[quote author=chessnyt link=topic=8665.msg415776#msg415776 date=1408916056

  The name of the forum is Overunity.com.  Why would you come here if you expected to find nobody talking about over unity devices or the replications of them?  Hello?  Come on now.

[/quote]
Could we please see one of these successful replications'?.

Could we please see one of these successful replications'?.

They are not "replications" per se, since they are not
duplications of Meyer's circuitry or constructions.  There
are significant differences.

In due time everyone who desires may see one.

In the meantime it would be beneficial for those who
truly want to "see" to experiment very simply and very
inexpensively.  There is no substitute for self-created
"proof."

Les Banki has done his part in supplying documents
which motivate towards the realization of success.

They are not "replications" per se, since they are not
duplications of Meyer's circuitry or constructions.  There
are significant differences.

In due time everyone who desires may see one.

In the meantime it would be beneficial for those who
truly want to "see" to experiment very simply and very
inexpensively.  There is no substitute for self-created
"proof."

Les Banki has done his part in supplying documents
which motivate towards the realization of success.

Note the wording:  "which motivate towards the realization of success".  There is no statement that Les Banki or anyone else has actually succeeded.  There isn't a promise that one following Sea Monkey into the back alley will succeed.  The Ohio judge summarized why when he found Stanley Meyer an "egregious fraud".

I guess some still chose to ignore my earlier post...the fact that "judges" are as reliable as those who employ them.

Both have dubious credibility, to say the very very least.

And...I would like anyone to logically challenge another fact...

NOBODY, but nobody here knows anything conclusive about the viability of Myres' circuit.

Sorry if I cut the legs off anyone's bully pulpit with the axe of common sense.

Well, not really.

Regards...

Have fun trying to chop down established facts:

Fact: Stanley Meyer made his claims over 20 years ago.
Fact: Stanley Meyer's claims are extraordinary.
Fact: Stanley Meyer's claims have never been proven true.
Fact: It is a requirement of all utility patents that the specification describe in sufficient detail how to practice the claims such that a person with ordinary skill in the art can so practice them without undue experimentation.
Fact: No one has ever shown that they can successfully reproduce Stanley Meyer's claims by practicing his patents.
Fact: Three expert witnesses in the 1996 investor lawsuit testified that Stanley Meyer's scheme used ordinary electrolysis.
Fact: Ordinary electrolysis is far less than 100% efficient.
Fact: Stanley Meyer was sued multiple times by different investors, and was forced to return those investors' monies as a result of losing those lawsuits that alleged breach of contract by fraud.
Fact: No one has produced any evidence that the judges in any of the actions against Stan Meyer were tainted.


Given the failure of the many who have tried to reproduce Stanley Meyer's claims from his patent one may reasonably conclude that the patents did not describe what Stan Meyer claimed.  that amounts to fraud in the patent applications.

What a load of unmitigated long winded bullshit...saying absolutely nothing and proving or disproving absolutely nothing, except that what i posted still stands.

Not since MileyCHighrus has such dimwittery been displayed on this forum.

Regards...

Unilaterally declare what you like.  Hurl all the insults that you like.  Neither is hardly an effective substitute for or counter to actual reasoned argument.

@Cap-Z-ro:
I have to agree with you on how scientists are bought by the people that hire them and it's no coincidence that their opinions reflect their employers.  Sad but true.


I tried to subtly warn the people in this thread much earlier that MarkE is a category three from the quote below:

@Everyone:
I think what you have here is basically broken down into three separate categories. 

The first would be those who come to these forums in order to seek attention because they are bored and have nothing better to do all day.  On this point I agree with Oscar.  They have no life or they wouldn’t have all the time in the world to respond to every thread in which they have arguments in progress.  They are talkers and not doers.  They have no friends because they have no people skills.  They try to fill this void in their life by using forums, such as this one, as surrogates.  They don’t build or attempt to replicate these devices being discussed because they are not here to contribute in an experimental capacity.  This is not their purpose.  They are here, driven by pride, to try and sound like the experts and that they know it all (which also is not a trait that attracts friendships).  They pretend they don’t care if they are liked or not, but secretly they desperately crave acceptance.  They see every posting as an opportunity to impress people by their recital skills and ability to argue in an attempt to appear smart and learned.  They always choose the safe side of the argument so as not to look unlearned or dumb.  They NEVER actually contribute to a replication.  Instead, they end up discouraging replicators from experimenting in uncharted waters.  Yes, they will be the first to admit they are always right and know everything there is to know, including what you are thinking.

The second would be the actual builders, who contribute to the forum in a tangible way.  They seek to pool their experimental knowledge with others in similar areas of research.  They are the doers and not just talkers.  They put their own money on the line and keep trying, despite those who attempt to dissuade them and discourage their efforts.  They are the ones that have the best chances to replicate a technology outside of the sacred and hallowed “laws” of physics.  Those are the people I am hoping to attract and pool my knowledge together with.  Unfortunately I have to wade through and put up with people from the category one and category three, in order to reach my intended demographic.
           
Category three is comprised of people who are here to purposely mislead and hijack threads in order to bring any meaningful progress to a halt.  They are here to intentionally disrupt a forum and hope to mire it in infighting and discord.  They know that people cannot be productive while fighting so fighting is what they are bent on.  They will claim to be here for legitimate purposes.  They will always claim to be defenders of fraud and the “good guys” of the forum.  They always pose as the voice of truth and wisdom, but all the while they are simply playing a part in a scheme to derail as much progress as possible.  Some just get a kick out of it.  Others are actually professionally paid disinformation agents working covertly.

Now will the builders please step forward?


 
Regards,
 
Chess

MarkE and his cohorts are trained very well for this specific purpose.  Notice how he befriends those who have nothing to offer because they are not a threat and they do not pursue that which he knows to be technology that could disrupt his bosses' agendas. 
He loves this:
FACT - He posts more than you (grand total and daily average wise) yet he has been here considerably less time.
FACT - He claims to want to help yet he sews discord and negativity at every opportunity.
FACT - He doesn't build anything except for snide comments with his keyboard.
FACT - He constantly reminds people that mainstream science doesn't agree with us, as if we keep forgetting.
FACT - He engages in cluttering up a thread so as to bury any useful content so far in between it becomes difficult to even extract.
FACT - Look at how this site is dying as he has chased all the serious builders away.


That is what professional disinformation agents do.  This guy is a plant.




Regards,


Chess

Apparently this bears repeating...

"I would also add...I kinda lost track, can anyone tell me just how many lying so called "structural engineers" lined up to back up the official lie on just how those buildings went down on 9/11 ?

And for that matter how many lying so called "scientists" lined up to back up the official lie on "Global Warming"...not to mention those that kept their mouths shut about the fraudulent evidence ?

*awaits another blast of hot air*

Regards..."

Where there was a turn to the absurd:  Trying to tie Stanley Meyer's bogus claims to conspiracy theories about 9/11.