Bessler's use of Gravity

james kelly · Post by **james kelly** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:13 pm

GENTLEMEN! I wish at this time to appologize for my behavior on this thread and some others. It is unbecoming of me to behave so. It has forther caused some problems for people who do not deserve problems. I did not wish to cause problems
for anyone. Coylo, I especially want to appologize to you. I was actually enjoying tormenting all of you. Some of you have been very helpful and you did not even realize it.. Now to clear up something that seems to iratate some one I respect; Ralph and I have never met. There is no conection between he and myself. I respect him as a person of integrity and admire him a great deal. there are others that are very good men. honest, reliable. Thank you all for you patience. James L. Kelly

coylo · Post by **coylo** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:29 pm

No hard feelings.....
I can get a bit carried away myself!

Now where's that evidence? lol....

rlortie · Post by **rlortie** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 4:22 pm

James K.,

As I stated, your stirring of the pot did not irritate me. I too watched for productive input.

I only responded when reasonable doubt was placed on any connection between your input and my relationship or involvement with you. I am not a moderator nor do I have any right to say what is printed and what is not.

I only reserve the right to speak up for myself when and were I see fit. So enjoy yourselves, I was enjoying and found input by other members to be of some innovative use. It is the assumptions that I am doing something that I am not that get me involved.

Coylo,

IMO as for producing any evidence, this should not and will not happen without a caucus meeting of all involved to set policy standards on what to make public. There has been a number of statements posted by James and myself that has lead at least one discerning member very close to the discovery already. I am in private contact with this member.

Ralph

MC · Post by MC » Mon Sep 18, 2006 9:00 pm

EDIT,

Sorry, second thoughts...

MC

james kelly · Post by **james kelly** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 12:46 pm

RALPH: I had a fly that kept bugging me , so I swatted it. Now our wheel won't work!

ken_behrendt · Post by **ken_behrendt** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 1:36 pm

James Kelly...

If that fly's weight was what was making your wheel run, then that wheel must have been VERY precisely balanced! 8^)

ken

james kelly · Post by **james kelly** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 3:49 am

It is balanced well.When the wind blows with the front open and the wheel in not loaded with any weight, the wind makes it turn very well. under those circumstances it is easy to stop, as it has no power.

primemignonite · Post by **primemignonite** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 8:10 pm

james kelly wrote:GENTLEMEN! I wish at this time to appologize for my behavior on this thread and some others..

I was actually enjoying tormenting all of you. . . . James L. Kelly

[Coloration for emphasis, mine.]

Not being one of the tormentees themselves, I can dispassionately ask this question: if that was actually so, the torment enjoying part, how then can even bloated temerity allow a request for forgiveness to be proffered to those so-effected, lacking copious expressions of shame?

I am as sure as sure can be, that if this James were to try a round such as they, it's subjects, were treated to by the other, I would have long ago been reamed right out of here.

James

james kelly · Post by **james kelly** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 9:25 pm

JAMES; I never meant the kind of torment that you seem to be thinking of. I was talking of some of the bantering that we got carried away with. I was very serious about the wheel concept. or have I confused you. I do not want you to be confused.
james

graham · Post by **graham** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:41 pm

James reveals :

I was very serious about the wheel concept. or have I confused you. I do not want you to be confused.

Are you no longer serious James ??

Graham

Michael · Post by **Michael** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:21 am

Your right primemignonite, we all would. Makes you wonder doesn't it. Some people are just good at political poker playing, even when they make it more than obvious they are bluffing.

ken_behrendt · Post by **ken_behrendt** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:32 pm

James Kelly...

Now that all of that is out of the way, can you tell us what progress you are making on your wheel? Are you any closer to getting continuous motion from it that would be on an "undeniable" nature?

ken

james kelly · Post by **james kelly** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 3:07 pm

I have had continuous motion, but it is not like what it is designed for. There is a lot more to it than just building it. A small increment of change make a drastic difference in operation. We will solve this. There is no doubt.

Bessler007 · Post by **Bessler007** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 4:01 pm

Mr. Kelly

A small increment of change make a drastic difference in operation.

I'm sure you know its important to take accurate measurements before you make changes. Its equally important to change one thing at a time then remeasure. If you change two varibles you can't know what caused the change. Someone with your background should know this. Sometimes it's easy to forget what you know.

☯

jim_mich · Post by **jim_mich** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 4:38 pm

A wheel that starts turning then "keels" and just rocks back and forth has "continuous motion" for a limited time. On this discussion forum sometimes the wrong words are chosen when describing wheels. We are looking for only one thing! That is, "A wheel that turns continuously, perpetually, forever and ever, until its bearings wear out, as long as there is a world without end. Amen.Â“ This is what a "working wheel" means. Anything less is just is just a wheel that doesn't work!

james kelly wrote:I have had continuous motion, but it is not like what it is designed for. There is a lot more to it than just building it. A small increment of change make a drastic difference in operation. We will solve this. There is no doubt.

Golly, Mr. Kelly, I thought that you had already "solved" it? I thought you "had" or "have" a working wheel? There is only one type of continuous motion that we're looking for. That motion is rotation. The wheel must go round and round and never stop!

Me thinks Mr. Kelly has been trying to "torment" us. Me thinks Mr. Kelley is just like the rest of us and that he has a wheel idea which he "believes" will work. Me thinks that as Mr. Kelly builds his wheel he has the same problem which all of us have, which is his wheel refuses to "turn continuously, perpetually, forever and ever". There is no shame in having a wheel that doesn't "work". But saying or implying that you have a "working wheel" when all you have is an idea or maybe a non-working model is very bad for one's reputation. Me thinks Mr. Kelly should come clean and tell us the truth rather than beating around the bush with vague statements.

Just my opinions.

BesslerWheel.com

Bessler's use of Gravity

re: Bessler's use of Gravity

re: Bessler's use of Gravity

re: Bessler's use of Gravity

re: Bessler's use of Gravity

re: Bessler's use of Gravity

re: Bessler's use of Gravity

re: Bessler's use of Gravity

Re: re: Bessler's use of Gravity

re: Bessler's use of Gravity

re: Bessler's use of Gravity

re: Bessler's use of Gravity

re: Bessler's use of Gravity

re: Bessler's use of Gravity

re: Bessler's use of Gravity

re: Bessler's use of Gravity