Dynamic kirigami structures for integrated solar tracking
    A closer look reveals true cost of coal

    I was informed two days ago from an an email  sent by Wayne that a warranted agency had visited him. Earlier today I had a Skype call (text only) from Sterling asking questions on behalf of another journalist he was relaying the answers to. Sterling is running a story (which includes our Skype Chat) and I believe the journalist he was referring to wrote the following story. (click Link)


    Like all buoyancy claims that had gone before this one has not to have been validated to date with an independently assessed proof of concept. It could result in some serious legal trouble for the inventor. It is always important to have a proof of concept independently assessed by people with the right qualifications. In this case some engineers and others form different parts of the word traveled there and believed in what they were presented. Others even produced YouTube video’s supporting the claims with simple science experiments. I believe this may have contributed into Wayne believing in what he was seeing.

    All the scientists and engineers I introduced Wayne to did not share that opinion and felt a working proof of concept was needed to support the claims.

    wayne tI had visited Wayne on three occasions. Although I liked Wayne and his team (engineers, family, friends and employees) I have never signed of on it being a free energy machine.  The conversation I had with Sterling (which he will publish as well) is a fair and accurate account of our conversation tells the story well about my observations and involvement . I have only edited one surname from the conversation.

    Although I see no reason to defend my conduct in dealing with this technology,  I would like to point out that I never received fees, just travel expenses for evaluating the  technology. I was latter given (as I often am by various inventors, companies etc I have assisted or consulted to) a share of less than 1% of the company. This was unsolicited.  I  always feel bad abut accepting any gratuity from a technology I had not endorsed.

    I normally give any shares I receive away to friends family or charity. After the Typhoon Yolanda hit in 2015 I decided to ask Wayne if I could liquidate part of the  share as I could help many people here. In doing so I felt it was a charitable act. The money was used to help many victims directly and through donations to church groups. We also  establish an ongoing enterprise where the profits assist in supporting a remote community, sponsors both secondary and college students and employs friends and family. I have no financial interest or ownership of any of the ongoing enterprises or proceeds apart from paying some education bills for my daughters from the share sale.

    At the time I was also led to believe along with all the other shareholders that a billionaire investor named Erwin would be investing for the on going development of the technology and everyone would be rewarded richly. It was not until several months latter when “Erwin” did not show up for a banquet thrown by Wayne that serious doubts we raised of his intention.

    I am sure many of you may view the accepting of the share as a fee for service, (I do not). If that is the case, then I should be treated as no different to any of the employees, trades people, consultants, service providers or contractors used to construct and run the prototypes. All these people and businesses received income in good faith and for fair and honest services renered.


    Skype call with Sterling

    (please ignore spelling errors and grammar as it was 3;30 am. I took the liberty of correcting a few)

    [3:30:25 AM] Sterling D. Allan: Hi Mark,
    It turns out that Wayne Travis of Zydro is under FBI investigation, and there are records of at least one payment going to you.
    I’m curious when, how often, and how much you were paid by Wayne, and/or Zydro.
    [3:32:42 AM] Mark Dansie: I received some shares from Wayne as a gift after several visits. I believe it was under 1%. I never recieved any payments for my consulting wok other than airfares.
    [3:34:22 AM] Mark Dansie: Wayne said there was quiet a demand for the shares and we had a bad typhoon hit here. I had no idea what the shares were worth but asked if he could sell half so I could assist the families over here and help with some other bills.

