wire stationary and rotate the pole axially, exactly as you rotated the wire. RESULT, NOTHING!!!
known from I think 1858, the only electrical (or mechanical) device which would appear not to have an equal and opposite newtonian reaction!

Now to the practicalities, homopolar motors / generators have been dead commercially since high power electronics and transformers; reason, generate about 1.5 volts at even 100,000 amps, very useful for electroplating in the old days, but a total nightmare to get this out on a brushgear, Mercury, molten lead, many exotic methods, all VERY costly, both mechanically and efficiency wise!

The example between this and a 'conventionally wound' motor is the vast number of turns, when, in reality a homopolar generator only has a HALF turn. My quest over the years is twofold, firstly to see how to WIND more turns; and providing a TIGHT magnetic coupling; so far, haven't succeeded.

The attainable goals if this can be achieved are 1. apparently NO BACK EMF (think carefully about implications), and 2. It MIGHT be possible to build a motor without torque reaction, ie if your electric hand drill jammed in a job, the handle wouldn't go round and round!

Indeed a fascinating subject!

Mike.

Mike. J. Furness

[wattsup]

@Digjam

You only see what you want to see. For every action there is......

Yeh but in this case there are two actions one stator on each side of the stator bridge. So a push from one side and a pull form the other side cancels each other to not move the bridge. The up and down of the stator is the only thing left possible because of how the mechanism is mounted.

Observation is one thing, but if you in fact did any type of Mylow mock-up you would realize that the magnetic forces applied given  the height of the stator are very light. You can see this when he starts it up. There is JUST enough to get it to turn and then there is momentum that builds up through inertia.

There is also something else that is happening but Mylow did not focus close enough on the rotors. The turning disk itself will also push ever so slightly downward as it goes through the stator zone then come back up. I had mentioned this before, because I can see it on my wheel.

All of this now confirms the veracity of this phenomenon because each build had its own variables that Mylow compensated for. First videos with almost dead rotors/stator magnets had the stator up close. Next videos with stronger stator had is placed further away. Current video with bar rotors with stator far away and on top.

All these effects ARE REAL because the intrinsic magnetic differences on each builds were compensated for by Mylows ability to find the right spot.

This also shows that this wheel cannot be built intellectually. There is a certain feel that one must understand and I know @queue and others that are building know what I am talking about. But don't get dissuaded by failure. This is only a learning process and once you get it right, once you pass the 99% to hit 100%, this will become more evident to you guys.

Thanks Mylow for hanging in there.