What does 'something that works' mean?

[preoccupied]

Hey ME, I think that Jim_Mich and Ovyyus understand each other and that Ovyyus is deliberately misbehaving. I think that Ovyyus has just joined the group that is harassing Jim_Mich and I think that they are doing it for fun. Ovyyus knows that he is misrepresenting Jim_Mich plan as a game. When people post about this feud and they show a little bit of confusion, it reinforces the harassment being given to Jim_Mich by discrediting him, and I think they have fun doing that.

[jim_mich]

Marchello, you are ignoring the fact that Bill has wrongly called me a liar.
Marchello, you are ignoring the fact that I have proven that Bill has wrongly called me a liar.
Marchello, if you keep ignoring the fact that Bill has wrongly called me a liar, then you help to keep the feud going.

MY PLAN had nothing to do with my original email agreement with Bill.
Bill added MY PLAN only after he was proven to be a liar.
Bill used my plan as an escape goat.
Bill used my plan as his twisted reason for claiming that I lied to him.

First get your facts straight.
Bill started the feud by saying I lied to him.
And I proved that I never lied to Bill.

So Bill escalated the feud by twisting MY PLAN into something it was never meant to be.
My plan was originally and still is, as a first step: A] First get something that works.
And by that, I have always meant get some principle, some method, some method, that when implemented will result in PM of a wheel.

Bill is the one who has lied.
Face that fact and we can move on.

Bill is the one trying to twist MY PLAN into being an excuse for his lies.
Face that fact and we can move on.

Until then Bill will keep harassing me about the meaning of MY PLAN and the meaning of a WORKING WHEEL.
And Bill will keep ignoring the fact that he lied to the forum about me.

As I keep saying, I'm not the bad guy here. But I refuse to be bullied by the likes of Bill or any other troll that makes derogatory personal statements about me. Claiming that I lied, when the facts prove I did not, is a a false derogatory personal statement. It is itself a lie. It is Bill's lie.

[ME]

Preoccupied,
...That possibility crossed my mind too. But I don't really know (or care).
Next week I'll post the found relation, which might be more interesting for this forum... perhaps it explains this situation... or not.

Jim,
Ah... there you have it !!
You referenced your Plan to Bill while it was indeed not part of the deal, so because of your own reference (afterwards) there's a misinterpretation.

Jim, just do what you do best...
But the fact is: there are no facts to get straight when there's a difference in opinion about miscommunication.
I don't think you are the bad guy, neither is Ovyyus... (Only annoying when both wanting something like "justice".. or whatever you call it)

By the way I have better things to ignore:
I ignore the fact modern-Physics states Perpetual Motion is impossible.

[daxwc]

Jim quotes:

Marchello, you are ignoring the fact that Bill has wrongly called me a liar.

He hasn’t.

Marchello, you are ignoring the fact that I have proven that Bill has wrongly called me a liar.

You haven’t proven it. You twisted out of a loop hole. What you really mean is Bill hasn't proven it.

Marchello, if you keep ignoring the fact that Bill has wrongly called me a liar, then you help to keep the feud going

He does keep it going that is what fence sitters tend to do just ask Obama but so what.



Jim tell me the motive for Bill’s lie? Why would he even bring it up to the forum in the first place as it put him in a bad light also? Why has most forgiven Bill but not you?

I think Bill was right in trying to clear the up the “something that works� in a poll since the paradigm changed and that is how we judge the actions of new members but that shouldn’t be not a entitlement for longer members.

[Stewart]

Hi All

I've been away from the forum for six months, and it's quite sad to return and find not much has changed! :-(

Jim, to deny you've changed your definition of "something that works" just makes you look like an idiot. The evidence is here on this forum for all to see, and I'm sure everyone here would agree that you've changed it except you. Let's look again at the evidence:

(I covered this all before in a previous post here: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 434#135434)

In this 2011 post:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 6580#86580
Jim said:

My 'PLAN'... I posted this a while back. The first item on my list is "First get something that works!" This means a working wheel, not just a concept or idea.

"First get something that works!" This means a working wheel, not just a concept or idea.

