I am curious about the video where he pans around the room. Showing the bed and the computer. It looks like there could be something under the pillow on the bed and in this particular video the stator is on that side. However, I do not have a hi res copy and with limited tools, contrast, light,saturation and zoom effects...I cannot detect anything. In this particular video video, he enters the room with the camera in hand and never touches the motor.
I wonder he has spun prior to filming and it is spinning down?
A speed analysis could tell if it is slowing down. Anybody do one on that video? I believe he had "still running" in the title. Anyway, here is a screen shot to the left with the stereo on the table- no motor there.

Please do not forget that I have demonstrated that the Mylow drive can be easily routed around corners, etc.

Please do not forget that I have demonstrated that the Mylow drive can be easily routed around corners, etc.

Maybe it was in the litterbox. LOL
I'm still thinking windown on this vid, as there is no interaction physically with the motor and he liberally pans the camera around the room as he did no previous video to this one.

Of course we are. He couldn't even manage a single crocodile tear in the confession/apology vid, and he's closed that YT identity, yet again. I am very sure that he has another YT identity in the wings, and that we will soon be seeing another "running" motor from Mylow, under another name.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOKGFHWJqM0

And that's not even considering the "spinning top" possibility--where he just wraps a single line around the rotor base and pulllllllssssssss......

I suppose the point is that after looking at the wood grain in the early part of the video (which i'd usually skipped over), there is definitely doubt about it being fishing line at 3:56 etc. However, he had ample opportunity to push it by hand in this one. Who knows.

@maryyugo

There is no law that says inventors have to be rational. The actual fact that they are working on such irrational devices for such long periods of time mainly in a closed setting may speak for itself. Every inventor I have known has his own level of weirdness so it comes with the territory.

@TK

I know, I know and I know, again and again that it is hard to comprehend the impossible as being possible or it is easier to think of the impossible as always impossible. We each deal with this in our own way every day we are on this or other OU forums. We search for it and when we may see it, we just don't want to believe. And that is OK.

This is why I wanted to crack all the nuts on the table.

In my view Mylow did a clean demo of Video 6. He had one hand on the camera the other free to do some very limited manoeuvrings and the camera zooming in and out would have one thinking there is something to hide. But when you see the video for what it really is, you quickly understand there was no room for any fancy tricks. If you look at this with cold logic and analytical perspective, there was no room for tricks. No room for a hand to push. The progression of the rotors is exactly how one would expect them to advance if you simply released the wheel through the repulsion part of the rotor segment. No push was given and no second push was given either otherwise we would have noticed this is the sudden rotational increase, which did not happen. And it kept on turning and turning until he stopped it by sliding the bridge to the wheel edge. The actual short scrapping sound also shows how easy it was to stop it. It took about one second.

Actually Video 6 was very well done and showed lots of control for a guy that had to do all those things while talking to the viewers and holding that camera steady enough. The only time the camera went off was when he put back the bridge which is more then understandable given he had to really look at what he was doing to not mangle the rotors. After that the video held solid even when he started the wheel. You can see he had his left palm tight on the table when holding the bridge to slide it slowly to the right. You can even see the camera moving a bit when he gave those hand exertions to the right, the camera went to the left to counter the force and keep things steady.

So if anyone can find something concrete that spells Video 6 as being fake, besides the fact that "it has to be fake", I'm more then interested. Let's put in out there and analyze it. One way or the other is all right with me as long as it can hold its own. Faking is one thing but faking a rotation to look exactly as it should look like is much more impossible to do then make a rotating Mylow wheel. We saw this with the great rotational studies.

So in a way, Mylows fakes helped us see how to find a fake and in doing so, helped us realize what a real wheel would not do. That's a good thing. Hmmmm.

@wattsup
You seem not to understand that *any* video can be fake.  There are ways to fake videos you can't even think of.  That's why anyone claiming to have created a novel source of energy needs to open source it for replication.  Mylow's was supposedly open sourced but apparently can not be replicated even though much time has gone by and several highly capable and diligent people tried.   "Close" is no cigar.  The type of "close behavior" seen (initial acceleration followed by cogging, reversing, and so on)  is expected behavior of magnets, nothing at all unusual.

The other thing one does with a real novel source of energy is to reveal it to trusted people-- in this case supposedly Mylow trusted Sterling.  Yet he never showed Sterling the actual device.  The excuses for not doing it are not credible.  Neither are the videos.

If you insist on believing what people tell you they did instead of requiring evidence, you will be bamboozled and flummoxed until long after all the cows have come home.  That's exactly what happens to Sterling.  "Again and again and again".   And Youtube videos are never reliable.  Interesting?  Sure.  Reliable evidence?  NEVER!

This has nothing to do with "what's possible".  Nor is there a need to be concerned about how a possible magnetic motor might work.  There's no point is explaining how something works if it can't be shown to work yet I see this error made all the time.    It's up to the inventor to demonstrate and document their invention in a way that can be replicated.  It's up to them to get the device tested in a way that can't be faked or spoofed.  Anything else is inviting deception.  And, as in this case, deception is all you get!