    [3:34:36 AM] Sterling D. Allan: did you ever see it “working” to your satisfaction, per claim?
    [3:34:57 AM] Mark Dansie: I believe he sold about half of what I had and issued a new certificate
    [3:36:23 AM] Mark Dansie: the answer is no although on one trip (my first ) it did appear to maintain the pressures. I visited on three occasions and was always promised a proof of Concept to review in the following weeks.
    [3:36:56 AM] Mark Dansie: I also had requested that he did not use my name or any quotes of mine out of context for promoting the devcie.
    [3:37:45 AM] Mark Dansie: I also arranged and introduced other people to go and assess the project including Jim (surname edited) and we all advised that he needed to have a working proof of concept.
    [3:39:13 AM] Mark Dansie: I did however find Wayne to be a very decent person and met with some of his engineers. One engineer I met was very convinced and so were many other qualified people. However as I pointed out I was not qualified on commenting on their calculations.
    [3:41:11 AM] Mark Dansie: At the time of selling my share to assist over here I was told like everyone else a big investor was about to buy into the company and the shares were going to be worth a lot of money. I was also like everyone else told it was a working project, but had not myself seen working proof of concept
    [3:41:31 AM] Mark Dansie: that met my standard challenge of self running for a couple of days.
    [3:41:53 AM] Mark Dansie: when I wrote about this project I focused more on the human story of a community coming together
    [3:42:02 AM] Mark Dansie: you can quote me on that.
    [3:42:23 AM] Mark Dansie: I think I visited three times over a 2 year period.
    [3:42:30 AM] Mark Dansie: hope that helps
    [3:43:08 AM] Mark Dansie: any other questions happy to assist
    [3:43:40 AM] Sterling D. Allan: helpful, thx.
    [3:45:10 AM] Sterling D. Allan: regarding: <<< One engineer I met was very convinced and so were many other qualified people.do you remember any of their names?
    [3:45:19 AM] Mark Dansie: Wayne had a lot of people more qualified than myself claiming it worked I only saw promise on the first visit where it did maintain pressure, but the test was too short. On all my other visits I never did get to see a test that was what I would called a verification, but was promised I would be invited back to see one.
    [3:46:35 AM] Mark Dansie: I wrote several emails along with Jim and others regarding the need for a proof of concept running rather than just spreed sheet calculations
    [3:48:16 AM] Sterling D. Allan: is it okay if I publish your responses here (edited)?
    [3:48:17 AM] Mark Dansie: I think I still have half of one percent shares in the company which as mentioned was give as a gift not for services rendered. I would not accept any payments for reviewing the technology only travel expenses.
    [3:49:45 AM] Mark Dansie: yes that is fine but not out of context. I want to make it clear that I had never seen a proof of concept running that could be defined as a validation, rather that there could be some potential.
    [3:49:59 AM | Edited 3:50:11 AM] Sterling D. Allan: that’s my recollection of your position as well.
    [3:51:25 AM] Mark Dansie: Also the payment I received was the sale of some shares that was gifted to me and I did so at a time when it was made clear that a big investor was about to come in and take over. I wanted the funds to assist family, friends and others at the times from the destruction of the typhoon Yolanda.
    [3:52:16 AM] Mark Dansie: The share was not a fee for service it was a gift that came at least 12 months latter after my first visit
    [3:53:01 AM] Sterling D. Allan: about how much was the gift?
    [3:53:16 AM] Mark Dansie: he was given a very stern warning about using my name to promote the the technology especially out of context quotes
    [3:54:13 AM] Sterling D. Allan: I’ve never known him to use your name to promote.
    [3:55:23 AM] Sterling D. Allan: about how much was the gift?
    [3:57:15 AM] Mark Dansie: The gift its was less than 1% of the company as a share not cash. I had no idea what the value was. Wayne then sold half of that 1% at whatever the current price he valued at it was as there was demand for the shares. I just asked him to liquidate it so I could help out the people here. I cant recall how much exactly as it was in dribs and drabs but it was a few thousand dollars.
    [3:58:36 AM] Mark Dansie: I actually consulted a few people at the time to see if this was an ethical thing to do and no one had any issue with it. I was simply selling a share in something that was given to me.
    [4:00:09 AM] Mark Dansie: Hope this all helps. I think Wayne is a genuine person but like many others we have seen is perhaps misguided by their own (and in this case others) analysis of what happened.
    [4:00:23 AM] Mark Dansie: Or what they were seeing
    [4:00:45 AM] Sterling D. Allan: yes, helpful. thx
    [4:02:37 AM] Mark Dansie: I never changed my views or what I publicly claimed about the technology even after receiving the share. In fact i always claimed I had never verified it but it could have some potential but a POC was needed which I pushed for on many occassions
    [4:04:55 AM] Sterling D. Allan: POC=?
    [4:06:26 AM] Mark Dansie: proof of concept I.E a working device that can be measured to support the claim. He had several working devices but they were not at the time of my inspections self running in a sense that all the inputs and outputs could be measured and accounted for.
    [4:07:06 AM] Mark Dansie: I was always told they did have them self running at times but never when I was there did any of the devices run long enough to account for the inputs.
    [4:07:57 AM] Mark Dansie: I gave a lot of advice what would be required to measure or show a validation.
    [4:09:15 AM] Mark Dansie: Some of the trips there I paid for. The first one he paid my airfares but no fees.
    [4:10:08 AM] Sterling D. Allan: but no fees.
    were there ever any fees paid?
    [4:10:17 AM] Mark Dansie: I received an email from Wayne along with all the other people involved a couple of days ago regarding this but have no other news
    [4:11:59 AM] Mark Dansie: No I never received any fees , like I said just some travel expenses. The share was given as a gift at a latter date. I twas not as a fee for service as i made it very clear. he said he liked me and wanted me to be part of it.
    [4:13:11 AM] Mark Dansie: I cant see to find much news on the web about this I feel sad for them all, and of course I am still a very small share holder.
    [4:15:35 AM] Sterling D. Allan: I was contacted by a reporter, and, per your permission, have been relaying what you’ve said to her; which hopefully will help clear things up.
    [4:15:51 AM] Mark Dansie: Hopefully
    [4:17:05 AM] Mark Dansie: But make it clear I never validated the technology. I did state once that if validated it could replace wind and solar as a primary source or alternative energy. However I never saw it validated in my visits
    [4:17:40 AM] Sterling D. Allan: that’s my understanding of your reporting as well; as we have stated at PESWiki from years ago.
    [4:18:31 AM] Mark Dansie: anyway I hope things are going better for you at the moment you been through some rough times. No matter our differences you are a human
    [4:20:39 AM] Mark Dansie: just make sure the jounalist gets three things clear. I never validated the technology. I never received any fees other than travel costs and the share was a gift unsolicited and partially liquidated at a time when i and everyone else was of the understanding the company was having a big investor come in. The sale was to raise funds for people in need here after the Yolanda typhoon
    [4:22:17 AM] Sterling D. Allan: relayed
    [4:22:28 AM] Mark Dansie: thanks
    [4:23:45 AM] Mark Dansie: ps your reporting lately has been good and I believe balanced
    [4:24:00 AM] Mark Dansie: need to get some sleep

