Quote from: fletcher on September 07, 2012, 05:38:22 PM
Hi .. nahh .. Michel's enjoying red sunsets in Saudi Arabia.

Hi Fletcher,
Naaa...h, unfortunately no Red Sunset's in Riyadh, the dust makes the sun go down at ~25dgr altitude in a milky haze.
The name Red_Sunset was taken from the red sunset in Chesapeake Maryland, early last July while being on a sailboat we delivered to Georgetown on the Sassafras river in Chesapeake bay coming from the San Blas islands in Panama and loosing our mast in a storm 30 miles SW of Key West in the Florida Straits.
That was the time when you had an heatwave reaching 104dgrF. in Virginia / Maryland.  Using the internet at sundown and seeing the stupid unconsidered attacks on Wayne, I created this name to reply in support of him. But there was some issue with the name confirmation, soit was not used at the time. It just happened to be a beautiful impressive sunset at the time, the reason for the name.
What have we achieved since then, the same old mucky dialog, and I think I will do the same thing than Wayne.Leave the tread.
Because the people can not advance because they can not help themselves, because they do not want to be helped. A lost cause. Better get on with developing improvements for the zed, bigger output for smaller size.
Regards, Michel

Thanks for that Michel - I'm in Fiji , so plenty of red sunsets but the name was taken.

That's one option you can take - leave I mean, & concentrate on improving performance of the ZED - just perhaps, now you have a better appreciation of the uphill battle to convince people that you have something so special that it is world changing.

A lot of that credibility is earned & comes from moving on two fronts simultaneously - having rigorous data collection & scientific method, that is indisputable, even to the most entrenched person reading this thread - that means a good versatile & adaptable model.

The second, especially for a mechanical system like this, is to use simple Newtonian mechanics which is even preferable given most understand it - that's why most skeptics here will concentrate on either a gain in Potential Energy or Kinetic Energy full cycle which would prove beyond doubt that gravity is not conservative.

I don't think there is any need to delve into Bernoulli fluid dynamics of fluid flow or Reynolds numbers etc & other higher order considerations of fluids & pressures - a simple 'it has so much work put in to it & it raises the PE thus' is usually a sufficiently detailed explanation IF the results conclusively back this up - you don't even have to close the loop because it is self evident that the loop could be closed.

Wayne said at the beginning that he had studied Rossi's E-Cat release & I think Steorn or was it ... well it doesn't matter, & had learned from that experience, yet even with his & yours proclaimed goodwill intent it has been tough going though not unexpectedly so IMO - what you do learn at public forums like this has more to do with human nature than anything else - this is an obstacle to overcome for yours or any new release of free-energy that might eventuate.

Probably the most interesting thing from my perspective is that HydroEnergyRevolution Inc has publicly plotted its course & set its sails, no going back in the box - in time [& I'm very patient] everything will come to light [I'm not prejudging that outcome] - nothing will be hidden except for improvements & developments in train & yet to be patented etc - at that time, not to distant future, all this apparent 'slow trawling out of information & you are bad boys for asking' will seem irrelevant - I understand why you guys are doing this re: "teach a man to fish & feed a man etc", & to give yourselves some insurance by spreading the word - usually that's done hard & fast & effectively & the teaching comes later.

Anyway, whatever you do it has actually mostly been a pleasure - I don't think you'd make a good teacher though & I'd probably be a bad pupil - don't particularly like authority etc  - may the sand not blow up your skirt.

P.S. these are just my opinions.

Gents,
Goodbye until there is a drastic change in this forum
I have nothing to gain or loose for being on this forum and I can no longer justify my time to be here
I start to be bothered by questions such as,
Why am I here ? taking time typing explanations, some philosophy ...ect,  to what purpose? when I can be spending my time on a better and more productive purpose. I think I have full-filled my obligations in context with this forum (as repayment to previous gains)

What puzzles me on this forum, 
What do you die-hard members want out of this forum?
Why do certain member behave, respond, the way they do?
Why give...give..give.., some members can not even search 2 pages back for the answer, so why repeat?
What do the notable emotions indicate ?
Why do milehigh, microcontroller, Tinselkaola sent me multiple private mail? 
Why are they angry ?, is it a tantrum because they can not get what they ultimately want ?
What is their ultimate objective ?
They can be in control to satisfy their own frustration in a academic way, why do they take the chosen path ?
The forum is only 1/2 inch away of the final and main principle of OU, but you do not want to engage, why?
The mathematician seamus has still not shown one number to support his rejection, why ?
Why does seamus not prove in a detailed way why conservation prevents OU in the Zed ?
I am sure Seamus has done the analysis privately, why does he not share it online ?
What is Seamus objective ?
I am sure that Seamus, TinselKoala and several others understand exactly the principle of OU in the Zed, why do they want to frustrate others to know it ?
As a forum, how do you grow logical reasoning that leads to creativity ?
Do people want to understand a clever technique that exploits physics to great benefit?
Do people just want short term benefit for own gain, like a quick rip-off the creation of someone else ?
How much importance do the test values have with understanding vs understanding the concept working principles ?

