Quote from: Xaverius on November 04, 2012, 04:35:38 PM
The time for pre-validation will lapse in 9 hours(3:30 CST, now).  Mark Dansie's response and appearance are imminent.  The world is ready for free energy.  Anticipation..........

Just a reminder to everyone that we changed from Daylight Time to Standard Time last night. Spring forward, fall back.
So it's going to get dark early...............

Quote from: LarryC on November 04, 2012, 08:51:44 AM
"please continue, Governor"

You forgot to quote, or even answer, the question I asked in the first part of my post. Why?

Here it is again:

So, then LarryC.... you are claiming that you've seen a Hydro Differential Pressure Exhange Overunity System running, all on its own, for longer than possible on its internally stored energy, making useful power, for longer than four hours? And you are claiming that you know how to build one yourself and get it running, and you are claiming your spreadsheets accurately reflect what's going on inside the system.

Am I right? Is this what you are claiming, when you say "I already know the results" ??

Otherwise, how could you already know the results?

"It is not a matter of if it will work, but when." This sure sounds to me like it's STILL NOT WORKING YET.

Quotations in RED are of course from your own statements, LarryC.

Please continue, Governor....... continue to avoid the hard questions, like

Where is the " simple, three layer system that is clearly overunity BY ITSELF" (MrWayne's exact words), how was its clear overunity determined, what is the input/output work of this simple system?

The "by itself" part: I've always interpreted this to mean, from context, that Mister Wayne was talking about a single Zed. Otherwise why include the "by itself"?
Of course if anyone has actually SEEN this system they could tell me whether it's got two zeds or one. Or would that reveal information I'm not supposed to have?

Quote from: webby1 on November 04, 2012, 05:42:12 PM
That is a big jump to take TK,, but that is what you do.

2 risers still show one thing that you seem to think does not exist, just as Dales 3 and my 4, and that thing that does exist that you do not think can exist is another part of the system that needs to be looked at when actually thinking about the efficiency of the system as a whole.

As usual, you miss my point entirely.

Why didn't any one of the "in the know" people tell Mondrasek that he was NOT building a correct three layer system until AFTER he already had it built and was reporting well underunity results?

And as far as me thinking something doesn't exist..... you do realise that I installed a TinselZed in my modified Heron's Fountain perpetual tabletop waterpump and reported how it responded, don't you? Where I reported that the flow (pressure) was increased by the addition? But that this increased flow lasted for a shorter time than in the unmodified Heron's Fountain? To me, that's strong evidence that there is an effect happening and I've never denied that. Once again..... as usual.... others misrepresent my position, and attack their misrepresentations. (It also seems to me that I met and exceeded Mister Wayne's self-running tabletop waterpump challenge with this device, but I never really expected to get any acknowledgement from him for that.... since my system's not overunity and he wanted an _overunity_ waterpump. Which he still doesn't have.)

Meanwhile.... it's getting dark outside already, on Sunday the 4th of November.

Quote from: TinselKoala on November 04, 2012, 06:01:12 PM
As usual, you miss my point entirely.

Why didn't any one of the "in the know" people tell Mondrasek that he was NOT building a correct three layer system until AFTER he already had it built and was reporting well underunity results?

Truth be told, of course I was disapointed to learn that I did not build a three layer system.  I think I said so at the time.

But I also never expected to build something that was OU.  And this is because I did not design what I built specifically for any intended performance characteristics.  I freely admit that I do not have the skills to analyze the system and/or simulate it in order to have designed something with an expected performance in mind.

Instead, I just built from what was at hand that could come close to what was in the patent app and the explanations in this forum at the time.  I knew from the start that it was too short for the diameters I was using as far as was explained by the inventor.  I did not fully understand why until I built what I have, but now I would agree that the proportions are way out of whack.  But then again, that is only my opinion and would need to be tested first if I were going to change that statement to a claim.

All in all it would have been quite an amazing coincidence if what I built performed similar to anything that Wayne has described as OU.  My build is what it is. 

But I can still test it to see what it can do and not do and what I can learn from it and share.

It is still pretty cool.  Seriously.

Now, lets do some science...

M.

Preserved here for posterity and comment, from the FAQ section of Mister Wayne's  Brain (http://mrwaynesbrain.com/index.php/our-system-explained)

This is Fair Use for educational and archival purposes. No copyright infringement is intended.

Quote
Do you have a working model?[/font]
As of Mid October - we have built - in house 9 models, each new progression in the development better than the last.
Currently we have two complete models and both work as claimed.Both have been independently replicated - This helps our partnerships and development teams.
Visitor's have access to both models and the history of the development for those interested. Business questions and questions regarding optimizations require an NDA.
We have a model ten in progress - each model uses a unique method to create the advantage over Gravity and the correlating relationships of our differential process. They do not look the same - and one is better than the other for different uses.
They all use our discovery and method to turn the conservative field of gravity into a viable energy source - unlocking that key is the diamond to our success.
Derek wrote in and asked: "Thank you for your time. I have two questions spurred from the Our System Explained page.