     After Thoughts

    After this conversation Sterling sent me a link to his soon to be published article. He asked for my input, correction or comments. I replied with the following.

    Hi Sterling
    You put a true and accurate record of our conversation. I would edit Jim  to just our mutual friend Jim.

    My only other comment
    1. There there were a lot of people including an engineer convinced this was real. It shows the importance of the having a running proof of concept that is fully validated by qualified independent third parties.

    2. From reading what you have reported a big issue here has a lot to do with over promising the returns to the investor rather than pointing out the risk.

    3. Having a patent does not also mean something works as claimed.

    I can never be sure but Wayne seemed to be a genuine believer he really had something. He often argued in various forums about the maths, theory and validity.


    For me this experience was a big learning curve. I have good friends like TK, Milehigh and the late Mark E who at times kept me on the straight and narrow as far as being unbiased in assessing the technology. They believed along with many others that the technology could not work. I received form them some criticism for my conduct at times that was perhaps well deserved and taken as guidance.

    I also mentioned that I introduced to Wayne other engineers and scientists in my conversation with Sterling who along with myself stressed the importance of having a POC or proof of concept working demonstration.

    The one question I have asked myself would I under the same circumstances without hindsight sold the share to assist others? The answer is yes. With hindsight knowing what would happen in the following two years I would have acted differently.

    As for the technology I feel for all the people who were involved many with good faith. I was always impressed by the community spirit surrounding this project and felt is was a good project for that reason. I was however unaware of the methods Wayne used to raise funds and how he spent them as reported in the article linked above.

    I am not sure is there any upside from this, and I am sure I will receive some criticism. I must always remain transparent and answer to any actions, decisions or statement I made in the past.

    I feel for the family, friends and all the volunteers involved and they are all decent people. Some over the years had contacted me privately regards the investment and I always stated that I am not an investment adviser, but I had never seen any data or working proof of concept that supported the claims.I know in one case they liquidated some of their holding.

    I am sure as time goes on the truth of what happened will come out. Wayne;s innocence or guilt about the way he raised funds is in the hands of the lawyers and courts. As far as the technology goes it still is not validated with a POC  from my limited information since my last visit two or three years ago.

    Kind Regards


    Dynamic kirigami structures for integrated solar tracking
    A closer look reveals true cost of coal
    Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com