Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[MarkE]

Careful! Honest Wayne Travis has asked the NDA signers not to discuss the True and Holy Zed any more!

You can only discuss the lesser, pseudoZeds that are proven mathematically not to work. They are endorsed by the Zed Priesthood as being correct models, up until all the kinks are worked out of the math. Then when the math is all correct and it's impossible to claim that the models could work, it is revealed from on high that the models aren't really like the True and Holy Zeds at all..... Honest Father Wayne was just joking around with you, since he cannot reveal the actual operation of the True and Holy Zed and can't show any working model. The Law, and the agreements he has made, prevent it!

Many people believe all kinds of utterly crazy things. That doesn't mean it's true.

Looking through some of the nonsense that the fraud:  "Honest Wayne Travis" posted in the very beginning, he definitely was claiming that the nested Russian dolls of ignorance were OU.  They are of course not OU as has been shown. 

[MarkE]

Round and round we go Tom.  There is a mountain of evidence carefully collected over hundreds of years by countless researchers that brought us to and daily reinforce our beliefs:  Energy is conserved and gravity is a conservative field.  To say or imply that somehow those beliefs have any chance of being overturned by bathtub toys is absurdly ridiculous.  Your claim that you are being scientific when you willfully ignore evidence on the one hand and ascribe to unevidenced beliefs on the other is so unscientific behavior as to be idiotic.

It is up to the person making the extraordinary claim to back that claim with strong evidence.  You parrot Wayne's false extraordinary claims.  No one has brought any evidence that backs those claims. 

You have shown zero evidence that you can get surplus energy splashing water around.
You have shown zero evidence that you can get gravity to behave in a non-conservative way.
Neither have any other supporters of Wayne Travis' investment fraud offered any evidence.

You go on about "sharing" when it is you who fail to share any data that backs your bull shit.  AFAIAC you long ago cast yourself in the roll of a troll.  You did so and continue to do so in support of a crime in progress.  That's a curious choice that you have made.

If you want to be scientific, then act scientifically:  Produce evidence that supports your claims.

[minnie]

     Webby,
               surely the scientific route would be to present diagrams and data and then get it
   scientifically peer reviewed by a competent scientist.
      Flieschman and Pons ( spelling?) jumped the gun somewhat and that didn't seem to
    work out too well for them.
        As for the patent done by Dunnowho's Kidding or whatever they're called you can't
     really gain much insight from that, although they're probably laughing all the way to
     the bank!
                    John.

[MarkE]

Tom, you have repeated your same appeals without evidence for many many posts now.  Your professed beliefs in violations of established science without supporting evidence have turned into obvious trolling.

[powercat]

Mark:

Ah, the old "lost notebooks" ploy.  That is almost as good as the "I signed an NDA so I can't show any evidence" ploy.  Stefan should add a line to the TOS for this website that demands that anyone who makes a free energy claim must show proof, and NOT demand that others de-bunk it.  Otherwise, TK's unicorn in his backyard might be eligible for the OU prize.

Bill

Agree,
claimants persistently claiming without some kind of control on their posting "I have achieved free energy", should always be challenged, and if found lacking some kind of control would seem reasonable.  Before we end up with more and more pages going nowhere but argument.