What does 'something that works' mean?

[ovyyus]

JM did claim that he had a working wheel. He has always stated that he is following his 'The Plan'. JM offered to trade me one of the small demonstration motion wheel models that he said he was making and would be finished in about 3 months. That was clearly Step F] of his plan - well beyond a working model! How was I to know that it was all just a false pretence designed to fool me into editing a forum post? JM's false pretence continues as he tries to justify his deception by calling me a liar. Whoosh.

[Fletcher]

Actually ME, I think the original question on page one was a generalized one (the context as you said).

This meaning is important for understanding and clarifying claims of 'something that works' made on this forum.

I put this scenario to you ..

The original opening post was not as general as you suggest.

I thought I already split the various possible contexts.

1. The question was clearly in the specific context of a personal traumatic event related to someone's Plan....
2. The actual general meaning of such stand-alone sentence depends on the context where and when it's used: technically or commonly.
3. Anyone who will use the word "work" to describe a mechanism, will be confronted with Scenario 1, while just used in Scenario 2...
The poll hides under Scenario 2, but is just Scenario 1.

It's unwise in wanting a word, or a sentence to be stained and related to some historic event..... Whoever is right or wrong.

... how long does it run; what rpm can it sustain; how big is it; have you run it with a load and how much load can it handle and sustain rpm; etc etc ???

Yes, I agree those are the kinds of questions to ask.

The problem is that (using Jim's PLAN as an example) many here would state A] first get something that you think can/will work.

Obviously, until an experiment is conducted to prove the principle or a working POP is produced as validation of the idea/concept then it can not be known with 100% certainty that 'first get something that works' will in fact work as anticipated.

No disrespect to jim_mich but his small water based motion wheels (as per item F] for distribution IIRC) did not in fact work as planned/designed in D]. The original idea (for the water based wheel) was flawed in some way and didn't live up to his expectations as per A]. He did, in fairness suggest there was a work-around to solve the dilemma IINM. This just proves that an idea or concept can not be 100% certain until a build is completed.

Then they would insert the missing E] between D] (design POP phase) and F] (build models phase) with something like .. E] Build one POP that validates A].

Just my opinions.

[ME]

I highly doubt Jim follows his own plan as initially shown... It looks like a quick write up, but nevertheless could be used as a kind of guideline.

Currently I'm looking at "something that works" for me.
I dead-locked myself with the topic about the importance of raising weights.
Now I'm working on something that circumvents that issue: it's worth the pursuit.
Unfortunately it is not at the stage I can claim it is "something that works" as a genuine perpetual principle, not even to myself.


I can't choose between two points of views which are not my own.
The only thing I can do is trying to avoid finding myself in some similar situation (whichever side). I guess/hope nobody wants to find themselves in such situation, not even the ones currently involved.

How was I to know that it was all just a false pretence designed to fool me into editing a forum post?

I have honestly no idea.
I would absolutely agree when there would be a literal "I have a working perpetual motion machine".
When it all hangs on the interpretation of "something that works" (as the situation suggests), I'm a bit more skeptical - that small sentence is as non-specific as one could get, especially when the perpetual motion concept has a sharp line between working and not working.

Basically it all depends on being either a deliberate play of words, or an accidental play of words....
Intentions which are hard to determine afterwards, but summarizes the current struggle.

The situation for both sides could be there is simply nobody to blame besides oneself.

[Andyb]

I voted a working model ,i have thought i was right so many times it's silly, nothing but a prototype will do it for me ,saying that, if someone showed a drawing of what i am presently building i would vote as the solution because yet again i believe i have it, i could not build it unless i totally believe in it

[Fletcher]

Well ME .. I guess we can agree that one must choose their words carefully when making a claim. Probably wise to put some further context around them to avoid misunderstanding.

And .. expect some questions to be asked to explain what you mean by 'working' if that context is not provided or is not clear.

ETA: Best of luck btw.

[WaltzCee]

No plan is set in stone.

[ovyyus]

The only thing I can do is trying to avoid finding myself in some similar situation...

Yes. Sharing experience with deceptive behavior on the forum hopefully provides a better opportunity to understand and avoid the pitfalls associated with deceptive and exaggerated claims of success.

Understanding what is really meant by 'something that works' is important. Understanding the context of claims of a 'working wheel' is important. Eg:

So instead of your constant uninformed rants and tirades why not just complete your Proof of Concept and prove everybody wrong?

Has it ever crossed your mind than just maybe I have completed a working wheel and that I do know what I'm talking about?

[cloud camper]

It would seem the consensus is that a claim that one posseses "something that works"
means absolutely nothing unless the context is rigidly defined and agreed on by everyone.

