Big try at gravity wheel

[Red_Sunset]

........................................, how does that stopping him demonstrating a continuous working model ?  A simple web cam set up broadcasting the device running, would not disclose any so called vital information, but he has repeatedly failed to achieve this seemingly basic display of his claim 

PwrCat.

I would guess that your need to see proof is greater than his need.
I would guess that he wants to be ready with a production ability before he does that running public broadcast.
This allows him in the interim to stay focused on the business and development aspects to get a commercial model ready.( he is setting up and employing people now, you can join him if you are from USA)
When ready, I would guess that he will reveal and broadcast with a splash and channel media focus and publicity attention towards sales. This allows him also to have a head start on possible competition that for sure will enter the field fast.

Red_Sunset

[powercat]

You make so many excuses for him, and yet he breaks his own words, and you still have faith in him despite this, don't you find it a little strange that somebody claiming to have discovered something never discovered before is not capable of showing any evidence of any credible kind, in fact his statements and your statements are as credible as invisible pink unicorns, or Santa Claus if you prefer, claiming something that you only can talk about is not evidence that it will work in reality.

[Red_Sunset]

You make so many excuses for him, and yet he breaks his own words, and you still have faith in him despite this, don't you find it a little strange that somebody claiming to have discovered something never discovered before is not capable of showing any evidence of any credible kind, in fact his statements and your statements are as credible as invisible pink unicorns, or Santa Claus if you prefer, claiming something that you only can talk about is not evidence that it will work in reality.

PowerCat.

With due respect,  you are not reading what is written
<< You make so many excuses for him >>
I don't think so, I said "I guess",  that is based on a logical assumption because I have no idea what Wayne is exactly doing. I am on the other side of the world in relation to Oklahoma.  Seeing the weather report on CNN, I guess 
he must have some cold blustery snowy weather.  I don't know for sure because I am not there to be a witness.  But based on the information available to me, I shouldn't be too far off the mark.

<<is not capable of showing any evidence of any credible kind>> 
That depends on what strategy he decided on to follow. Notwithstanding you might be correct......I don't know.

<< your statements are as credible as invisible pink unicorns, or Santa Claus >> 
Real proof is understanding how it works, with a critical eye.

Video is no proof, have a look at YouTube,  with current hardware/Software available, you can create any deception you like.  So this is far from proof.

As in a crime scene, they say that the simplest most likely scenario is most likely what happened.

So with an invention investigation it is the same, there is a claim, then you look at what is presented, separate in modular functional components and then analyze and follow the expected basic physics behavior profile. 
Now if your assessment makes sense and your pieces when overlay-ed on the explanation of the inventor, and the puzzle matches, your are on to something.  At that point I start writing.

If there are doubts, you revisit until you can be confident that it is correct. If the doubt remains and its function is critical to the invention you most likely have a dud invention or you stumbled on Inventive Property that has not been declared by the inventor (he is trying to protect his invention).  Now you can apply your creative juices to try to reverse engineer that desired functionality, if you are lucky, you got it.  To reverse engineer you need to be of clear understanding of what the inventor is trying to achieve within the design. There are usually enough telltales to guide you.

NOW you arrived at a point that you understand this device inside-out, you say whooow because it was not your idea, it was someone else idea and you followed his logic thinking which perhaps took place over years for him to arrive at this final conclusion.  You had the advantage to leap frog over all his trials, failures, hours of thinking...ect, then you say Whooow.  Then you respect, you do not need to say "show me proof".  That obligation is now your own,

That is why I am cocky !!

<< you only can talk about is not evidence that it will work in reality >>
You are correct, the cherry on the top is the physical execution of the idea.   At this point it doesn't matter.   You think the concept is logical and real, the execution is just a matter of engineering.  If it doesn't work, you know you can go back to redesign and try again, at least you are closer to the end goal then you were before.
I am pretty sure Wayne has several working models, but he has his reasons that he keeps it close in.   I know that his experience here at "overunity.com" changed his mind on the strategy for his inventions. He realized that there are more hungry wolves out there than initially thought.  It is the wild west out there. you know the thread, you wee there.
Understandable that he wants to safeguard his invention so it can deliver what he expects from it.  I agree with him.

The conflict situations
What I see is the main conflict what plays out here at overunity.com is "self-centering", me ...me..me.
The demands made are so very often more that what the presenter can live with.
Because: You consider your needs before and over the needs of the person who is sharing.

In other words, to want to take control away from the presenter, that usually cause a reaction

Red_Sunset

[powercat]

You continue to make many excuses for him just like you have done in the past, it's like you're receiving some kind of share of investors' money, Wayne made it clear when he first joined this forum that he was looking for support and investors and that he was going to have the device independently verified, in other words he was going to prove his claim, but as we all know that never happened despite him promising it many times, when do you think he will show credible evidence ?  This year, next year the year after, in 10 years' time, 10 years now there's a good figure we have various threads on this site from another inventor that after 10 years still can't prove any OU whatsoever, looks like Wayne is joining Rosemary in continuously claiming OU but never being able to demonstrate it, for whatever plausible or ridiculous excuses he or she comes up with.

[Red_Sunset]

You continue to make many excuses for him just like you have done in the past, it's like you're receiving some kind of share of investors' money, Wayne made it clear when he first joined this forum that he was looking for support and investors and that he was going to have the device independently verified, in other words he was going to prove his claim, but as we all know that never happened despite him promising it many times, when do you think he will show credible evidence ?  This year, next year the year after, in 10 years' time, 10 years now there's a good figure we have various threads on this site from another inventor that after 10 years still can't prove any OU whatsoever, looks like Wayne is joining Rosemary in continuously claiming OU but never being able to demonstrate it, for whatever plausible or ridiculous excuses he or she comes up with. 

PowerCat,
You definitely got a hornet's nest under your bonnet!   

WHAT DO YOU WANT ME TO SAY ?

I DON"T CARE what Wayne does, test, drinks, thinks, drives, marries, loves, PROOFS,.....ect..!
I DON"T CARE what YOU POWERCAT does, test, drinks, thinks, drives, marries, loves, PROOFS,.....ect..!

What I DO CARE about is YOUR REPLY to the clarification request of post #704
Capish !  I hope that makes it clear

Red_Sunset