Thank you Neptune,
History has a way of repeating itself - unless we learn from it, and then we can plan to do things diffirently.
I am sure you heard Mark D say that we were doing everything right -
What he means is that we are paving the way so that we do not repeat the errors that many others have made in trying to introduce a new understanding in the realm of physics - not a denial of what is understood.
The truth is - the understanding of physics has leaped year after year - it is immaturity that thinks that everything is understood and nothing new can be discovered.
It is also true that billions of dollars have been spent looking - someone wrote recently -
Paraphrasing - "History does not favor the idea that those with the most education or the most money make the greatest discoveries".
Mature minds know that discoveries are made by the people who chase anomolies - that many people write off as noise, fringe technology.
If I have one single giftedness - it is persurverance - no worries on faulire or quiting.
Thanks again
Wayne 

Physics laws cannot be broken.  They are known as "laws" because experiments can be done that predict the outcome.  So you can perform any experiment and the physics "law" will return the same answer as the experiment.  Everytime.  Both positive and negative.

In the case of Mr. Wayne's ZED we are not dealing with a physics law, AFAIK.  We are dealing with the "assumption" that a Conservative Field of Force cannot do Work.  This is not a "law."  It is only what has been observed throughout history (and therefor taught to students).  But there is a difference between this "assumption" and a "law".  The law can be used to predict the outcome of an experiment.  The assumption cannot.  This is because there is no experiment that can prove that the assumption is incorrect.  How do you "prove" that something is not possible?

Mr. Wayne may be rewriting the teachings about the "assumptions" that a Conservative Field of Force cannot do work.  But he is in no way rewriting the "laws" of physics.

As I have been taught, and have repeated:  The laws of physics are pretty good.  They have been used to launch rockets from Earth and deposit their payloads on Mars.  I mean, that is pretty good!

M.

Quote from: Seamus101 on June 24, 2012, 06:55:51 PM
He is doing no such thing. Apart from from unverified assertions that his device works as described, his explanations of how this occurs are nonsensical and demonstrably false.

Welcome back Seamus!  Please demonstrate the falseness?

M.

Quote from: Seamus101 on June 24, 2012, 06:55:51 PM
He is doing no such thing. Apart from from unverified assertions that his device works as described, his explanations of how this occurs are nonsensical and demonstrably false.

Essentially he is making the assertion that water can be made to flow uphill, gaining gravitational potential energy without the input of work. It doesn't, not in nature , nor in this device.

It is my policy to be respectful, but do not confuse my respectful nature with giving you permission to be disrespectful.
Here are the facts for Seamus:

You have created a new user name -  added 28 posts, all 28 on this thread, most assertions and misdirection of our claims.

You have failed at making one positive contribution to this thread -  In defense or denial of this thread.

And in regards to your last comment:
You already know that water flows in which ever direction up / down / sideways - away from the higher pressure towards the lower pressure.

The direction of water can be controlled by controlling those pressure differences,

The effect of gravity within that flow can and has been used for work for centuries.

You don't have to post here humorously, we are trying work together.

I am not sure how we have injured you to warrant your tainted  attention, but in case it was in my error - I am sorry.

Wayne

Seamus wrote,
"1. Post conclusive proof that a single layer system employing the travis effect could result in overunity energy, no matter how small.
2. Failing that, demonstrate what new mechanisms other than buoyancy and expansion/compression of air are in play and providing overunity energy in a layered system.
3. Failing that, provide a conclusive account of how you machine increases the *energy* (not just the forces) of a closed system,( ie without any external inputs no matter how small).
4. Failing that admit your machine is not OU.

Did you copy this list from Mark E and old Kanshi notes?"

You - just as Mark E, 
Have mistakenly set yourself up as the expert - in which you understand nothing about our system by your list of questions.

Lets start with your largest flaw in your question - which is the base of your argument for all the questions.

You make the assumption that layering a system can not improve the efficiency.

Your point in simple terms - would be to say that hooking two 35% efficient motors together does not make a 70% efficient motor - your would be right if that is what we have stated. - It is not what we have shown.

Each layer of the Travis effect adds to the total lifting capability - just like hooking motors together would -  the difference is in the input - adding layers does not increase the volume of our input - and the increase in pressure is not proportionate to the output.

I agree that hooking six 35% efficient 2hp Briggs ans stratton motors will net you 12hp - the increase in cost is proportionate to the output.
But you have ignored that stacking six layers of the ZED together increases the output at a disproportionate rate to the input -
which makes your questions - invalid.
Several forum members have offered calculators for weeks that you can use to verify the disproportionate aspect of our layering system.

To be clear, your list of questions is based on a fallacy in relationship to what has been shown..

If you are Mark E or speaking for him, do your homework as we have already discussed - if not - you can wait until the tests results are released.
You have not demonstrated the effort to understand.
Good night

Wayne