So what constitutes a working wheel? Well Jim wrote the wiki entry here on this website, so let's have a look:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/wiki/index. ... king_wheel

Here's what Jim wrote:
"Working wheel
A working wheel would be a perpetual motion wheel that once set in motion continues to rotate while outputting usable rotational torque until physically stopped or the components wear out.
A perpetual motion wheel that is only a concept on paper or in a computer simulation is not a working wheel."

So let's summarise Jim's original meaning:
First get something that works means a working perpetual motion wheel and not a concept on paper or a computer simulation.

It's all very clear, logical and sensible and as a forum we all understood that to be the obvious first step.

In more recent times Jim has changed this definition to:

"As I stated repeatedly, you must first get something (a reason, a principle, a method, a concept, an idea) that works BEFORE you can build a working wheel"

A clear and definite change of meaning, I'm sure we can all agree.

Now let's look at Jim's "The Plan":
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... ?p=853#853

A] First get something that works!!!
B] Take steps to insure the idea survives in case of calamity.
C] Define the principle or the reason why it works!
D] Design a simple cheap working POP (proof of principle) sample model.
F] Build as many of these models as money/time/reasoning suggest.
G] Plan Ad campaign, including literature, web space, documentation, etc.
H] Write patent applications for most major countries.
I] Prepare a list of names, addresses of who is to receive what.
J] Always continue research into increasing power output and alternate designs.
K] When all is prepared, file patents, upload web site, mail plans, ship models, etc. Hit the media hard! Make a sensation! Be on the evening news worldwide.

As a member of this forum from the beginning I remember Jim posting about this plan and subsequent discussions about it, and I think we all felt it was reasonable but wouldn't necessarily do things exactly as was listed in Jim's plan. However, the consensus at the time was that the first thing to be done was to build a working perpetual motion wheel. No one was under any illusion that step B] would be moved on to until a working wheel was built.

Now with Jim's current redefinition of "A] First get something that works!!!", there appears to be a step missing:

A] First get something that works!!! - (a reason, a principle, a method, a concept, an idea)
B] Build a working perpetual motion wheel
C] Take steps to insure the idea survives in case of calamity.
.
.

Item A] in this revised list now seems like an unnecessary waste of space and could be removed, because the more important and relevant item B] is what is needed to move forward with the plan.

But hang on a minute - wouldn't it be easier for everyone on the forum moving forward if Jim could just agree to go back to his original meaning of "A] First get something that works!!!" as being a physical working perpetual motion machine?

So how about it Jim? The consensus of the forum is that really the first step we're all striving for is a physical working perpetual motion machine. Can you do us all a favour and agree to make step A mean a working wheel now, regardless of any past revisions you might have made to your plan please? If not then your plan is quite confusing and perhaps it's best to never mention it again.

As for Jim's feud with Bill, it's very difficult to see how this can be resolved. All I can say is that I would have thought the same as Bill based on what happened on the forum at the time and seeing the email correspondence now between Jim and Bill.

As I keep saying, I'm not the bad guy here.

You can say it as much as you like, but it's not for you to judge.

I was surprised to see the reputation system had been reset! Well done Mark and Scott for giving the forum a dose of chemotherapy. It will be interesting to see what effect it has.

I'm pleased to see Bill shot straight back up to the top level of "Respected" where he belongs.

Anyway, hope you're all keeping well and your search for the answer is still fulfilling.

All the best
Stewart

[AB Hammer]

Hello Stewart

Always good to here from you. But seeing only one green on yours reminded me to hit your green for all the work you have done for this forum and quest. A few more need to hit your green as well. I also added your name to my private forum so you can see what I have been up to.

[Stewart]

Thanks Alan.

Stewart

[daxwc]

Great to see you back Stewart and thanks for wading in. Hope you stay around awhile.

jim_mich wrote:

Jim: My 'PLAN'... I posted this a while back. The first item on my list is "First get something that works!" This means a working wheel, not just a concept or idea.

Yes, it was brought up but some members wish to ignore it. Some have selective memories or have been seduced. The victim game pulls on some member’s heart strings. ME I believe by trying to be in the middle thinks he is helping which is honorable but falling short because just like the World Wars peace can’t be gotten through appeasement. Things are slowly changing though.