Of the two models working as claimed.

1. What is the claim?

2. How long has each model successfully run" My Response: Since 2008, when we first stumbled onto the "Travis Effect" (named by one of the visitors to our lab) we began developing a system to maximize the usefulness of that effect - The claim has been that we can and have developed a energy conversion method to reduce the input cost to our system to such a degree that we have excess "Net" energy from that system. We call it clean and free energy, others want us to call it overunity - which does not really fit our vision of the machine - but for communication - we accept that charge. So our "Claim" is simple - The ZED technology provides a way to provide Net Energy with no fuel, emissions, input or noise (which can be confirmed with simple physics). And after four and half years - we have reduced the cost of the system to the point that we are cheaper in cost than all categories of Energy production. Much noise has been made over the years over our explanations - and we don't mind any of it - how it works is just fun conversation - and some people take it way to far - others can't grasp the simple concept. Our Focus is in the Production model, our testing, and our alignments. Part Two: I don't avoid this question - and it is often asked to help people discern if we eventually run out - or the viability of our system - Both of the questions are out of the scope of the Models we built 1 thru 8, (like asking how far your car can drive when you have only built the engine) 1-8 were built to test specific design variations - aspects and functions of our gravity capture methodology. None of those were built to run for more time than it took to collect and analyze the Data,.........  Our Model 7, which was a conversion of model 6, model six was just a input/output of a three layer system - the First model the Skeptics reviewed. The Skeptics asked that we convert to a closed looped system - which we did and it ran "closed looped" for the Skeptics. We ran until they were satisfied that degradation was not a concern. Our personal longest run with those systems was four hours - longer was not needed from this system - since it gained from the first stroke and continued to gain at the same rate as long as we let it run - no degradation was observed - we started and stopped the system as many times as we wished. The point with our system even in that infant stage - was that our ZED technology had the potential to be self sufficient - from the start - - from the first stroke on - eventually it sinks into your head (in general) that if you begin gaining immediately and continue without fuel or additional input or loss - the age old question of entropy - or winding down, using entropy to judge the system is superfluous. Scalability, total NET, structural integrity, and ROI - are the right questions. After they left (the skeptics) - we did more testing with this system - Eventually in our testing - the first degradation was a broken weld in the bag and then when we maxed the system we bent the lever arm that connected the bags. Model Eight was and is the Data Collection system - it has sensors everywhere to measure all changes in the system - it was not a self running system - but an upgrade - we repaired all the failure points with the model 7 - a little good engineering - and began pulling data for the Validation team and our engineers - Now - Our current status - our model 9 is an accumulation of the best of everything we have learned - the data collection model was worth every bit of pain the system required to modify - model 9 is the best/ cheapest capture of the principal of our operation. Model 9 will run continuously - but it is not our production model - it is the last stage before the Beta field model - our Beta field models will run providing excess without a doubt - we have done our due diligence's -as all of our engineers confirm confidently - (which is a important considering the stigma). One final note: We are in business to provide a quality product - over 2000 years have passed with the goal of free energy - we made the decision to do it right - the first time. In that light - you will understand our process - and our lack of concern about the length of time our development models run - when we built model 10 - that will be its focus - among further understanding of the rest. We do understand why that question is asked - which it is often - usually to determine the entropy - our system is not a fuel based system - it consumes nothing (nothing tangible, measurable yes) Our system runs on Gravity. Entropy of "parts" is our concern - which will be thoroughly engineered and tested in the Beta development. With Model 10 - entropy of parts is the main question - we have our design well tested and legally secure - we have solid IP protection and backing. In line with our companies vision - we are in our proper order - after we discovered the potential and its understanding - we moved to develop low cost designs, after low cost designs - we are moving to develop long running devices - it is our business perspective - we are allowing the validation teams to have the scientific perspective. Our vision is for long term success - A secure quality product to Market - to the benefit of the world and the consumer (not fame). Thank you for asking, and sorry for the delay. I take the time to answer all questions - we have 121 members internationally who help us, have visited our work we have an open door policy - we are well secured, and positioned to be the answer to the clean energy desire - with a positive ROI - the first for clean energy.

(sic)

Four hours maximum run time so far, of ANY of the devices. Each one uses a DIFFERENT "unique" method of capturing gravity. No concern for run times. Making the design economical first THEN working toward long run times. Model 9 "will" run continually... not "does run" continually.
Entropy of parts..... do you know, I think perhaps Mister Wayne doesn't really understand what "entropy" means.