Quote from: conradelektro on November 05, 2012, 06:05:48 AM
.....................................This post is mostly for TinselKoala, because he tries so hard to show the errors of Mr. Wayne and his ardent followers.
Psychological studies have proven, a strong believe system can not be destroyed. So, no matter what amount of words, or scientific and technical arguments, or even actual proof that the system is not OU, nothing will ever convince Mr. Wayne and his apostles............................................
Greetings, Conrad

Some more page filler for good measure.
Conrad,  Sure it can be construed this way, but that is not the actual reality on the ground. The actuality is based on suspicion and mistrust.  Sure the point is well taken that TinselKoala and others (including me) want to see the "proof on the pudding" regarding the Travis theory presented by Wayne earlier in this thread.

An concept idea /invention delivery consists of 3 basic parts
1..  A logical reasoning/deduction/conclusion of a working theory
2..  A practical implementation/verification test of this working theory by the inventor
3..  A verification/replication of this working theory by a third party

In opposition;
TinselKoala tries so hard to point out items # 2 & 3 are not sufficiently demonstrated.
In that vain, Mr Tinselkoala has already concluded (due to the delivery delays for item #3)  that item #2  is also fraudulent and this implies by implication that #1 is also fraudulent.
Mr Tinselkoala never addressed/or objected or produced any counter argument to item #1, since he thinks understanding #1 is not important. He is also of the opinion that items #1 is not adequately explained by the inventor.

In support;
Mr. Wayne and his ardent followers, who have studied item #1  are convinced that Mr Wayne has applied sound scientific reasoning and logic to conclude that the hydro differential system principles can work as said and therefore conclude that a workings of item#2 are highly probable and possible and await the item #3 validation process.
In the same vain, Mr TinselKoala is on a tighter schedule, also waiting for the item #3 validation process but with less patience and without any clear understanding of items #1 & 2. 

Observations:
The track record of Mr TinselKoala has been interpreted as suspect by the orthodox methods used, unreasonable pressures applied throughout this threat (the carrot and stick approach (give me or "else" !).  The reason that previously several fraudulent inventors have crossed swords with Mr TinselKoala appears to have given Mr TinselKoala special recognition and that appear to have given him judge & jury powers.  Since this thread is now in the realm of psychology, I am not convinced that his motives are genuine.

Postscript: 
The underlying main reason that these odds here, stems from a basic misunderstanding of terms under which Wayne revealed his invention on this forum.  Wayne made it very clear at the very beginning that he came to share novel inventive but selective concepts and that he would not reveal all details of his invention to protect his IP,  he is not educating competitors.  This is supported by the simple inverted cup video's
Neither did he come to the forum to seek any validation approval for his invention.
He stated to have come to this forum to share knowledge (item#1 only) and he clearly said that OU was not the objective of his revelations as related to his invention (it was said that his system generated a excess output without you having to put in an energy fuel, OU was not a consideration)

TK -

If the CorreCaminos and Discerning Dave handles are not yours, then I stand corrected.
I thought they had your brand of wit and humor and I apologize if they are not yours.

Personally, I believe overall that your efforts to root out fraudsters over the years is commendable.
You are diligent, highly skilled, and very intelligent. 

Even the mighty TK is fallable though. You failed to mention in your write up of Steorn, your full involvement there. You were a majorly disruptive force at one point, causing many thousands of people to believe that you had an Overunity device. Your hoax video may have had different intentions at the time, but the result was harmful to the community. Many people went out and bought materials trying to replicate your hoax. In fact, there are still people hosting your video and perpetuating what you started.

So while I do appreciate your efforts for truth, I often don't agree with your methods.

Tom

Quote from: mondrasek on November 04, 2012, 06:18:12 PM


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.

Maybe Wayne's words can help you realise that you're too layer system should produce OU.

Quote from: mrwayne on September 07, 2012, 02:41:19 PM
Since I do not wish to be the director of "observation" - I leave that method and value up to the replicators.
A single system (105%) has only a paper value - you have nothing to give - but a dual system (160%-190%)
leaves you room to make mistakes - have losses - and to feel confident in your construction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Powercat-

IIRC,  Wayne was speaking about a single ZED with 3 layers  vs. Two Zeds in tandem, each with 3 layers.

Tom

I'm done here, have to many important task to address. I may or not be back after the system is verified, depending on if I can find another OU site that want their members to discuss in peace and doesn't allow the continuous harassment by the concrete brains.

By the way, an IP address is easy to change, just google it. It is used by some with MMD (Multiple Member Disorder). I love it when they use the alias to ask questions, so they can make a point they want to express, true psychopaths. Anyone interested should press on Discerning Dave's name and do a show post. Can you guess who he really is?

I stand by my earlier statement that I already know the results. It is from facts, seen, replicated and calculated. So please don't follow the delusional conclusions of others.

Regards, Larry