Big try at gravity wheel

[minnie]

    Hi,
         has this whole thing become a waist of time?

                  John.


     
     
 
                                     

[mrwayne]

OU - what is OU, it seems to be such a hang up for some - and just the word seems to draw so much emotion for few.

Is it more energy out than was put in?

Is it continual Energy from a black box with no inputs?

Does all science support the idea that OU must defy science?

Is OU really an extraordinary claim?

...........................................

Our engineers - and the ones that have visited - use common engineering to evaluate our system and they concluded - the system is Overunity.

Maybe even Surprisingly to them - they did not have to write magical formulas to come to that conclusion.

...........................................

Let me say it as clearly as I can to help powercat in his and TK's assumed charge against me:

In full cycle - A single ZED can be configured to utilize gravity as non conservative process - by altering the pressure and effected surface area during specific points in the whole cycle.

The Difference between the alterations can be pulled from the system and consumed externally from the operating system.

Looking at any one part of the system will not reveal the whole process.

Understanding the whole process will make the "seeming impossible" - Very Logical.

...........................................

If anyone is actually interested in understanding - I encourage you to ask Red Sunset.

Common respect begets common respect.

Wayne Travis

[mrwayne]

It was the demonstrator Tom Miller who made the false claims in the videos that:  1) the videos demonstrated behavior contrary to Archimedes' Principle, and 2) that the supposed contrary behavior offered a means of obtaining free energy.I am not looking for what I know webby does not have. 

You can't See what Tom was showing - and so you attack him....

That is pitiful...

More work,,,,,, done faster..............A new way to use Buoyancy................Hmmmmmmmmm

and p.s I never claimed that Tom's video's were OU, just that he showed the inception that led to the layered ZED system -

What did the layered ZED's do - even more work ,,,,,,,,,,, even faster...........

What does that do to the Conservation of energy? Got a guess.

I am sorry you missed it Mark ................ But not everyone did ;-)

Wayne

[MarkE]

    Hi,
         has this whole thing become a waist of time?

                  John.


     
     
 
                                   

In terms of HER/Zydro ever delivering on their false claims of a free energy generator:  They never could, and they never will.  In terms of observing what lengths some people will go to in order to promote false claims and promises, the whole exercise may or may not be enlightening.

[MarkE]

OU - what is OU, it seems to be such a hang up for some - and just the word seems to draw so much emotion for few.

Is it more energy out than was put in?

Is it continual Energy from a black box with no inputs?

Does all science support the idea that OU must defy science?

Is OU really an extraordinary claim?

...........................................

Our engineers - and the ones that have visited - use common engineering to evaluate our system and they concluded - the system is Overunity.

Maybe even Surprisingly to them - they did not have to write magical formulas to come to that conclusion.

...........................................

Let me say it as clearly as I can to help powercat in his and TK's assumed charge against me:

In full cycle - A single ZED can be configure to utilize gravity as non conservative process - by altering the pressure and effected surface area during specific points in the whole cycle.

The Difference between the alterations can be pulled from the system and consumed externally from the operating system.

Looking at any one part of the system will not reveal the whole process.

Understanding the whole process will make the "seeming impossible" - Very Logical.

...........................................

If anyone is actually interested in understanding - I encourage you to ask Red Sunset.

Common respect begets common respect.

Wayne Travis

You make the false claim that you have developed a technology and an implementation of that claimed technology that generates net energy by cyclically lifting and dropping masses.  Your claims are false.  You have sold investments  based on those claims that you have long known to be false or have been reckless in ignoring that they are false.

You can have any of these engineers step forward and sign affidavits that they believe you have found a way to build a working free energy machine such ash you claim.  We know for a fact that you have been unable to even get through a first qualifying demonstration with Mark Dansie.

Gravity has always been shown to behave conservatively.  You are free to attempt to show evidence that it is not.

As shown by the quotes posted by PowerCat, Red_Sunset has been offering his double talk for years.  Red_Sunset has never offered any description of any method capable of over unity operation.  When your patent application ultimately gets examined you are going to need proof, or else your OU claims will be rejected for lack of utility.

It's funny how a person such as yourself who has been disrespecting prospective and actual investors by selling investment in claims that you know to be false asks for respect.