My YouTube Channel

[ME]

Lindgaard, that your build costs you time and money only tells us that you are inefficient.
We all have our own investments and creative solutions.
Perhaps use different materials, or find a cheaper hobby.

You come here and say you want to present things, why do you whine that you must present things...
That is all you, against yourself.

[JAL]

And yet your criticism makes you a manager and/or supervisor. Easy for you to claim that you are trying to motivate me while I consider it a problem. That's why I don't get along with people like you. There is simply nothing that protects the builder's work. You just stated that I've been missing your leadership skills, you even claimed that I work inefficiently and that with your guidance you would make it possible for me to achieve success. That's one reason why I have no need to change how I have been pursuing my work. I am pursuing my build based on my experience being involved in the development and research that I have done. You have not been a part of this, that's why you can't become a part of it now. If I allowed that then you would have a legal claim to having contributed to my success.
Anyone who shows their work should openly reject criticism and never react to it. And every builder should be aware that without a legal agreement in place, any benefits that can occur as the result of a successful build can be tied up in court for years. That's how attorneys earn a living.

[ME]

The problem is Lindgaard, you're just talking inconsistently by making things up.
I never claimed i'm here "to motivate you", but if it works than all the kuddo's to you.
I never said you "lack leadership skills", and certainly not mine. But now you mention it, perhaps I agree with you, you are incredibly immature and dense.
I don't claim you work inefficiently, that's a conclusion from your own excuse about time and money.
We all spend time and money.

You say it may be "easy to criticize", but it is far easier to make up accusation and false comparisons and then complain about not being helped.
It usually ramps up to some self-invented personal vendetta.
You do that non-stop like some broken record.
So why should I show something to Lindgaard when it quacks like a sunken duck and fantasizes on whatever random nonsense is on his mind now?
I already showed many things on this forum.
I did try to work together with you. Even though it was a one-sided offering from my part in the attempt to make this a better place.
Free of charge I gave you animations and several analysis of previous designs. I also taught you a thing or two about spreadsheets.
Do you hear me complain about that?
Hmm?

Welcome on an open discussion forum where things are also scraped by search engines.
Things you post are already "out there", even without my so-called criticism.

[JAL]

ME, with how I've been ridiculed, it's either so credit for my work can be vulture or I am being abused. Criticism can be construed as either abusive behavior or an attempt to extort someone. ie., if I do not go along with those making demands that I am expected to adhere to, I will be banned.
It is also not unreasonable for me to consider that something can work that I've spent over 10 years working on.
Abusive people and thieves try to hide their true intentions.
That's why I believe that if this forum or overunity.com were not so hostile but allowed for ideas to be pursued, I probably would have already had a working wheel if my build proves out either now or in the future.
It's sad that I have to make people aware of what the law allows for. But trying to work openly on my own build or with others is a mistake. It's a waste of time actually.

[ME]

You could be worried about thieves. But do you think they would leave a notification, or even a tiny sneer? Is ridicule a good diversion tactic?


I'l' just write down my perspective:

Earlier I had criticism on your math.
I hope you understand that such has nothing to do with you personally.
I know it takes time and effort to write down those formulas which can already be cumbersome on paper.
Transferring it to some reply online sometimes feels like writing hieroglyphs.
And all that effort for people who'll probably skip that post anyway: big effort, low gains.
I totally understand. And many don't like math at all.

But to be honest, that's actually exactly why I try it anyway.
I'm probably weird that way, so I don't expect it from someone else.
The more I write those formulas, the more proficient I get at it.
It requires me to slow down and pay attention to the details.
So my intention is: I tell you where I strand, and then you tell me how I can continue. Working together should be that simple.
And then I could still make mistakes... but that doesn't matter, because the minority that finds it interesting or the actual recipient should be able to detect that mistake.
All the kuddos to those who do.
For what it is worth, one can simply call me out on it. It's online math, a mistake is easy... nothing intentional. no harm done.
Just a reminder for me to pay more attention next time. So it helps me in one of my self appointed subgoals.


At least for me, it works the same for presented PMM designs and ideas.
The math tells us it shouldn't work anyway. That shouldn't be a real surprise to any of us!

The interesting part is to verify and prove how a design could be able to work indefinitely anyway, despite what that holy math is telling us.
But on this forum we usually never get to this last part because people think that mentioning that math or some derivative at all is some kind of personal insult, or even "hate" as some dare to put it... How weird can that be? Please enlighten me!

So you see mr Lindgaard, I sure understand what you mean by hostility and whatever more. But so it seems, I look at it from the other side.
And that's the reason why, in my opinion at least, we should stick to the problem that is presented for discussion, and try not make it personal.
People who are amazingly full of themselves and turn abstract things unnecessarily into a personal vendetta are hostile in my view. That's why I don't get along with that kind of people.

[JAL]

I like the way ME explained why he doesn't get along with people like me. I'm full of myself. Like AB Hammer, he chose not to work with me. He shouldn't concern himself with a project that he did not want to be involved with.
I would suggest that people in here learn some about basic physics. It can help a person to understand how to apply math.

