Quote from: microcontroller on August 11, 2012, 11:09:31 AM
Well Mr. mondrasek let me clear that out for you.
We is me and my team so, not you and me.

I wonder how long it takes for a person to examine if a device is overunity or not.
Maybe one day? or one week? one month? maybe one year??

Whoever needs that long must be either stupid or does not know anything about the subject.
At this point we have 80  pages of nonsense and make belief.
A good examiner should be able to tell within minutes if not seconds whether a device is 'massively overunity' or not.
Given that there is no external supply feeding any logic or in this case, air pressure.

So i have decided to rest my case since this is an endless discussion between a guy making claims without the courage to properly back them up and some people interested in REAL new technology.

Time will tell.

Well MC,

I understand you have never had to succeed thru multiple layers of Validation in a Free energy machine, I do not brag - I am humbled at the willingness and diligence afforded this invention.
Now - we have covered this topic before it is not a one step process. - unless you fail a step - in which case you go no further.

I know you already know this - you have made this insult before.

To All,

We have been through 7 levels of validation and passed all to date - only two more to go.

On that Note: it has been explained to me - that no one has passed - with a mechanical free energy device - even 2 stages before.

As I have also stated - I do not set the parameters of the test - I just work to meet them - each step was and is exponentially harder than last - but it is a fair process.

A silly statement like how many seconds - it would take to prove .... simply no experience with a real device.
First - a redirection again to prove our system instead of help and guide others....
Second;

It is not about "does it work" - that was level 2, - it is about "How", "Scalability", "NewTechnology", "Market", "ROI", "sustainability ", "reliability engineering", "Weibell passed modeling", "manufacturing", scientific proof,  and "good partnerships and business planning".

@ MC -You have "rested your case" from the beginning - no change, no learning, only insults and trash.

The only thing I have seen from you - was your negativity and attempt to change this forum so that it is about your thoughts - not the invention covered in this thread.

Bad form on this forum.
Good luck with you and your work.

Wayne

Meanwhile, the legitimate and fair question about work in vs. work out or average power in vs. average power out remains unanswered.  Some in "the flock" are clearly confused by these fundamental concepts.  Ironically, that is what this machine is supposed to be all about.

TK, if you ever were to visit Wayne, be sure to bring along a mechanic's stethoscope and listen in on the guts of this thing.  If you could record and run FFTs so much the better.

QuoteBut 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

TK, it looks like you made a slip-up unless I am misunderstanding you.  "X cubic inches of an incompressible fluid at Y PSI" is actually a meaningless statement.  There is no energy stored in an incompressible fluid at a given pressure.  No comment from Mr. Wayne either.

MH,

In case you forgot - until you show respect to others - as we discussed the last time you were here - don't expect me to engage.

Second - everytime you try to mislead people - one of us will set the record straight.

If you want to engage - respectfully, and with a question regarding your attempt to replicate, duplicate, or understand the function of our system.

Otherwise - Do not expect a "comment" from me.

If you want to twist the conversation to your topic of "proving our system to you" once again - as I have repeated time after time
- We have an excellent team for that. Not why I am here - and you have been told that repeatedly.

Stick to the work we are doing here -show a mite of respect to others, or do not expect engagement.

Good day.

@All, I try very hard to answer questions - I asked before - but I need to say it again - please ask single questions - I have very little time to sit and answer - multi quizzical questions get partial answers which give MH twists into accusations against me.

p.s. as I told MH last time he made these charges - if he throws a stink bag in the front, middle, or end of a question - it is just a stink bag.

Thank You

Wayne Travis

Quote from: MileHigh on August 11, 2012, 12:33:55 PM

TK, it looks like you made a slip-up unless I am misunderstanding you.  "X cubic inches of an incompressible fluid at Y PSI" is actually a meaningless statement.  There is no energy stored in an incompressible fluid at a given pressure.  No comment from Mr. Wayne either.

A hydraulic accumulator is a pressure storage reservoir in which a non-compressible hydraulic fluid is held under pressure by an external source. The external source can be a spring, a raised weight, or a compressed gas. An accumulator enables a hydraulic system to cope with extremes of demand using a less powerful pump, to respond more quickly to a temporary demand, and to smooth out pulsations. It is a type of energy storage device.
Compressed gas accumulators, also called hydro-pneumatic accumulators, are by far the most common type.

Spectacular!  From both sides.

Seriously, well done all.

I recommend everyone take a short time out.  Maybe an hour or two?

I'm gonna go line trim my yard.

M.