[Stewart]

Thanks daxwc.

The victim game pulls on some member’s heart strings. ME I believe by trying to be in the middle thinks he is helping which is honorable but falling short because just like the World Wars peace can’t be gotten through appeasement.

"Saving Private Ryan" springs to mind. (SPOILER ALERT: Tom Hanks' character is mercilessly shot dead by the German soldier he previously captured, took pity on and then allowed to go free).

Stewart

[Furcurequs]

Hey Stewart,

I hope you had a nice break from the forum. Welcome back.

When I pointed out the "this means a working wheel" quote to jim_mich earlier in the thread, he explained what he actually meant in this post here:

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 972#145972

So, I sure hope this clears some things up for everyone. Here are the relevant lines:

I know that the more ignorant uneducated ones need physical proof of a working wheel.

But more intelligent people can grasp the concept and very quickly understand why it works, and thus don't need a working wheel plopped down in front of them.

So, the quote that you and I gave only applies to the more ignorant uneducated ones here in the forum - and those who are too ignorant to see why their own gravity wheel designs won't work, of course.

jim_mich therefore did not mean for that quote to actually apply to himself! Ignorant and uneducated people - unlike jim_mich - have to do actual builds and tests of their unworkable ideas or they just won't learn and can't know!

The more intelligent people - like jim_mich - can see why his design of a non-gravity perpetual motion wheel will work, however, and so he has no need to personally build and test anything. The only reason he would have to build anything at all would be to satisfy the needs of the ignorant and uneducated ones who just don't have his intelligence and knowledge.

...lol

Here is some further elaboration from jim_mich himself from his "Polymath" thread in the off-topic section:

Bill, that one and only post was addressed to christo4_99, a complete moron, and thus it had to be dumbed down to his level.

It was obvious at the time that this moron, christo4_99, would never be able to fully analyze a wheel to determine if it would be capable of perpetual motion. Such takes skill, knowledge, and some sort of computerized analysis. So, like I said before, and which you have ignored, I abbreviated the description of Step [A] stating that it must be more just a concept or idea. Step [A] is something that works, in christo4_99's case, a working physical wheel. In my case, or other intelligent people's case, it could be based upon knowledge and analysis.

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 840#144840

So, I hope that clears things up for everyone. Jim_mich, our resident polymath, is just so intelligent that he does not have to build anything at all to know whether he has something that works! ...unlike us morons!

Now, you ignorant idiots and trolls, stop bullying jim_mich!

...lol

I've never redefined my plan. I simply, in that one single post, truncated my description of Step [A], trying to make an idiot understand that finding something that works was more than just a quick sketch or vague concept.

ME, you know what some people say? "Whatever it is you are smoking, I'd like some."

What do you have in that peace pipe?!

[jim_mich]

Before one can make a "working wheel" one MUST have conceived something that works when built. Conception comes before a working wheel. Bessler described his wheel as bing like a living thing.

I can't write it more clearly. That one time, I wrote saying a wheel must be more than JUST a concept or idea. It must be more than JUSThen-scratching on the back of an envelope. "Something that works" is the conception, not the birth of a working wheel. Before birth, you must have conception. First get something that work is the conception.

I've never changed MY PLAN. It is you trolls that try to twist MY PLAN into some reason to support Bill's lies. Bill lied when he claimed that I said I had a "working wheel". I never made such a claim. I was always careful to avoid such a claim. If I gain enough bodily strength to finish my wheel, then I may very well soon have a "working wheel", as a result of finding a method, as principle, or as Bill once wrote, "Step 1: solve the problem."

So I can't imagine that Stewart does not understand MY PLAN. Why does he, like Bill, insist that MY PLAN needs to be re-written? The reason Stewart thinks such is because he has his fingers in his ears, saying, "No, no no. Jim is wrong. Bill is right." so as to stick up for Bill and Bill's lies. Stewart is blinded by his cronyism. Can't you guys see that no lie was told by me. Bill made a erroneous assumption. Then tried to make out that I was the liar.

