Tinkerer say wheel works.

[jim_mich]

Michael bugs me. Maybe that is what he is trying to do, stir up trouble. He seems to think he must tell others where they are wrong and stupid, while he is so smart and right! I've never said that I believe the Tinkerer's wheel really works or not; just that I think it deserves a thorough test to prove it one way or the other! I keep an open mind, not like Michael who has already passed judgment on the Tinkerer and his wheel.

I only said that my out of pocket cost would be small, NOT that the construction of the wheel was small.

The parts list and design details are nearing completion. It looks like about 28 different parts. Of these about 18 are 'off the shelf' screws, nuts, spacers and etc. so I'll need to manufacture the remaining 10 or so items. Because there are multiple units I'll need to manufacture about 406 parts. Add to that about 362 'off the shelf' parts and the total count comes to around 768 parts that will get assembled together. It may take until Christmas to build?

For such a simple idea it sure can balloon into a complex assembly. My version uses components to reduce friction, which increases complexity. And other components have been redesigned to reduce complexity. So my version and the Tinkerer's version end up about the same complexity. My version is scaled down to a smaller diameter being careful to keep all ratios and functions the same.

My out-of-pocket costs will still be near my original estimate. If I were to have a machine shop build my version it would cost a few thousand dollars. But I have equipment in my basement shop, which coupled with my free spare time can handle the job.

[Michael]

> Michael bugs me. Maybe that is what he is trying to do, stir up trouble. He seems to think he must tell others where they are wrong and stupid, while he is so smart and right!
We'll Imsorry that I bug you. Were you or were you not asking for input? I state quite plainly now that your opening letter did sound like a musing, where you were just trying to bring some interest towards your "musing", but I did give you the benifit of the doubt and told you what I felt. No I'm not trying to stir up trouble... seriously buddy what kind of trouble? You must live a pretty petty life if you take offence at a difference of someones opinion. Where did I ever state you or anyone else was wrong or stupid? It's an opinion of something which comes from many letters from four differen't people, as well as my own research into a gravity wheel, which shows the possibility, nothing more. Adding everything up I don't think Darrel has it, but if there is something I haven't been shown I could be wrong.

Off handedly can I ask you a question Jim, why did you spell my name wrong in the first letter you sent back to me on this thread?

Reg.

Mike

[jim_mich]

There are only four question marks in my first post. First concerns wm2d. Second and third are me questioning if his wheel really works. The fourth is me questioning myself if maybe I (and others) don't see what (maybe) makes his work.

Your first comment is asking why I need to build it to see if it works, as if I'm some sort of idiot.

Then you talk of the Tinkerer changing his story, of his story being inconsistent, and a number of other things when all you have is hearsay. YOU DON'T KNOW ALL THE FACTS! Now I may not know everything about him but I sure know A WHOLE LOT MORE than you do! As far as him being truthful I've never caught him in a lie yet. The closest was he told me a wrong estimated wheel speed, which he later gave me a correct speed. And he held back some information before I signed the NDA.

I bet I've spent more time and money than anyone else here on working models...

I doubt that very much Michael! Always puffing yourself up while putting others down.

Oh come on fellow-read. 20 years is 20 years not 10. I also said D. stated his wheel was just over 1 year at being built, and later on it was 20 to someone else

Once again you seem to think you know it all when you don't know jack. Different models, different time spans!

(other than, I can't show you the machine because I've taken it apart ((oldest con in the book))

Ever hear of cannibalizing one machine to make another improved one?

Michael, I could counter EVERY point you've made, but why should I waste my time? I run the risk of divulging more information than the Tinkerer has OK'd for me to divulge.

My main point of THIS POST is that you Michael don't know everything. And when you go spouting off about things which you only have partial second-hand hearsay knowledge and acting like you think you know it all, well it irritates me.

My misspelling your name was a simple oversight missed by my spell checker. My oldest son's name is Michael (we just call him Mike). Long before he was born I had trouble mixing the 'ae' with 'ea' and he is older than you Mike.

You must live a pretty petty life if you take offence at...

a simple misspelling of your name? By the way, what the F### do you really know about my life to be making personal judgements?? Like I've told you before, LEAVE THE PERSONAL ATTACKS off this board and we will get along just fine.

[ovyyus]

Well said Jim.

[Michael]

> Michael, I could counter EVERY point you've made, but why should I waste my time?

Looks like you've done just that though.
Exactly Jim, why are you wasting your time fighting, unless it's a fight you want.

>... and third are me questioning if his wheel really works. The fourth is me questioning myself if maybe I (and others) don't see what (maybe) makes his work.