If you want to create something new you have to come up with a new idea. New idea's are based on new things, revolutionary new idea's are based on new things that were not possible before. Invention and innovation is usually based on new idea's, new angles and techniques in a step-stone fashion. In order to make the next step in this process, you need to understand the previous step.  If not, the process is at risk to fail on the first hurdle.  Too my amazement, certain people will build this Zed device without understanding the pivotal technology principles that underpins its working. Maybe they hope it will reveal itself in due time, what is very possible but the risk is high. Logical reasoning leads to understanding as they are critical ingredients to avoid failure.

The cycle of life is giving in order to receive, a lesson of life that is very well understood by Wayne.  Make no mistake, we can ALL learn more about Zed's and the physics that underpin it,  that is why positive engagement is mutual beneficial.  This story is far from finished.

All the best for the time being,
Michel

QuoteGoodbye until there is a drastic change in this forum

Don't let the door hit you in the butt!
Just FYI... If I never read this stupid forum again... NOBODY WOULD CARE! Why do you think that anyone cares if you login and read these messages?
Reading these posts is just something to pass the time...

Quote from: fletcher on September 08, 2012, 12:57:54 AM
Thanks for that Michel - I'm in Fiji , so plenty of red sunsets but the name was taken.
Anyway, whatever you do it has actually mostly been a pleasure - I don't think you'd make a good teacher though & I'd probably be a bad pupil - don't particularly like authority etc  - may the sand not blow up your skirt.
P.S. these are just my opinions.

Hi Fletcher,
Sorry missed your mail while busy with others, Nooop Fletcher, I thought you were the best pupil on this forum.
I am not teacher, I am usually way more patient in teaching someone, but I have no time for someone who is not prepared to make an effort to learn or understand what is being thought. For a student that shows he wants to know and makes an effort, I will go all the way without limitation to help.
I agree with your analysis on methods to introduce new concepts.  There is a lot to be said for going on a forum to introduce a concept like this, I personally do not believe this is the best vehicle to do an introduction for this invention. Although it gave Wayne a good taste of the variation in reception can be expected from the academic and business worlds, I am sure that was what he was after.  What is the best introduction ? I think is a good question, a good working model that produces ~ 1kwh running for a week at a strategic site like a mountain top feeding a rotating search light would make an impression.
I believe like in sailing, preparation is everything,  any concept depends on communication of understanding, certain concepts require way more visual than words to describe it, and throw into the mix inventive methods that work their way around basic physics laws, you need a good thesis to support these claims.
To present it through this forum, I do not think you can get away with  the reverse process "tell and then show',  that requires too much of the average mind,  it needs a "show than tell". 

To help my investigations, I have been doing a write-up in order to formalize and structure all information relating to the Zed with my own deductions. This document is taking shape like something alike to  "Zed for dummies" or the " Zed riddle explained" and is still in progress. By moving away from the forum, I should get more time to spent and finalize this.

I have always been receptive to a good creative idea, doesn't matter which science. The zed intrigued me, and initially I thought the same thing what you guys say on the web with the difference that I dug in deep, I wanted to understand where the OU entered the picture. This takes time to clearly understand these processes and connect the dots (I am in communication and project management, not in hydraulics)  Wayne provided from time to time in addition to the forum some pointers along the way by request, it took a lot of sleeping over it, visualizations and simplifications of design...ect, but the penny dropped eventually.  The realization of discovery is just too sweet.  I have never build one, but the theory is sound and none of the individual processes violate the conservation law, sounds weird but that is how it is.
If you approach the issue from the conservation angle, you will be blind enough not to see it, analyze NOT to see it, do it step by step, do not overlook any part of the setup and you will see.
If you or seamus only presented to me your conservation analysis, I could have pointed out where the conundrum is, and you and we and I would have advanced.  Even if you would be able to refute it in a logical argument that would be indisputable, I would accept being wrong.  Although I do believe that Wayne has a working model to support it,  that should reduce the possibility of a refute.

PS; We can be firm in our beliefs so long it doesn't close (shutdown) our brain, that is when the trouble starts. I see this tooo often.

Go well and hopefully our paths cross again, Michel