What does 'something that works' mean?

[jim_mich]

JM was implying that he had solved the problem.

Yes. So what's your problem?

JM still implies, actually he insists, that he has solved the problem.

Yes. So what's your problem?

JM says he's solved the problem so well that he doesn't even need to build a model to know it will work.

Yes. So what's your problem? But a physical wheel needs to be build for the benefit of skeptics.

I think the context is obvious.

Huh? I assume you imply the context of Furcurequs defamatory psycho-babble?

[ovyyus]

...this forum is very unrealistic thing to be focusing on anyways.

JM might disagree with you. He said his already solved PM wheel is worth billion$. Someone should remind him that trading stock before first getting 'something that works' might land him in jail. It's a jungle out there.

[jim_mich]

trading stock before first getting 'something that works' might land him in jail.

You are right. So it is ovvyus I have nothing to worry about. Not that I'm interesting in offering any stock anytime soon.

[preoccupied]

I don't care if Jim_Mich disagrees with me. I'm always right. Perpetual motion machines are unrealistic to look into. It's deemed impossible in education. A lot of theories can wrong though, like the Mould Effect created at Cambridge University which I think falsely tries to explain the chain fountain that was revealed on youtube by Steve Mould. Before Steve Mould even released that video I was talking about that effect on this forum because believed weights that change direction hard then shift in space based on my experiments I was doing with dumb bells. I think though that you should not speak for Jim_Mich because he does know it's an impossible thing to do but is just a curious person, made intrigued by the story of Bessler's success. I mean Jim_Mich didn't instantly become stupid to physics and forget the territory that he was treading in by being here the moment he found something that he thought would work. He's got some idea that's really cool, he just can't share the details because it would infringe on his patent rights.

Jim_Mich should not sell shares in corporations or solicit for money, or he will end up on American Greed TV show potentially. I mean I just thought that would be funny to say.

[WaltzCee]

I guess you or jim could take me to court if you think you have a case. ...lol

That's silly. I just want you to print a retraction and apology and cease and desist in this vendetta. Let us examine your egregious behavior. You are proffering a medical diagnosis and most likely without a license.

Whether with or without a license, your diagnosis is not based on anything but malicious intent. That has to violate numerous laws in most western democracies.

NB, that's the whole point. Take a moment to review the terms of use:

You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-oriented, or any other material that may violate any applicable laws.

NB: I can play your retarded games, too. I just typically choose not to.

:) Really?

[Furcurequs]

It's not a medical diagnosis. It's not even a medical condition. ...lol

...and there are numerous examples in this forum of jim_mich's actual ineptitude - if he would try to pose as an "engineer," of course.

So, no apology from me there.

That last, though. Maybe you are right. I can't really play your retarded games.

[ovyyus]

Not that I'm interesting in offering any stock anytime soon.

Until you're forced to trade in order to protect your billion$. Then your standards might drop fraudulently low.

[preoccupied]

Furcurequs, no one can blame you for bad mouthing on the internet. It's natural like peeing. You're a troll though. You keep referring to when you were critiquing math calculations that Jim_Mich was trying to help with and your challenge pinned your intelligence against Jim_Mich on a very small margin. You both know physics. The level of accuracy difference in the calculations was not very big if I remember correctly. So even if you're right, it's not like you deserve an award for it. Dunning-Kruger effect is for stupid people and this is obvious, so you said it as an exaggeration to be insulting when you know it would not apply to Jim_Mich. Troll.

[ovyyus]

Most members don't like name calling, probably because it's boring.

[Mark]

Some of the content of this post has been mentioned by other members recently.
Consider this another ballot dropped into the box.

In my previous post ["working wheel" is proof, "will work" isn't proof], I was just injecting a counterpoint. With the ingrained mindset that some of us have - the desire to see a machine up and running - the 'works' weighs a little bit heavier than the 'something'. The proof is the goal, the something is the means. Of course, their mutual dependence is required for a successful outcome.