[JAL]

@all, this is an easy way to calculate acceleration of a wheel and a decrease in resistance of the ascending weight. It's pretty cool actually with how much it simplies everything. It's for a rotating wheel. An example is what I am working on. I'll let ME explain this to you if you're interested in it. Just let him know, or AB Hammer.
And if someone understands this, then I could probably explain to you why I think my build could work. And with the first math I showed, this could show how much a weight retracts as the wheel rotates along with everything else. Hope you guys can have some fun with it 😉
https://youtu.be/9bJ2Z1jbIAE[/url]

[WaltzCee]

I’m puzzled by two responses to my quote from Wikipedia. First JALs comment and secondly MEs. My quote was a reminder about people throwing wild accusations without any supporting evidence. It is usually regarded as ‘projection’, in psychological terms. Read up on it if you don’t understand. As for your response ME, I usually have great respect for your comments, but your latest just went right over my head, I have not the faintest idea what you were talking about. My apologies for failing to understand, put it down to my age.

JC

that was just jowls ,Jimmy boy ,getting in touch with his inner fairy. Freudian projection.
Freud did have a point. Miss Lindgaard is a textbook example.

[WaltzCee]

The problem is Lindgaard, you're just talking inconsistently by making things up.

incredibly horrible sophistry. I notice a lot of Straw Men, guilt by association, Glory by
association in his case equating himself to Bessler. He often comes to the wrong conclusion
and he does this deliberately. Puts words in people's mouth. He's just one sick puppy.

Our narcissistic friend is emotionally stunted and has attention deficit disorder. He complains
about not having time but he posts about 6 posts a day. He lives for the attention.
But he doesn't know how to get it in the real world.

[ME]

Oh well, drama does what drama does.

Let me try to alleviate his despair.

ME stated that math says it won't work. Why can't I disagree with him?
https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/view ... 632#168632

An interesting question, I don't know why either!
Of course you can disagree with me.
You are just at a disadvantage because that math-not-allowing-perpetual motion is not my opinion.
It is not anyone's opinion.
The mathematics is tested, checked and verified over centuries by numerous people by means of experimentation, observation and measuring it.
The mathematics is true when it's able to predict the outcome of some phenomena. (<-- Insert your PMM here!)
Hence, the math stands and is a proven fact until proven otherwise: that's the whole point of science in general.
So sure you can disagree, you're free to think against proven facts.

Don't despair, Math is not rigid.
Please proof and verify to the whole world how wrong that mathematics is, and that math will be changed.
Best way? Via some visual experiment.
And you're working on that... I sincerely wish you best of luck!

The math tells us it shouldn't work anyway. That shouldn't be a real surprise to any of us!

To appreciate this statement you need to know how the mathematics behind basic physics works.
That math is based on a simple permutations of quantities found by: Geometry and acceleration.
Acceleration has all the space and time one needs. Geometry adds form. I may oversimplify, but this is basically it.
View that video JAL posted. Work that out, and find the formulas of classical mechanics yourself.

How would one ever be able to find out how the laws of physics will be wrong, when not understanding them?
The unfortunate consequence is that once you do, you'll also understand why perpetual motion is impossible... from that specific mathematical point of view.
But don't despair...

The interesting part is [...]
But on this forum we usually never get to this last part because people think that mentioning that math or some derivative at all is some kind of personal insult.

Oh well. Confirmed.

And, back in desperation.

[JAL]

ME, I'll explain a few simple facts to you, okay? In 1687 a guy names Isaac Newton published a book called Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-principia/ .
In it he made known his 1st Law of Motion, Newton's First Law states that an object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an external force
In this forum you guys have ersatz science. In here it's called Mr Tim's "Keel Effect". It seems that you guys haven't made it up to 1687 yet. Am wondering, has the Magna Carta been signed yet? Just trying to find out what year it is ;)
I am mindful of the movie Demolition Man. In more ways than one. Myself, I happen to like what I'm doing. So in reality opinions like those found in this forum are frustrating. It's like going to church. Someone will always want to prove how good they think they are. Isn't it funny? Even Christians will support Darwin. I think I will be able to have some fun with this and other things (one is another history project that took place in 1827). I'll need to take a gentler approach though. People's egos are so fragile.

[silent]

.

[JAL]

@silent, in a way it might be best for people to pursue their own ideas. There is messaging for suggestions that might help someone have an easier go of things.
It's like with the trebuchet, what isn't being considered is conservation of energy. That's why it works. The work it takes to reset it is equal to the work it does. They do not understand how the mechanics works with conservation of energy. An example is that the weight to be thrown is dragged while accelerating then lifted. Couldn't they have used a bucket like on the trebuchet to pull back a catapult? Wouldn't that have been simpler? Apparently back then they knew a few things.
That would probably be Newton's 2nd Law of Motion (conservation of energy). When the bucket is dropping, it's not lifting a weight, it is accelerating increasing it's momentum. Why it's better than a catapult.
What they need to do is to break down each step. It's possible that a trebuchet might develop extra energy because of it's design. That takes time to do. It's just that I know what I want to do. And it's basically relax while I finish my build. Then I can go to 1827. Am kind of tired of circa 1700. If everything goes well, you'll understand,.

[ovyyus]

The blind leading the blind. Literally.

[silent]

.