Until Bill admits that he lied, this feud will continue. Until you guys stop supporting Bill's lies, this feud will continue. Face the truth. Bill lied. Then Bill tried to twist MY PLAN to justify his lies. Then Bill tried to use one post where I tried to explain to an idiot (christo4_99) that the first step was not JUST a mere concept or idea. The first step must be more. Much more. The first step is the conception of something that will work.

[jim_mich]

All gravity-only wheels will not work. So assuming you have just a concept or idea involving only OOB due to gravity, then I assure you that your concept of idea will never work. That is a fact. Bessler stated it as such. And I state it as such. Gravity will never cause an mass-unbalanced wheel to perpetually rotate. It will never happen.

This is another reason why you guys no long like me. You don't believe what I say.

What I say makes no difference. Mother nature has the final say.

[ME]

Daxwc...
I'm doing something completely different here.
Besides, I can't force them to realize something they clearly don't*. But if it helps to get there then it would be a positive side-effect.

*) Just as we probably don't realize GPE-PPM's don't work...
Maybe yes, maybe no.
We already "know" by Physics PMM's (of whichever kind) don't work.
We need a physical thing to disprove this Physics.
Jim, be my guest.

What do you have in that peace pipe?!

eeh... hot air with a bit of turbulence?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKW8lB5jyus

[Furcurequs]

jim_mich,

What happened here?! I thought I had found a post where you announced when you had first come up with this "working" concept of yours, but apparently it's something else from quite some time ago.

Why would you have announced back then that you discovered the Principle of Perpetual Motion and that you knew it would work? ...when you hadn't and it didn't?!!

Were you one of the morons back then who didn't know how to properly analyze things instead of the intelligent person you are now? What happened?!! Were you not yet a polymath?

After having made false claims like this one in the past, how can we know to trust you now?! When did you make the change into an intelligent person?

It's been five weeks now since I discovered the "Principle of Perpetual Motion" on Feb.18, 2005. I know it will work. I know how and where the weights must move. I know how much energy it will put out relative to weight and wheel size. I've made an animated picture of the Principle in operation and written documentation explaining how the wheel works so anyone can understand the concept. I believe if anyone here where to see that documentation they would understand it immediately and agree that it works.

I believe I've accomplished steps 'A' and 'C' of The Plan and I'm working on steps 'B' and 'D'. My goal is to get to step 'L' as fast as possible so I can show all to the world.

If I thought I could get a patent based solely on the concept I would file a patent right now. But I think it's best to have an actual working POP model as the ultimate proof to show unbelievers. The concept is simple and provable. Physically implementing it is frustrating me. I have a habit of making thing too complex. The simpler method always seem to elude me at first.

But I'm making progress!

I'm currently contemplating a couple of witnesses (locally) to date and sign documents recording conception of my invention.

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 0236#10236

SeaWasp,

I'm no longer pursuing this design. There is a well-known experiment where two balls are rolling along two parallel tracks and one track dips down lower. The ball in the lower track will speed up then slow down as it rises back up level with the first track. That ball will travel a longer distance because of the dip and yet it will arrive at the finish line first. With my wheel I had weights that moved in and out on the wheel in such a manner that they circled the wheel faster than the wheel was turning. I assumed that if I had the weights push against the wheel then the wheel would speed up and the weights would slow down. I thought the weights would then be located where they started from on the wheel and I could repeat the process.

But it didn't work. I learned a lot from that failure.

I'm now working on another wheel idea that looks very interesting. I've learned how to turn CF on/off by controlling the path of the weight. I use CF to help move the weights to an outer radius then turn CF off as the weights move back to an inner radius. It requires latching and releasing them at the proper time.

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 9896#19896

It seems like that was JUST a mere concept or idea!

[daxwc]

ME:

I can't force them to realize something they clearly don't*.

Well to be honest ME you haven’t made me realise either mostly because I was paying attention to the forum and fight during that span.

But feel free to start whatever you are doing. Let me know when you have given up. Because a “Rotten apple spoils the barrel� and I haven’t used my red dot yet. If this keeps up long for sure there will be a call for arms by the forum.

It is that or let sleeping dogs sleep.