Looking at Jim's original "Plan", step A could easily be interpreted either way by a reader that doesn't really know what was in Jim's mind when he wrote it.
I've always interpreted it as: get a POP or prototype built first. [Back when I became a member here, that's the way Jim was defining it.]
Step D - "design a simple cheap working POP sample model" - would naturally be the step related to fulfilling steps F - build a bunch of them, I - listing who they would go to, and K- ship them. The word 'sample', in D, pushes the interpretation in that direction.
Mind you, Step D is "design" -- "simple" is easy to build [many], "cheap" is inexpensive to build [many], and "sample", like what you hand out to people. Step F is "build" many [of the simple, cheap, samples].
Steps B and C fit either way.

I'm certainly not try to be a noodge about this, I'm just sayin'.... that it's reasonable that both sides of the 'something that works' issue have a leg to stand on.

The arguments stem from the fact that this isn't just a misinterpretation as Jim professes. Jim has clearly stated in the past that 'something that works' meant a working wheel. Now he says it doesn't, and bullheadedly won't admit to his having redefined step A.

I could not care less that Jim has redefined the first step of his plan so that it better fits his point of view. It's his plan, his prerogative. I just wish that he'd stop twisting his own words to suit his 'need' to defend himself, from something that could have been avoided by being up-front about it in the first place:

"Okay, guys. You all are familiar with 'The Plan'. Well, I'm making some minor changes to it in order to clarify some things. Here is the updated version."

I think it would have saved a lot of grief.

[Mark]

Bill,

My answer to your topic question:

Something that works means an actual working model.

Works. As in, now. Indisputable proof that the 'something' was correct.

[cloud camper]

This entire nonsensical situation of demanding acceptance for "something that works" when it clearly doesn't is driven by our "inventors" intense fear of failure in front of others.

If enough members agree that his ideas are viable, he can then believe he is an inventor in the same league as his siblings and never has to actually test his 99.7% complete prototype.

This of course explains why he posts confidential medical information to "prove" he is too feeble to finish his prototype and then goes out into the hot July sun for three hours to mow his property.

The forum can then look forward to many more years of unsupported claims and excuses why he cannot test.

[jim_mich]

This entire nonsensical situation of demanding acceptance for "something that works" when it clearly doesn't ...

Cloud camper, you state this as a fact, when in reality it is only your opinion. You really don't know anything about it. But yet you are judgmental and claim it "clearly doesn't". How can you justify making such a judgmental claim without knowledge of its PM principle?

And I'm not demanding acceptance of anything. What I am demanding is normal respect of one human to another. Oops, I forgot, trolls aren't human.

Now buzz off, cloud camper, you're like a pesky bug that needs swatting.

[cloud camper]

How can you justify making such a judgmental claim without knowledge of it's PM principle?

Easy - since you have shown no conceptual understanding of fictitious forces other than to say they are "ridiculous" and the entirety of your claim is derived from a homemade spreadsheet we can be 100% certain you have not described them properly in your program leading to erroneous results.

We also know you are 100% biased toward a "fictitious forces are real" interpretation with zero physical evidence to support your position.

Simply ignoring the (non)reality of fictitious forces because you don't understand the math and falsely consider them as real is a fatal error and shows you have not done your homework!

"A genius is often merely a talented person who has done ALL of their homework" Thomas Edison

[KAS]

Having known and respected Jim's input to this forum for quite some time, and Not wishing to get involved in this forum spat, I am nevertheless confused over the claims and counterclaims being exchanged.
To clear up the issues once and for all, is Jim_mich willing to divulge any info on his achievement/apparent breakthrough without reavealing the actual design.

In particular, would you be willing to clarify the following?

1. Have you achieved a working sim?
2. Is a working (self rotating) physical device in existence?
3. If yes, Could you inform us of the energy source?

I think the answers to these 3 questions (without prejudice) will clear up things without giving too much info away.

Kas