Seamuss,
Instead of working from the top down, could you start from the bottom up.
Just as an exercise, forget the LAWS, while you work you way up from simple points of discovery.
Could you ?

Red, did I not refer you some time ago to the story of Dr Peter Graneau, PhD., professor emeritus Physics at MIT,  and his son Dr Neal Graneau, PhD., physics, working at Oxford University in England?

Graneau the father had a completely worked out, very plausible theory of excess energy, solar energy in his thinking, that could be liberated from liquid water by discharging a high power arc through it. He could talk to you for hours, provide simple, undeniably valid equations modelling his theory, and it was consistent in almost every way you could imagine _except_ that it violated CofE and had a certain element of circularity in its overall argumentation. This is a physics professor from MIT, so you had better believe him. Right? You can't assail his math arguments... if his assumptions were true his conclusions were valid. IF.

Many many experiments were done with amazing results, legendary in fact. Supersonic jets of cold fog punching holes through thick aluminum plates! Jets of invisible cold fog that could pass through 10 cm of water without disturbing it, only to erupt violently at the surface. As the tech team... a truly international one, with branches on the Continent, in the UK, in the USA and in Canada... as the tech team got better and better, the true experimentation kind of stopped and efforts morphed into attempts to extract the excess energy that Graneau... and by this time some others with deep pockets--- were absolutely sure was there. But trial after trial, apparatus after apparatus, failed to produce any excess energy from the water arc discharges. This phase of the effort went on for seven years and consumed around 1.5 million dollars US, without bearing any fruit other than bitter apples of frustration.

Graneau of course accused his workers of incompetence rather than examining his simple theory and model for flaws.

Then..... a fresh pair of eyes entered the scene, and some real experiments began again, to examine the fundamental claims of the theory, rather than looking for flaws in the apparatus. And to cut to the chase and make a long story short, the _scientific_ experiments showed that the original claims and basic assumptions made by the Graneaus, father and son,  were wrong. From this, considerable effort went into finding the _appropriate_ mathematical model for the high-intensity shockwave phenomena encountered when you blast a few cc's of water with 20 kV at 2 kA current. The shockwaves were imaged using newly developed high-speed Schlieren photography in a transparent refractory arc chamber. It was elegant work which confirmed the new model, showed Graneau's old model based on conservation of momentum was not applicable after all.... and the new model accurately predicted the results of further experiments measuring output energies from the system, which Graneau's method severely overestimated.

Seven Years! Dozens of people, two continents, five countries! A math model based on solid physics and conservation principles! PhD Physicists from the world's best Universities! A Megabuck and a half of funding support just for the Graneaus alone! Papers in scholarly journals!  Everything !!

Just one tiny problem: they were wrong.

Bottom line: No longterm self runner means that the theory that you and Mister Wayne have such faith in.. .that logical theory that certainly "should" work in practice.... is flawed in some way, perhaps simply by being the wrong theory for the job at hand, like Graneau's was.

Now it's no simple thing to _disprove_ a theory in the manner I've described above. The highspeed video camera needed to photograph events inside the transparent arc chamber cost around 30,000 dollars and is restricted technology; the highspeed Schlieren photography of that kind of event had only rarely ever been done, mostly as demonstrations by the camera manufacturers, and required some pretty tricky fabrication of apparatus; the correct math model was more complex than Graneau's simple one and required the consultation of mathematical physicists and hydrodynamicists from another major university for development and application and analysis.... and even Graneau's co-authors on the papers I mentioned earlier decided to retract their names from the papers, requiring letters to editors and so on.

Anyhow, in this case there's not even anything to disprove, that I can see. No sausages, in other words.

Nine Hundred and Sixty Percent ! I'm flabbergasted. My overunity meter doesn't even go that high, it pegs at COP>6.

Quote from: Red_Sunset on November 07, 2012, 05:48:24 AM
PowerCat,  I thought that Wayne explained his invention rather well.  Sure he was a bit economical on elaborate disclosures, and didn't go into great detail but using a thinking mind it could be decrypted.
Nowhere do I see a question that hasn't been answered in this forum,  the only request that has been refused is actual life data.

Wayne's explanation lead to a number of members attempting to build a device that according to Mr. Wayne
Should produce clear overunity, I didn't see any member here produce clear overunity.

Quote
Skeptics don't object to a theory point, they just claim it doesn't work without stating what doesn't work,. Stating that the whole thing doesn't work doesn't help anybody.
I think we have a serious disconnect here !

I have never said it doesn't work and at the beginning of this thread I even congratulated Wayne,
Unfortunately as time went on it became clear that Wayne is not somebody to be trusted.

QuoteI think you are correct, I spent too much time on this forum, you could say addicted.

That's not what I said, I said you are addicted to this thread, you only ever post in this thread,
do you ever look at  anything else on the forum ?

200 Pages.

All i can say is WOW.

Quote from: TinselKoala on November 07, 2012, 06:05:27 AM
Red, did I not refer you some time ago to the story of Dr Peter Graneau, PhD., professor emeritus Physics at MIT,  and his son Dr Neal Graneau, PhD., physics, working at Oxford University in England?
.......................................
Just one tiny problem: they were wrong.

Bottom line: No longterm self runner means that the theory that you and Mister Wayne have such faith in.. .that logical theory that certainly "should" work in practice.... is flawed in some way, perhaps simply by being the wrong theory for the job at hand, like Graneau's was.
.........................................................................
Anyhow, in this case there's not even anything to disprove, that I can see. No sausages, in other words.
Nine Hundred and Sixty Percent ! I'm flabbergasted. My overunity meter doesn't even go that high, it pegs at COP>6.

TinselKoala,
It is no problem that the theory is wrong, 
It is no problem that there is no OU, real or virtual or imagined in any other way !
Just give me a good reason WHY IT CAN NOT WORK !
Wayne gave you his run down why it can work. At this point I do not want to go to the actual build for obvious reasons.

The problem on this forum is that the resident experts "claim it wrong" without giving any other reason than.....200yrs of thermodynamics.  We do not want to know.
You live next door, oh no, we rather argue until we see blue in the face !
No discussion, no di-section, no anything. ....only "can not work"

Without changing your position, we obviously have nothing further to talk about other than filling up pages with just text.