Has An Important Property Of Fluids Been Overlooked ?
Moderator: scott
I have NOT gone back on my plan. Why do you lie such?Stewart wrote:You need to explain to us why you have gone back on your "The Plan".
See post #135427
Jim - did you even read the quotes I posted?
You say see post #135427 in which you say:
Stewart
You say see post #135427 in which you say:
This is a direct contradiction to what you said and believed in 2011:jim_mich wrote:A "working wheel" is not the same thing as "something that works".
You. Bill, have confused the finding of "something that works" with a "working wheel".
This is not a personal attack on you - I'm trying to understand this contradiction and I think this needs to be cleared up one way or another or there's no going forward in my opinion. You can't call me a liar, as I've presented clear evidence.jim_mich wrote: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.
Stewart
Once again, there is a difference between finding "something that works" and "having a working wheel".
Step 'A' is finding "something that works". Finding a concept, a principle, a mechanisms. which when built will work.
Having a "working working wheel means you have a self-rotating wheel turning away in your basement, your workshop, or your garage.
The problem arose when I mentioned to Bill that I was working on building POP models.
Obviously the reason for building a "proof of principle" model is to "prove the principle" so that physical proof can be placed right in front of skeptics.
Bill made an assumption that a "working wheel" has been built.
Step 'A' does not require that "working wheel" be built. It only requires that one "find something that works".
Yes, I've pushed people to use a physical build as proof of a "working wheel". That's because most PM seekers don't have the needed technical knowledge to discern the difference between "something that works" and some pipe dream involving their OOB wheel plans.
I have the requisite technical knowledge to discern and mathematically test as to if a wheel plan is "something that works". I've been doing such for many years.
The problem here is that I'm at an impasse. I need to build a "working wheel" to present to skeptics. And my life-problems are drastically hindering my progress. But I'm not here to bitch about such.
But my question is, why do you keep posting lies about me? You are the ones making outright statements that I've abandoned my plan. When you make such a statement, it is an outright lie. So why do you lie?
It seems you lie simply to harass me. Simply stop making these false claims that I've abandoned my plan. After all, it is MY PLAN, and not yours.
Step 'A' is finding "something that works". Finding a concept, a principle, a mechanisms. which when built will work.
Having a "working working wheel means you have a self-rotating wheel turning away in your basement, your workshop, or your garage.
The problem arose when I mentioned to Bill that I was working on building POP models.
Obviously the reason for building a "proof of principle" model is to "prove the principle" so that physical proof can be placed right in front of skeptics.
Bill made an assumption that a "working wheel" has been built.
Step 'A' does not require that "working wheel" be built. It only requires that one "find something that works".
Yes, I've pushed people to use a physical build as proof of a "working wheel". That's because most PM seekers don't have the needed technical knowledge to discern the difference between "something that works" and some pipe dream involving their OOB wheel plans.
I have the requisite technical knowledge to discern and mathematically test as to if a wheel plan is "something that works". I've been doing such for many years.
The problem here is that I'm at an impasse. I need to build a "working wheel" to present to skeptics. And my life-problems are drastically hindering my progress. But I'm not here to bitch about such.
But my question is, why do you keep posting lies about me? You are the ones making outright statements that I've abandoned my plan. When you make such a statement, it is an outright lie. So why do you lie?
It seems you lie simply to harass me. Simply stop making these false claims that I've abandoned my plan. After all, it is MY PLAN, and not yours.
Jim
I'm sorry to hear you're struggling with your health and I wish you the best with your recovery from your broken arm.
To be honest with you I can see why Bill thought the way he did, and I'm surprised you can't see why he'd have an issue. An apology would probably go a long way to smoothing things over. However, what went on with Bill is not relevant to my last post.
Please read my last post and acknowledge that there is a contradiction in your statements.
Please stop calling me a liar, as I've backed up what I'm saying with direct evidence.
Thanks,
Stewart
I'm sorry to hear you're struggling with your health and I wish you the best with your recovery from your broken arm.
To be honest with you I can see why Bill thought the way he did, and I'm surprised you can't see why he'd have an issue. An apology would probably go a long way to smoothing things over. However, what went on with Bill is not relevant to my last post.
Please read my last post and acknowledge that there is a contradiction in your statements.
Please stop calling me a liar, as I've backed up what I'm saying with direct evidence.
Thanks,
Stewart
re: Has An Important Property Of Fluids Been Overlooked ?
We're talking about Perpetual Motion here, not building a soapbox derby racer or a spice rack. You are no different than anyone else throughout history who thought they had something that works. Build it and then we'll see.jim_mich wrote:Step 'A' does not require that "working wheel" be built. It only requires that one "find something that works".
Yes, I've pushed people to use a physical build as proof of a "working wheel". That's because most PM seekers don't have the needed technical knowledge to discern the difference between "something that works" and some pipe dream involving their OOB wheel plans.
I have the requisite technical knowledge to discern and mathematically test as to if a wheel plan is "something that works". I've been doing such for many years.
-
Furcurequs
- Devotee
- Posts: 1605
- Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:50 am
jim_mich,
You need to read your own quotes that were presented to you. By your own previous words you said that getting something that works meant having a working model. You therefore misled many people who took you at your word before. You are the one who has now changed your tune and you are being dishonest to say otherwise, and you are lying to call others liars.
...unless, of course, you actually believe what you are now saying - which would make you nuts.
You need to read your own quotes that were presented to you. By your own previous words you said that getting something that works meant having a working model. You therefore misled many people who took you at your word before. You are the one who has now changed your tune and you are being dishonest to say otherwise, and you are lying to call others liars.
