What does 'something that works' mean?

[rlortie]

jim_mich wrote: (Edited for brevity and context.)

It seems Ralph was right, I said too much on the Bessler Wheel forum. And you guessed a big portion of my wheel idea. I'm not prepared to talk details about it just yet.

And ever since and now, I do not remember what it was that I posted leading up to this current precarious situation; a predicament I call a quagmire.

If only I could remember, it may be a useful tool in settling this problem once and for all. Meanwhile my personal feelings toward jim_mich has not changed. I will always see him as being egotistical with a possible touch of inferior complex.

Ralph

[ovyyus]

...something like: Yeah, nice try buddy! and repost that "sensitive"-post anyway

That's what I did. JM then defended his position by pretending the steps in his plan could be taken in no particular order, he changed his meaning of 'something that works', he accused me of lying about him having a working wheel, and he called me (and others) silly names for challenging his nonsense. It's farcical.

Now JM claims he doesn't even need to build a working model because he already knows his idea will actually work. He says the reason for having to build 'something that works' is to satisfy the skeptics, who he calls idiots, trolls, liars, etc. Thus JM already has a working wheel (albeit unbuilt) but anyone suggesting he says such is called a liar. Duh!

Those who come to this forum wielding unsubstantiated claims of success and pretending they have some kind of PM authority are usually met with vigorous questions and analysis, from which we all learn. As it should be. Understanding the meaning of 'something that works' seems important to most members here, judging by participation in this poll. The majority of members seem to want more clarity of definition in order to help understand claims of success. A minority of members seem to want less clarity in order to promote their own agenda.

[Mark]

I do not remember what it was that I posted

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 535#108535 , I believe.
IMO - You are totally innocent in this mess.

I hope that all is well with you.

Mark

eta - I find it curious that Jim requests Bill remove/edit his post, but Jim leaves his as-is.

[ME]

That's what I did. JM then defended his position ...

Jim is an IP-sensitive, stubborn guy with a temper...
Jim used his plan according to his own interpretation and used his public-domain interpretation as a translation tool which is a by-the-way not agreed upon nor verified nor quality assured...
Probably he wasn't aware of the subtlety of "something that works", or he wouldn't have agreed to "viability" when introduced.

Whatever the Plan, it was not part of your deal. I could be a trick, an excuse, a convenience or an explanation... I doubt even Jim was aware of which one it actually was.
What happened is that it was you who actually (and unknowingly) stepped out of the deal by interpreting that (simplified public-domain-) Plan as a good explanation and a means to stay on his list.
While actually it should have been simply: No deal -->you repost, + you're off Jim's list.
(I know it's easy talk, but still)

But the current situation is: you talk about a post which is obsolete; a plan which is not a plan; and Jim who interprets his own plan in his own unique way while making translation errors on this forum --as otherwise that plan could simply exist without requiring the explanation of the listed pointers because it would just be a requirements-plan or a process-plan (or similar), as many assume it to be--
This results in a skewed battlefield where you fight mainly against your own assumption, and Jim simply protects his own interpretation of his current Plan.
Jim is still able to change his plan to whatever - and you will only get more scrambled in your own assumption, doubts and hopes which forms the primary situation and Jim is just a secondary excuse and trigger: You can't fight yourself and expect to win... Jim is somewhere else completely, only defending his current situation.
That's why you "lie & troll", and Jim "lies & calls names" because communication is based on totally different things in each their own view.

Sorry for the psycho-babble.
But this scenario is my main reason I believe that even though you could be technically correct I also believe Jim didn't behave with bad intentions in mind, we just don't always get completely informed. It's even possible he has some genuine simulator that works.

TL.DR; I suspect: you are both stubborn and correct in each your own mysterious way, creating both some messy stuff.

-----
Anyone coming to this forum .... first detects a power struggle.

Anyone coming to this forum wielding claims of success and pretend authority are usually met with vigorous questions and analysis, from which we all learn. As it probably should be.