Right, so what's the problem. My message was not saying you were stupid, I was in fact stating the opposite. You've done the math, you've done the demo. Why then do you need to build the model if what you are coming up with is that it won't work? I know you can apply the right rules. I don't understand the lack of confidence. Unless, and this is what the rest of my questioning was about, there is something Darrel is hiding from you. If he is...WHY? I don't understand how someone with your skills states he knows exactly how to build his wheel, and still say you don't see how it would work, unless it really didn't work. Put the shadowy footage with that and it doesn't look to good. What are you really wanting though Jim, a pep talk...go get em tiger? I was trying to see the unknown with you Jim. Jim, how about taking messages as they are really meant. If you don't get it, ask. And stop cutting up parts of messages and changing the point-content.


>Then you talk of the Tinkerer changing his story, of his story being inconsistent, and a number of other things when all you have is hearsay. YOU DON'T KNOW ALL THE FACTS! Now I may not know everything about him but I sure know A WHOLE LOT MORE than you do!

Your right, I don't know all the facts. That's why I posted the questions I did. You really don't know if you know more than me because you don't know what I know. If you do though how about sharing a little, I know there are things you can say that doesn't jepordize your agreement with him. Show us where the inconsistencies aren't inconsistent.

>As far as him being truthful I've never caught him in a lie yet.

I have.

>The closest was he told me a wrong estimated wheel speed, which he later gave me a correct speed. And he held back some information before I signed the NDA.
Michael wrote:
I bet I've spent more time and money than anyone else here on working models...
I doubt that very much Michael! Always puffing yourself up while putting others down.

I've never puffed myself up and was not doing so by stating that. I know how much effort I've put into this. I let go of a career opportunity. I put all my resources into it, and I can prove it. I know that most of the people on here are somewhat newbies, gaining their interest from John's book. I never set out to "piss" you off buddy, I thought you were sincere, I responded sincerely, but you made a personal attack on me, not the other way around. I asked you if you wanted a little proof before. You said nothing. There are questions I'd like answered. Darrel is a shadowy figure. So how about you helping out?I have nothing against Darrel personally. He's done nothing to me. I frankly don't give a damm if you build his model or not. Heck, I'd like to hear of of how it all goes.

Here's what irritates me, besides being mistaken. I do have something against preditors., I'll admit it, I could be wrong, IF...Darrel really is as odd as he comes across. Wrong about being preditorial that is. If you do a little math you'll find many many inconsistencies with his approach. He dangles, then he takes away. Base is this Jim. Nothing I have said previous should bother you in anyway. If I am wrong then all it means is I am wrong. You'll build his model, it will work, and all will be fine. If I am right (and I am loosely using those terms because I still don't know if there is something either he or you aren't sharing right now), it still won't mean to much unless it has helped to open someones eye's and prevents them from loosing something. Being wrong is a small price to pay if it turns out that I am not wrong, if it helps prevent someone from looseing something.
There is no harm is coming to anyone by stating what I stated. Even to Darrel because if he really has a perpetual motion machine it won't matter.

Edit, my god man, I was just finished with this letter when I got to the bottom of your letter. I only voiced an opinion about a shadowy figure. You seem to be petty because you can't take diversity or a difference of opinion without raging and fighting. I never said you were petty because of spelling my name wrong. How on earth did you get that, it's not even in the same paragraph.

Understand the content of this sentence is different from the above. You seem to have taken Darrels court, even though you doubt. Your in a perfect position to help us out. As for the past. Let's move past it.

How about clearing up some questions, no matter how they might end up portraying Darrel? If it's right, it's right. If not, then that's also good.
Will you agree publicly to be fair? If so then how about answering some questions that in no way will hurt the inegrity of the non-disclosure you signed. For instance-starting with this.

> Once again you seem to think you know it all when you don't know jack. Different models, different time spans!

Okay, so the original model he built about 20 years ago. Did it work as a pereptual motion machine or not?

>Ever hear of cannibalizing one machine to make another improved one?

What you don't seem to know Jim is, Judd made an expensive trip to Edmonton to see Darrels machine and to go to different universities to get him some help as well as resource the community for help. He did his part well in advance. He also signed a N.D.A. Judd had also given him some money in advance. When it came time for Darrel to show, that's what he stated. It was taken apart. I ask, if you had a working machine, why would you cannibalize it to make another? Especially if you stated you had no money. The deal with Judd and Darrel was Judd was going to give him the money to build a second copy. Why destroy the first? Why not at least show some of that video? He aslo accused Judd of being a spy AND told him that I was a spy for Darrel, and insinuated that not only was I a spy, but that I could in fact also be Darrel himself.

Would you like Judd's phone number?

Let's start with this for now.


Reg.