[Art]

WaltzCee,

Plagiarism is not nice ! -(not an accusation , - just a statement )

That looks like my plan !

[jim_mich]

JM did claim that he had a working wheel.

Can you post a link where I claimed to have a "working wheel"? No? I didn't think so. Bill is a liar.

I just spent a few hours looking for ANY place where I wrote "have a working wheel".

-------------
For anyone not experience with the Bessler Search Query, here is how it is done.
Go to Advanced Search.
In Search for Key Word: enter "have a working wheel" including the quotes.
Click the lower button labeled "Search for all terms ..."
In search for Author: enter jim_mich
Leave the setting as Post time
Click the button labeled Ascending
Return First select All available character of posts.

Click the Search button.

It should say Search found 37 matches.
This means that 37 times I typed "have a working wheel"
The search ignores certain small words such as "a".
At the bottom of the page click: View all
This puts all the posts into one list.

If you want to see previous or following posts, then right-click on the Subject link located at the top-right of each post.
Right-click should open your browser in a new window showing the whole page where the post is at.

At the bottom of my Firefox browser is a "find in page" box.
Enter what you are searching for, in this case: have a working wheel
Now you can click the up and down arrows just to the right.
And the browser will high-light the phrase.
-------------

By this method, it can be proven that I NEVER wrote that I "have a working wheel". In fact, many times I cautioned other to never use such a phase unless they had an actual "working wheel"

I've been consistent in this respect for 13 years.

Bill is a liar when he writes:

JM did claim that he had a working wheel.

[rlortie]

jim_mich,

And it is obvious many of you have hit me with red dots.
It takes only three green dots to become Acknowledged. And I know I've been given many more than three green dots, So it is the red dots that busted me back down to Reputation none.

Sounds like a personal egotistical problem to me!

We all got busted, I too am back to one green. Where as I am no longer chasing Bessler's red hearings, I do not expect to regain my lost profile. But that is okay! I can live without it.

Ralph

[Furcurequs]

No plan is set in stone.

When looking for my pencil in my art supplies, I also found my pencil sharpener. So, jim_mich is welcome to borrow it if he doesn't have one of his own or, of course, a sharp knife.

Anybody else, just ask... ...first come, first serve, though.

[eccentrically1]

Any "engineer" worth his title would never claim "something that works" for a concept for perpetual motion before he had built the proof of principle device. "The plan" is BS.
Step A: First, find something you think might work, like a 10 foot board over a 10 foot creek.
Step B: Second, build a small, light, POP model, to see if it works.
Step C: It's not going to work.

[ME]

It would seem the consensus is that a claim that one posseses "something that works"
means absolutely nothing unless the context is rigidly defined and agreed on by everyone.

That's why I sometimes try to create animations of someones description of an idea...
My personal benefit: I get (hopefully) an in-depth view of the proposed principle.
A group benefit: It shows a picture how it is supposed to work.
In case the animation is wrong and needs a second one: I'll have two principles.

I proof myself several times a week I have two working wheels, my latest didn't break for 6 years: Ah well, once a year or so I just have to put in some air at the rim, but I can assure you that's just a convenience and not actually mandatory for the operating principle (...of my bike).

expect some questions to be asked to explain what you mean by 'working' if that context is not provided or is not clear

So I'll just use the words "operating", "going", "functioning", "dynamic", "moving", etc.... The 'context' will be "the wheel" of course, duh. :-)

Math, Physics, Science: They are invented for these circumstances.

One should ask about a complete set of numbers per single specific test, for several tests in variable conditions. Even better when accompanied by some formulas.
For those numbers I suspect:
Some should remain consistent with what could be expected. Some should point to inconsistencies, because of the PM-principle. Some inconsistencies should remain consistent, because it's the same PM-principle in different conditions.
A lot can be shown and proven without showing (thus protecting) the actual principle.

I'm not sure if this is enough or complete, I first have to proof the proving principle.
But before I can I need to work on some proof of the working principle before I can proof that such proving principle proofs a working principle....

Words can be so confusing sometimes.

[Furcurequs]

Indeed, eccentrically1.

A "good engineer" would not claim to have a working concept if it were but the concept for a totally unproven device until, of course, there was actually experimental validation.

Even with proven technologies, a good engineer is going to see that a prototype or prototypes are built and tested and actually work as designed before claiming a valid design.

Even if what jim_mich has said was true, as far as I know he hasn't shared his idea in full with a "good engineer" to even get a good engineer's opinion.

After having seen what I have seen from him, though, this degreed engineer would have to say that it's not looking good for his pet theory.