...unless, of course, you actually believe what you are now saying - which would make you nuts.
re: Has An Important Property Of Fluids Been Overlooked ?
Actually, after reading stuff like:rlortie wrote: I have found what I believe is the answer where others has looked.
<snip>
I must be prudent and careful to know which ones [patent] have expired and those that are still active.
- 1/8" tempered laminated hardboard, PVC,and CPVC pipe.
- It contains 73" (-) of 4" (10.16 cm) ID pipe.
- All internal bushings, bearings and dis-placers are machined from UHMW plastic (Ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene),
- a structural heavy wall pipe with an outer pipe of 4.25 " (10.79) PVC,
- half the diameter of Bessler's alleged 8" (20.32 cm) coopered axle;
- a rotational accumulator with 105 turbine blades.
plus- 35 pair (70) dis-placers each capable of holding 113.09 cubic inches (1853.213 CC ).
... I thought: He's gone nuts!
It's not something one buys daily at the shop, or unknowingly piles up in ones attic.
I hope you can put your plan into motion, and we see some (unrevealing) pictures.
Good luck!
Marchello E.
- Attachments
-
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
If you have found a theory that you have tested and it has been mathematically proven to be "something that works", then you have satisfied Step "A".
Bill claims that Step 'A' MUST BE the building of a wheel.
Read step 'A' again. It says
Step 'C' is
But you can't say this to any Tom, Dick, or Harry, when THEY don't have the requisite technical knowledge to do a real analysis.
Thus you tell them that they need to build a "working wheel" that runs in front of them. THEY need proof. THEY might not be bridge engineers.
Sure, skeptic will claim that your math is fruit-loopy. That is why the final proof is a physical POP build.
The main problem here is I'm stuck in limbo after step 'D'. and before steps 'F'.
But I never lied to Bill.
And yes, Ed, I'd like nothing better than to build it so you can see.
Bill claims that Step 'A' MUST BE the building of a wheel.
Read step 'A' again. It says
The building of a wheel is steps 'D' and 'F'.A] First get something that works!!!
Step 'C' is
If this has been done, then you already know if it will work or not. You can't simple say gravity turns it. You must dig real deep and DEFINE why it works. If you can do that on a real engineering level, then building the wheel is secondary.C] Define the principle or the reason why it works!
But you can't say this to any Tom, Dick, or Harry, when THEY don't have the requisite technical knowledge to do a real analysis.
Thus you tell them that they need to build a "working wheel" that runs in front of them. THEY need proof. THEY might not be bridge engineers.
Sure, skeptic will claim that your math is fruit-loopy. That is why the final proof is a physical POP build.
The main problem here is I'm stuck in limbo after step 'D'. and before steps 'F'.
But I never lied to Bill.
And yes, Ed, I'd like nothing better than to build it so you can see.
-
eccentrically1
- Addict
- Posts: 3166
- Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:25 pm
Fat chance Bill will ever apologize to me for all the crap he has thrown my way.Stewart wrote:An apology would probably go a long way to smoothing things over.
Oh, wait a minute. You expect an apology from me to Bill? What for? I did nothing wrong. It was NOT me that misunderstood MY PLAN. That was Bill's misunderstanding. So who owes who an apology?
How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?
re: Has An Important Property Of Fluids Been Overlooked ?
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2013 7:07 pm Post subject: re: A working wheel is only days away! Reply with quote Edit this post Report Post to Admin
Jim_Mich writes:
Quote:
Sorry Ralph, I cannot show you my wheels like you do. My wheels are built with everything all out in the open so everything is shown and nothing is hidden. So any pictures would end up showing all.
No problem with that Jim, I understand, it is the same reason you do not see a side or edge view of my work in progress. i only show it out of sincerity and that I am not bluffing or trolling.
Quote:
I'm of the firm belief that any wheel concept that expects to gain continuous force from gravity is impossible. Main stream science is on my side.
Your debate is a firm belief with no substantiation, basing/making fact that mainstream science is on your side simply because it has not proven otherwise. You put yourself in the same boat that science has been floating in for the last 300 years using "It cannot be done because it has not been done" for a life preserver.
If you were to study the "mainstream" works of Danial Bernoulli, father Johann Bernoulli,his teacher Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz, Johann's student Leonhard Euler, Christiaan Huyghen's and William Kenrick, you may find as I have, there are holes in your boat.
This is a statement in response for enlightenment not to be seen as rebuke, I have promised not to do so.
Ralph
Jim_Mich writes:
Quote:
Sorry Ralph, I cannot show you my wheels like you do. My wheels are built with everything all out in the open so everything is shown and nothing is hidden. So any pictures would end up showing all.
No problem with that Jim, I understand, it is the same reason you do not see a side or edge view of my work in progress. i only show it out of sincerity and that I am not bluffing or trolling.
Quote:
I'm of the firm belief that any wheel concept that expects to gain continuous force from gravity is impossible. Main stream science is on my side.
Your debate is a firm belief with no substantiation, basing/making fact that mainstream science is on your side simply because it has not proven otherwise. You put yourself in the same boat that science has been floating in for the last 300 years using "It cannot be done because it has not been done" for a life preserver.
If you were to study the "mainstream" works of Danial Bernoulli, father Johann Bernoulli,his teacher Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz, Johann's student Leonhard Euler, Christiaan Huyghen's and William Kenrick, you may find as I have, there are holes in your boat.
This is a statement in response for enlightenment not to be seen as rebuke, I have promised not to do so.
Ralph