Mike

[jim_mich]

I've never puffed myself up and was not doing so by stating that. I know how much effort I've put into this. I let go of a career opportunity. I put all my resources into it, and I can prove it. I know that most of the people on here are somewhat newbies, gaining their interest from John's book. You yourself are also probably

(Puff, puff.) Had 'to let go a career' (Puff, Puff.) 'all my resources' (Puff, puff.) (Putdown, putdown.) 'most of the people on here are somewhat newbies' (Putdown, putdown) 'You yourself are also probably.' (Putdown, putdown)

What you don't know Michael is how much time and money others have put into their wheels. So why do you puff yourself up and put other down?

Why then do you need to build the model if what you are coming up with is that it won't work? I know you can apply the right rules. I don't understand the lack of confidence. Unless, and this is what the rest of my questioning was about, there is something Darrel is hiding from you. If he is...WHY? I don't understand how someone with your skills states he knows exactly how to build his wheel, and still say you don't see how it would work, unless it really didn't work.

(Putdown, putdown) 'I don't understand the lack of confidence.'

I already answered that question. Go back and read instead of spouting off.

What you don't seem to know Jim is, Judd made an expensive trip to Edmonton to see Darrels machine and to go to different universities to get him some help as well as resource the community for help. He did his part well in advance. He also signed a N.D.A. Judd had also given him some money in advance. When it came time for Darrel to show, that's what he stated. It was taken apart. I ask, if you had a working machine, why would you cannibalize it to make another? Especially if you stated you had no money. The deal with Judd and Darrel was Judd was going to give him the money to build a second copy. Why destroy the first? Why not at least show some of that video? He aslo accused Judd of being a spy AND told him that I was a spy for Darrel, and insinuated that not only was I a spy, but that I could in fact also be Darrel himself.

(Putdown, putdown) 'What you don't seem to know Jim is,' (Putdown, putdown.) (Puff, puff) I know this. (Puff, puff) I know that. (Puff, puff) I know other. (Puff, puff.)

Okay, so the original model he built about 20 years ago. Did it work as a pereptual motion machine or not?

What type of question is that? Did your first wheel work? Would he have spent 20 plus years perfecting it if the very first one worked?

Here's what irritates me, besides being mistaken. I do have something against preditors., I'll admit it, I could be wrong, IF...Darrel really is as odd as he comes across. Wrong about being preditorial that is. If you do a little math you'll find many many inconsistencies with his approach. He dangles, then he takes away. Base is this Jim. Nothing I have said previous should bother you in anyway. If I am wrong then all it means is I am wrong. You'll build his model, it will work, and all will be fine. If I am right (and I am loosely using those terms because I still don't know if there is something either he or you aren't sharing right now), it still won't mean to much unless it has helped to open someones eye's and prevents them from loosing something. Being wrong is a small price to pay if it turns out that I am not wrong, if it helps prevent someone from looseing something.

Michael the whole world is full of preditors, both animal and human. Just turn on the TV and every few minutes they want your money for their products. Darrell may be a lot of things but to me he does not come across as a preditor. (Puff, puff.) And just whose eyes are you trying to open oh great one. (Puff, puff.) (Putdown, putdown.) You really think us lesser mortals need you preventing us from loosing something? (Putdown, putdown.)

Your right about one thing you don't know. You don't seem to know what he or I are or aren't sharing right now. That is because you spout off instead of reading what I've posted. Go back and read my posts carefully this time. Just because I'm not posting details does not mean I don't know them.

[Tausen]

Hey Michael,

Are you actually trying to be helpful here?

Cause...it looks like your just causing problems :(

T.

[Oxygon]

You should all stop...

Can't anyone here control their emotions, everyone seems to have this unbearable need to have the last word...

Its annoying to see a "new posting" flag on a thread... just to find a "tit for tat" perpetual rebuttal...

[ovyyus]

I disagree Oxygon.

I think this is a relevant arguement (albeit colourful) illustrating divergent points of view, reasoning and methods.

Michael believes Darrell is a fraud and Jim believes otherwise. Michael appears to have already concluded who is what, reasoned on limited available information. Jim refuses to conclude anything exactly because he doesn't have enough information. Even if both individuals had access to the same available information (which they don't) I suspect their respective points of view might probably be the same.

What is the correct approach to resolve the question of whether or not Darrell has a working wheel? Is a non-working mathematical model of the design enough to counter Darrell's lone insistance that his physical model actually does work?

