Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.

[ramset]

TK
Yah gotta stop smokin that stuff!!

Chet

[mondrasek]

Okay, so I've *gotta* ask...

How do we know the color of the unicorn if it is invisible?  I mean, does the color change come first?  Or the invisibility?

I'm assuming the color is before the invisibility, so aren't you really naming your invisible unicorns by the color they were *before* they became invisible?!?  How do you know they did not change colors either while they were becoming invisible or therafter?

M.

PS.  Is unicorn a proper noun in this situation or not?  Should I be capitalizing it as Unicorn?

[DiscerningDave]

Okay, so I've *gotta* ask...

How do we know the color of the unicorn if it is invisible?  I mean, does the color change come first?  Or the invisibility?

I'm assuming the color is before the invisibility, so aren't you really naming your invisible unicorns by the color they were *before* they became invisible?!?  How do you know they did not change colors either while they were becoming invisible or therafter?

All these questions!  What is it with you doubters?  TK's not here to give you all the answers.  You need to get busy and build your own IPU.  That's the only path to enlightenment!

[TinselKoala]

Ah, I see that there is still some confusion. Let me deal with some of the questions, if I can. This might help the sincere animal husbander to breed his own herd of invisible pink Unicorns. But the sckeptics and clownsnakes will just have to shovel it.

First, science has for thousands of years believed that the qualities "invisible" and "pink" are somehow exclusive. For many years, garage inventors have been tinkering with invisibility and have never been able to make a pink animal become invisible, nor have they been able to demonstrate pinkness in any invisible thing. "Invisibility is a conservative field" they cry. Well, we haven't transcended any physics we have just figured out a way to work around traditional physics to our advantage. A single Unicorn is only 70 percent invisible, true, but two of them are 140 percent invisible, and the more you have, the more invisible (and pink) they become.

But let me just give you a simple illustration, the Tinsel Effect. Anyone can do this themselves, with just a windowless laboratory and a Unicorn. But I've been able to harness this effect (no pun intended) to do what nobody has done before. Take your Unicorn, pink--- well, it can be any color really, use a brown one if you don't have pink--- and bring it into your laboratory. I suppose anyone can see that it is a real Unicorn and is pink. (Or brown or whatever.)

Now... turn out all the lights. Voila! Your pink Unicorn is now invisible. (And no one can deny that it is still pink.) True, this invisibility only lasts as long as the lights are out.... but I've found a way to use this effect to make investors open their purses anyway. (Don't turn the lights back on.)

As to the issue of Unicorn vs. unicorn--- first I want to thank Mondrasek for these excellent questions, they show that he is sincerely trying to understand the system rather than just calling it a bunch of horseshite hooey, a reductio ad absurdum or a satire.
I've patented the system..... (well actually I've got an idea for a sketch of a drawing for a patent application) and once the paperwork is acknowledged then the use of the capitol Unicorn will be protected as a trademark, like Kleenex (tm) or Jesus (tm).

[TinselKoala]

Seriously now..... the point of this exercise is clearly to emphasise that a paragraph of additional claims, coming "a day late and a dollar short" after a self-imposed deadline to be "up and running" for a validation team inspection is missed ..... proves nothing and could just as well be a tale of pink unicorns, invisible kind.

Does Mister Wayne have what he claims, including all these new variations? I don't know. Why don't I know? Because the people in control of the information have chosen NOT to release anything that looks like real proof, or lately even real evidence at all, that what they claim is true. Since the claim flies in the face of physics... the physics that allowed us to land a mobile robot laboratory on Mars, that allows us each to own and control dozens of powerful computers, that can take the heart out of a fresh corpse and use it to give years of life to a sick child.... the claim, without solid proof, must be taken as false until demonstrated otherwise. Nothing in this thread in terms of theoretical analysis, discussion of hypothetical operation modes, simulations, or real model builds has provided any support for Mister Wayne's claims of overunity performance. Spreadsheet results that _do_ appear to predict OU results apparently cannot duplicate the results from an actual tested system. Mister Wayne is certainly under no obligation to provide me or anyone else (other than his investors) with proof of his claims... but then one must wonder why he started this thread in the first place.

In addition it now appears that Mister Wayne is following a standard script. Devices are claimed to exist that work, but refinements are made and new devices are built, which is why the old ones cannot be tested or demonstrated any more. As soon as the new devices are ready-- incorporating a new set of miracles or a new instantiation of the old miracles-- they can be tested. Just as soon as they are ready and "up and running". No further mention is to be made about testing the OLD devices, like the simple three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself.
This pattern has been repeated so many times it's hard to know which example is best. Steorn, Rossi, Magnacoaster, Thane Heins, MyLOW, Archer Quinn, I could go on and on .... large and small, expensive and cheap, all these organizations and people claimed to have a unit that worked and could be tested, then reneged by developing-- or claiming to develop-- new and better systems that would be tested soon..... but nobody ever gets to test the OLD, allegedly working, systems that started the whole affairs.

No, I don't _know_ for absolutely certain that Mister Wayne doesn't have what he claims. But I believe in physics and in the proper principles of scientific exploration and communication, so the reasons for my disbelief in Mister Wayne are sound, and the "cure" for them is easy: just show me the sausages. But the sausages have been replaced by a new model and nobody wants to talk about -- or test or demonstrate--- the old sausages any more.

The simple, three layer system that is clearly overunity by itself (MrWayne's exact words) .... how was this clear overunity determined, what is the input/output work ratio, where is this system now, why can it not be demonstrated and shown to be clearly overunity by itself?

Is it an invisible pink unicorn?