Quote from: wildew on August 11, 2012, 08:41:59 AM
Excellent use of the language @M !!
Amen

And Thank You Mr Wayne for doing all of the above.
Dale

Thank you Dale,
I know that truly interested people are here - I appreciate you and the others very much.
I have nothing to gain from this - but sharing is its own reward.
Thank you and M. and the others with such a heart -Very Much.

Wayne

Quote from: mondrasek on August 11, 2012, 07:35:49 AM
I just want to clarify what Wayne has said and has continued to do here on OU.com.  It is not to PROVE he has an OU device.  He knows he has one.  He has built it and can watch it run every day.  His plan for "proving" it to the world involved coming on this board over a year ago to ask for advise and assistance.  To that end he ended up in contact with Mark Dansie and has been working under his advisement to prepare for the testing required to "prove" his system.  It is Mark Dansie and his team that is to "prove" the system to the rest of us.

Wayne came here to OU to teach those who want to learn how his system works.  He has helped those who try to model and simulate a system every step of the way.  He is helping those individuals to prove it to themselves, even in advance of the "proof" from MD and team.

I appreciate those who want to see the "proof" of the OU of Wayne's actual machine(s).  I want that too.  But he has never said that is what he is here to do.  And barring some change of direction from Wayne, we all have been told to wait on MD for that.  If you want to pester someone for the proof, maybe you should pester MD?

But if you want to take Wayne up on his offer to learn how his set up works, to better understand the patent, or to build an analysis tool or even a device, please ask him any questions to that end.  He has so far answered with assistance on anything that is already public domain and even a bit more (when we have discovered more along the way).

Also, an opening statement like, "Sir, you are a liar,"  is just rude and bad form all around.  It is a classic example of what some individuals think is acceptable behavior while they are completely hidden behind the safety of the Internet.  If such "etiquette" were used in a face to face conversation, it would not be tolerated.  Especially when there is no evidence presented of any lie having been told by the accused?  So this is just name calling?

M.

You have restated this very clearly, thank you M. for all that you do and have done.
When you are ready to come - let me know.
Wayne Travis

Quote from: TinselKoala on August 11, 2012, 12:15:37 AM
Well, MrWayne, you sound a bit "tetchy" today.

As far as I am aware this is the first time that you have come close to stating work in / work out in actual measurable numbers. Has anyone _actually_ argued that those numbers you cite would not be overunity performance?

I think that what has actually been argued is that an input stroke of, say, 10 pounds of force over 15 inches of stroke, output producing a 20 pound lift force over 7 inches of stroke, is not overunity performance. But this is a different form of argument from what you are stating.

But even here you are stating it as a hypothetical.  Is this really your claim? If someone were to take a single one of your Zeds at a resting state, and inject 15 cubic inches of hydraulic fluid or water at 640 psi, will you really get 30 cubic inches at 640 psi back out?

ETA: I'm not hostile or rabid. I have said before that I've suspended disbelief and I'm taking MrWayne at his word... but I'm still trying to find out to my satisfaction just what the "word" really is. Are we dealing with a force multiplication system or a work amplifier? Very different beasties.

And I don't know anybody who has ever been able to figure out how to build a complex apparatus from a patent. What's needed for builders are engineering drawings with measurements, and dynamical analyses, and all that there stuff.

Hello Tk,
I agree with your logic - and experience.

I have not been here to use my machine to prove anything - and yes - it is very Overunity
MD made a video and in it explained where our output was basically twice the input - and that though the pressures changed during the stroke - they always returned to the starting point - with no additional input.

Here is a link to that video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-0TITC4Wrc

Listen closely to his words - he is right in what he observed.

That was back in Nov - his second visit - We were bleeding off the extra in that video - and since then - we took that rough model and converted it to a self runner with Data collection and electrical generation.

Now when answering questions for the team here - I have referred to that model and the data we pull - when questions about their personal modeling have risen - just to compare real world - physical comparison to the replications or modeling results.
Our physical model is a great indicator if someone is off track - usually overstating the actual - until they find where they left a cost of function out of their own model.

As one of our Very wise Advisers (who knows our system and its physics) explained to me - third party replication/duplication is more valuable than any other form of proof.

When M, and others decided to replicate - I know it only takes a couple hundred at most to build a set up - not to put on the shelf at wal mart  - but to scrutinize study and to test certain physics - such as input and output so i offered the funding to those that were willing.

Several started - I saw a real cool square mock up - but Webby followed thru and had a simple system that proved that the input was far less than the output -

I did not design his input and output - so I can not be for sure - but as he described it to me - he added a much lesser weight and lifted a much greater load - in the same time and the same distance - his details he sent to me privately - so I called him the winner.
The fact that he followed thru and then had the bravery to announce his findings - is a notch in my respect for his character.
I have countless numbers of people who replicate but are afraid of peer pressure.

The system is preloaded and that confuses people... but as others say - it is hard to jump into the conversation and expect to follow what is being discussed. Especially if you do not have a clear grasp of the function of the machine.

The desire for many - is to focus on one Zed - its in put and out put - this is a mistake - it is like calculating the work of a teeter totter with only the physics of "one side" and then trying to claim the system "balances".

More later - My beautiful wife has breakfast ;-)

Wayne

Quote from: microcontroller on August 11, 2012, 10:21:42 AM
WELL I SUGGEST YOU GET 'R DONE THEN.

WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR?

Are you going to keep repeating yourself? over and over ??
Like i said, at this point, i do not owe you anything.
I certainly hope this will change, but i doubt it.
I agree that i can be a little direct but there is nothing wrong with that.
We have seen so many fakers that we want to separate the fake from the real quickly, and you are not very helpfull, doing a terrible job at that.
It is almost as if you want your 'game' to continue in this fashion..
So once more, prove your claim or expect resistance from the skeptics and stop whining.

MC,
Each time you say this - I wonder how all the others were able to replicate from the patent and my help?
Did all your fakers have engineers posting their own physical and mathematical models?
You are dealing with the real thing my eager person - you will have to broaden your self determined limitations  a bit.
"Get er done" don't you worry about that - our team is doing an excellent job.

Wayne

Quote from: microcontroller on August 11, 2012, 10:21:42 AM

We have seen so many fakers that we want to separate the fake from the real quickly, and you are not very helpfull, doing a terrible job at that.

MC,

Please substitute the pronoun "I" where you used "we" above.  You do not speak for the group. The "me" of your "we" is in no such hurry, finds Wayne very helpful, and thinks he is doing a fine job at offering information that he does not need to provide for any reason at all.

Cheers,

M.