[Jonathan]

I agree with Bill and Jim. Darrell could be a fraud, or he could be genuine but unbalanced (which might explain his treatment of Judd). The physical proof of the possibility of PM is scant at best, and the mathematical disproof of PM is rigorous, and the possible loopholes are fuzzy if existant.
Since Jim hasn't done it yet (that I can remember, there have been a lot of posts), I'll answer one of Michael's questions for him. A mathematical disproof of PM is only as good as its foundations, one of which is the assumption that the math involved has any relevance to reality at all. I've speculated before, without any proof, that maybe, gravity being as weak as it is, there are unnoticed forces resultant from the same source (whatever that is) of normal gravity that are dependent on the velocity and acceleration of the masses involved, instead of just their positions, just like in electromagnetism. Michael is right to be skeptical, but until Jim gets his model built there probably won't be a resolution to this thread.
Since I've just made that point, this is probably worth adding: if we are to judge a machine based soley on the prediction of theory, then we should stop searching right now because I can prove with calculus that PM is impossible in any field that you choose the machine should work by. Of course it should be noted that judging by one's experience in constructing machines instead of math won't be any better, since not only is one fallible, but also, when one's experience has reached the proper threshold it and the mathematics have not been found to be at odds in about 300 years.

[jim_mich]

Very well said, Jonathan, very well said.

[racer270]

i think jim's a grown man , and if he seeks help/advice it's up to him.
and if he wants to build a replica it's up to jim.
and as for calling someone a fraud : if that ain't the pot calling the kettle black..... then 16 months ago didn't someone proclaim to have a working wheel , and a need to go public with it ,about june of 03. at free energy ? i wonder what happened to Michael Cameron Olsen....... and his claims......???
i think he got his own private forum and it flopped , then he fell into a syndrome of pessimism....!
does he not realize how many things were developed by trial and error like ......
1) lightbulbs
2) airplanes
3) automobiles
4) etcetera , etc. , etc. , etc..............

[Michael]

>(Puff, puff.) Had 'to let go a career' (Puff, Puff.) '...;etc etc.

Personal attack etc etc etc. That's about six now. Where's my putdown? Why can't you just move on? You know something Jim, you and I will never get along unless you allow others to have an opinion without jumping on them. You've also taken my points and basterized them Jim. My point wasn't saying I was better than anyone. I have never said that let alone even thought that. Go and look with clear eyes. My point was many people have worked hard on their ideas. Just because one works hard on an idea doesn't mean they don't create failures. Some people have also resorted to trying to scam others when all they got was a failure. The whole thing of this is, I assumed you were really wanting to look at this whole thing objectively. To look at something objectively means to allow , hell to want others to post thier opinions and findings and allow the values to assert themselves. Maybe the best thing we should do is just agree to stop posting on each others thread. I am more than willing to debate points if it's done in a mature fashion, by being objective. I really can't stand sensless arguing, so, I hold no grudge against you Jim.

>Bill>I disagree Oxygon.

I think this is a relevant arguement (albeit colourful) illustrating divergent points of view, reasoning and methods.

Michael believes Darrell is a fraud and Jim believes otherwise. Michael appears to have already concluded who is what, reasoned on limited available information.

Yet you don't know what my limited available information really is do you Bill, so you can't say that. I haven't said everything I know. I know for instance a lot more of how supposed wheel works than what I've stated to anyone in private. I am of the rightful opinion that only by objective testing , questioning etc. will what's real be understood. It looks like some questions are just going to be evaded so we will have to let time be the judge.



Jonathan, I disagree but I appreciate your point of view. Math is math. It works because it is real. A real perpetual motion machine would run the scrutiny of the math applied to it. My opinion.

Alright Gordy, I'll answer your questions personal attacks though they may be. I also have a question for you.

>
and as for calling someone a fraud : if that ain't the pot calling the kettle black..... then 16 months ago didn't someone proclaim to have a working wheel , and a need to go public with it ,about june of 03. at free energy ? i wonder what happened to Michael Cameron Olsen....... and his claims......???

That posting was made on another -PRIVATE- board, not on the one you read it on. I never asked the owner of that board to post that up. I also created a failure and made that known to everyone, including those on this board of that. I believed that my idea would work. I never said that it did work. There's the difference.

>i think he got his own private forum and it flopped , then he fell into a syndrome of pessimism....!

No. I am a pure optimist, that's why I kept going. I am also objective.

>does he not realize how many things were developed by trial and error like ......
1) lightbulbs
2) airplanes
3) automobiles
4) etcetera , etc. , etc. , etc..............

The people working on those things knew they would eventually work. The math didn't mismatch what they were working on.



Reg.

Mike

[VANDUGEGS]

Hello Mike,

Goodbye Mike!

P.S. Stick with machines, that is what this forum is for?

D
DARRELL VANDUSEN SR
VANDUGEGS

[Fletcher]

I have decided the only way I will know if his wheel really works is to build one myself. So I've started making drawings and sketches. It looks like I can make a smaller well built model for about $150 (US dollars) of materials and about 40 to 60 hours of my labor making parts in my basement workshop. It may take me a month or two of my spare time. Hopefully I can prove if his wheel really works.

Hi jim_mich,

Did you decide to go ahead with this build afterall ? How is it going ? Is there any further information you are able to share at this point ?

-fletcher