Maybe we could make the "vigorous"-part dependable on the "pretended authority"-part, but basically I agree.

I find it curious that Jim requests Bill remove/edit his post, but Jim leaves his as-is

While things went differently over here: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 4712#54712

[ovyyus]

It seems this poll has run its course and I'd just like to say thank you to everyone for their contributions. I think 39 participants in a poll might even be close to a forum record. If it isn't, then I'm sure someone will correct me :D Clearly it is a subject of particular interest and hopefully we've gained slightly more insight into what is meant by 'something that works' on this forum. Cheers, and good hunting!

[ME]

(it isn't :-)

To drag things a little bit further I've made a small summary of my previous post.
It doesn't add anything to what I've babbled about earlier, but it rather has an interesting pattern which could be something else that works - a rewrite just makes it a bit easier to see..
Perhaps some will recognize it immediately, perhaps some have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about.
Next week I'll post the pattern (or similarity).

1/8: This struggle is mainly focused, for some reason, on a single issue. Over and over again: they just don't quit!
2/8: While at the core they both express their own rightful opinions, as we of course all do. That's what I continuously try to say here.
3/8: Actually they both miss the whole point as they drag everyone along into this issue.
4/8: Perhaps it's best not to think how things escalated so quickly: but finding a possible solution ain't easy, that's for sure.
5/8: But it's obvious this battle would continue where one blatantly tries to prevail over the other as long as this forum would exist. They do it to themselves.
6/8: Sometimes one is correct and the other mindlessly respond, sometimes it's all turned around: that's how it goes.
7/8: They are both locked into this situation, because both their misaligned views simply prevents a solution or the ability to give it a rest; and thus they'll always feel the need to defend their own opinion, and thereby cursing and trolling a lot according to their own intent and assumptions.
8/8: This is as short as I can put it.

[agor95]

1. What does 'something that works' mean?
An actual working model.

2. The poll has been used too air two damaged personalities issues.

Ban both for six months and ban anyone else talking about it for
1 month. [starting after this post :)]

[Zhyyra]

An idea or concept is what can lead to an actual working model. You need to bring the concept to fruition before you have something that works. You cannot have the baby before it's been had.

[jim_mich]

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. Not just any half-ass back-of-a-napkin idea or a rough sketch on an old envelope. No, the idea must be fully thought out, detailed, mathematically calculated, and it is obvious that it is something that works so as to cause PM.

The original phrase was coined by MYSELF in MY PLAN. Bill has continued trying to inject HIS THINKING into MY PLAN in an attempt to cover up his lie.

The fact is that Bill accused me of lying. I said I never lied. Bill said I lied to him in an email. I produced the email, proving I never lied. Bill then attempted to use MY PLAN as his reason for lying about me. I'm am not the liar here. The liar was Bill, The liar is Bill. This silly feud about the What does 'something that works' mean? is just a smoke screen by Bill in his attempt to camouflage and obscure the FACT that Bill lied. And to this day Bill continues the feud and continues the lie. I'm not the bad guy here. Bill is the bad guy. Bill is the one that keeps harping about what is working wheel versus something that works.

First, long before you can build a working wheel you must get some method. principle, concept, idea, that works in such a manner or way that perpetual motion is the result. Before you can build a working wheel you must have plans and drawings and calculations. And if you have found something that works then when that something is built it will be a working wheel,

Bill lies are a totally separate beef between the two of us from the meaning of 'something that works'. First thing Bill should do is admit that he lied to the forum about me claiming to have had a working wheel. I never made such a claim. My claim is and always has been that I've found something that works in such a simple way that when built it will be a working wheel. It is like dropping a 12 foot beam across a 10 foot creek. You simply know beforehand that such will be a working wheel. Bill's lie is that I claimed a working wheel.

Bill must apologies for defaming me by his claim that I lied. I never lied to Bill.

