Big try at gravity wheel

[powercat]

When making a claim of OU at the very least the inventive should be capable of,

1 Demonstrate a continuous working device.

2 Have his device independently verified.

3 give out information that leads others to be able to achieve 1 & 2

clearly Wayne Travis is not capable. Talking a lot and making many posts is not evidence of over-unity.

[Marsing]

When making a claim of OU at the very least the inventive should be capable of,

1 Demonstrate a continuous working device.

2 Have his device independently verified.

3 give out information that leads others to be able to achieve 1 & 2

clearly Wayne Travis is not capable. Talking a lot and making many posts is not evidence of over-unity.

No one make claim of OU here, and ok,  Wayne Travis cannot prove  his Claim,

Again, You SHould Post THIS One year Ago.

NOW is time to think How to make OU Possible,   

[minnie]

Hi,
   I thought, why not go to the top? So I asked a scientist at CERN.
I bet you can guess the answer.
                                      John.

[TinselKoala]

@Red: don't you see any significance in the _fact_ that, in spite of your 40 page manual explaining the ZED and all the rest..... nobody, including Travis and his carefully selected mob of sycophants, nobody has succeeded in demonstrating a self-running device meeting the claims?

I see that as being highly significant. So you have two realms of failure to contend with: the theoretical and the empirical. There is no real theory to support Travis's claims, his device behaves just exactly as ordinary physics predicts. And there is no practical example of any device that demonstrates anything unusual, much less self-running overunity behaviour. Even my PerPump 2.0 Heron's Fountain runs on the stored GPE of the elevated water in the input reservoir.

Imagine a big tub, half filled with water. You can put this on the fulcrum of a see-saw and get the water sloshing back and forth. If you do it right it will rock the seesaw for a while. The dual ZED device of Travis is a complicated way of slowing down this action, that's all. Once the original "slosh" is dissipated as heat and noise, the thing stops until it is "precharged" and sloshed again.

@Frank: Can you say "asymptote" ? Of course you are right that the probability of getting exactly 1/6 is less as the number of trials grows large. But, just in case you really need this explained, repeating the _series_ of trials many times leads to "errors" or deviations from 1/6 that cancel out. Each series _asymptotes_ to 1/6, and some go above it and some below it. In the -really long run- these deviations again _average_ to an asymptote of 1/6.
Now, I don't believe for a moment that you aren't aware of this. Therefore your post must have been designed deliberately by you to misdirect.

[Marsing]

@Red: don't you see any significance in the _fact_ that, in spite of your 40 page manual explaining the ZED and all the rest..... nobody, including Travis and his carefully selected mob of sycophants, nobody has succeeded in demonstrating a self-running device meeting the claims?

TK & co  OR  coTK

your post still lead to debate about self-running/OU/Claims and at the end just Blame each others among of us. 

Are YOU  HAPPY ?