Bill must accept that MY PLAN is MY PLAN and not his plan, and as such, my plan has always been to First get something that works, which means first come up with some method, some principle, some means, such as will produce a wheel capable of working until it wears itself out. In other words, get something that is capable of perpetual motion. This has always been my idea of the first step. And Bill needs to stop trying to twist my first step into having a working wheel. There is a difference between the first step of getting something that works and the later step of having built a working wheel.

Bill must accept that MY PLAN is and always has been MY PLAN and NOT his plan. Bill needs to stop pushing his agenda of twisting the meaning of my plan in an effort to justify his lies.

This feud will continue until Bill does the right thing and admits to his errors. Bill must admit that I never lied to him nor attempted to deceive him. That is the truth. Bill must admit that he made an erroneous assumption.

Bill must admit that MY PLAN is mine, and not his, and that I am the ultimate source for understanding the details and meaning of my plan. Bill must stop with his harassment concerning the meaning of "something that works" as it relates to MY PLAN. Bill needs to accept that one needs to find something that works before one can build a working wheel. Bill needs to apologize for trying to twist MY PLAN in order to justify his lies about me.

Until Bill apologizes for these two wrongs, this feud will continue. Alternately Bill can just stop with his harassing statements concerning MY PLAN and something that works and snide remarks about what is a working wheel.

James R. Randall, also known as

[jim_mich]

An idea or concept is what can lead to an actual working model. You need to bring the concept to fruition before you have something that works. You cannot have the baby before it's been had.

A baby is a baby at conception. Before birth, a baby is a living human. It is something that works.

Being born is when the baby become a fully functioning working human being.

Before birth it is something that works, but it is not yet a walking talking seeing breathing working human.

A concept that works after a wheel is built is no different than the same concept before a wheel is built. If it is a something that works after being built then it was also something that works before being built. Building a wheel that works does no magically change the concept or design from one state to another. If it works after being built then is was "something that works" before it was built.

Before being built or born, the subject is not a working wheel/baby, but it is something that works and will become a working wheel/baby after construction/birth.

[ovyyus]

And if you have found something that works then when that something is built it will be a working wheel,

So JM changes his story yet again and is now saying that he does actually need to build a 'working wheel' in order to know if he does actually have 'something that works' - after claiming he already knew his idea would work without first having to build it! It's hard keeping up with his revisions.

Why doesn't JM simply revise the first step of his published plan so that it is not misleading and it can be properly understood by his target audience? - Step A] first get something that might work!!! - Although, I guess the three exclamation marks might not be required if 'might' was the actual original intent ;)

[Mark]

I vote for a comprehensible re-write of the entire "Plan".

[jim_mich]

The plan as written is good. I vote for Bill to quit trying to twist the plan and to confess to his lies.

[jim_mich]

The only reason for Bill to twist the plan is an attempt to obfuscate and hide his original lies.

Until Bill confesses to lying, this feud will continue.

As long as Bill keeps trying to twist MY PLAN, this feud will continue.

The ball is in Bill's hands. He can continue the feud. Or he can fess up and admit he lied. Or he can simply drop the feud.

It is Bill's choice to make.

Others forum member's comments simply add fuel to the feud.

[ME]

...I just restate that I see two "rights". For some reason two "rights" make a wrong. (Mathematically that would indicate a product of two imaginary things)
Anyway...

Plan.A: Let's say we have something that works like MT001 (sure we know it works)
Plan.B: Ensure the idea survives (let's make a wood print)
Plan.C: Define the principle why it works... oh darn!!

Plan.A: Let's say we have something that works like MT002
Plan.B: Ensure the idea survives (let's make a wood print)
etc..

I agree with Jim that at a certain point one is able to dismiss the simple designs, so that things similar to earlier attempts are no longer considered as something that works.

There's nothing wrong with the Plan for non-commercial personal use (although I would alter it for my own use), but it definitely sucks when communicating progress.

Others forum member's comments simply add fuel to the feud.

No you do it to yourselves: it's a simple choice to stop and pure nonsense to blame others for your own problem. You continue because you simply don't understand each other...