Jim Mich...

[Grimer]

Is it that they/he are/is not /a scientists/scientist but rather just /a technicians/technician who are/is being genuine but just don't/doesn't know what they/he once had? :(

Yes.

In spades. :-)

And the chap with the DOMINANT FLYWHEEL certainly doesn't know what he's got either - unless it's a clever fake of course.

Are you a scientist? Have you ever published any scientific paper?
No? I thought not.

[Grimer]

I found the following quotes at overunity.com. ...and I've tried to format them in a way that we are used to seeing.

Re: Electrostatic Devices and Energy : The Genius of Tinsel Koala

Al's most impressive tinkering was the one that gave him the WhipMag. I'm afraid that's always going to haunt him.

It's odd that you should bring that up, Frank.... since I can recall post after post of "Al" telling you that there was nothing OU, nothing unusual happening in the device which you mention, and YOU proclaiming loudly that he was "FOS" and that the thing was indeed total proof that magnet motors are OU. The record shows that YOU were pushing that device as "OU".... not "al". So if anyone is haunted..... BOOO !

(Did I scare you?)

If both "alsetalokin" and "TensilKoala" are honest, then why won't you believe them/him?! Why won't you take their/his word?!

Since they/he are/is the ones/one who actually built the device, do you not think they/he might have had some information that you don't?

Is it that they/he are/is not /a scientists/scientist but rather just /a technicians/technician who are/is being genuine but just don't/doesn't know what they/he once had? :(

How are you ever going to convince them/him that they/he had an actual working perpetual motion machine?!!

Darn you, you measly technicians/technician!! Why can't you be /a scientists/scientist?!

I'll certainly check out the videos with their/his Stirling engine that uses helium as the working fluid, however. That sounds right up my alley.

Would you believe that I have a tank of helium sitting in one of my store rooms that I purchased for use in my own heat to a more usable form of energy experiments?

ETA: I'm still looking for TinselKoala's vids of the Stirling, but this looks to be a nice demo of the difference between air, helium and CO2:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uysxKgr8Qjk

I didn't know what FOS meant. I had to google it.
Apparently it means Full Of Shit. That figures.

Doesn't strike you as schizophrenic that TK refers to Al as though he's a different person? Doesn't his petulance suggest something about his personality?

If you go to the way back machine and search the Steorn Forum archives for the word Bishop and Cardinal you will see that Al has got problems.

[Furcurequs]

Hey Grimer,

I do think his behavior in regards to this stuff is strange, nine years ago and now. I've been reading some of his posts in the archived Steorn forum from right after he took down the original video, and I'm not sure of what to make of them.

A device running at thousands of rpm for up to 3 hours, if one were to believe the claims at the time, would not be something a rational person would just dismiss as if it were nothing. He, of course, even had the attention of some of the most skeptical people there.

So, I don't really know what to say about it or his behavior. If he were perpetrating a hoax, I would have expected him to have eventually come clean about it.

...and yet if he wasn't, from the technical things I've seen from him, I would have thought he'd have the understanding to take something like can be seen in that video much more seriously.

I personally believe that it was a hoax and that he's done, for whatever reason, a very good job of conning people.

Of course, the way he has gone about this, it allows for the "true believers" and conspiracy minded folks to imagine whatever they wish about it.

In regards to the "Cardinal" and "Bishop" stuff, I wasn't able to find it with the archive.org's search engine. I'm not sure if they have everything indexed.

Oh, and about my scientific papers... The world's not ready for those yet! Okay, well, I'm just not ready yet myself, I guess. ...lol

[Grimer]

...
Oh, and about my scientific papers... The world's not ready for those yet! Okay, well, I'm just not ready yet myself, I guess. ...lol

Don't worry. I'm sure you're in good company.

Is there anyone on this site who will own up to being a
member of the scientific research establishment?

I rather doubt it.

[ME]

Ahum...

I didn't know what FOS meant. I had to google it.
Apparently it means Full Of Shit. That figures.

EG?

[Grimer]

neque mittunt vinum novum in utres veteres alioquin
rumpuntur utres et vinum effunditur et utres pereunt
sed vinum novum in utres novos mittunt et ambo conservantur

[ME]

You still try to mystify things, and forgot a reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Wine_ ... _Wineskins

[Grimer]

You still try to mystify things, ...

That's because they are mysterious. :-)

[WaltzCee]

You would think someone that reasons like this. . .

• Don't worry. I'm sure you're in good company.
  Is there anyone on this site who will own up to being a
  member of the scientific research establishment?
  • Grimer

• Are you a scientist? Have you ever published any scientific paper?
  No? I thought not.
  • Grimer

• Is it that they/he are/is not /a scientists/scientist but rather just /a technicians/technician who are/is being genuine but just don't/doesn't know what they/he once had? :(
  • Furcurequs
  • • Yes.
      In spades. :-)
  • • • Grimer

. . . would understand there are certain taboos in the SRE (Scientific Research Establishment). Inventing your own language and terms is one of many well-established verbotens. Delving into the mysticism of PM (Perpetual Motion) with even the slightest hint of any ID (Intelligent Design) is worthy of worse than expulsion. It demands criminal charges. Thinkers beware. Also, you're in good company.

[Grimer]

You would think someone that reasons like this. . .
Don't worry. I'm sure you're in good company.
Is there anyone on this site who will own up to being a
member of the scientific research establishment? ... would understand there are certain taboos in the SRE (Scientific Research Establishment). Inventing your own language and terms is one of many well-established verbotens. Delving into the mysticism of PM (Perpetual Motion) with even the slightest hint of any ID (Intelligent Design) is worthy of worse than expulsion. It demands criminal charges. Thinkers beware. Also, you're in good company.

I understand it only too well. But I was sufficiently senior and sufficiently successful to get away with blue murder.

Eventually however things caught up with me when our director retired and a retread from Porton Down by the name of Dr Rex Watson was sicked up on us for his last few years before retirement. Eventually he read one of my internal notes, Iterative Hierarchical Mechanics, and he went ballistic. I was banned from writing notes. I appealed on the basis that since I was head of the Section which anticipated structural failures as a result of my skill in that field, and I had reasons to doubt the safety of AGRs, I wished to appeal against that ban.

It's a long story but eventually my appeal ended up on the desk of Robin Butler, the Cabinet Secretary. He, being an arts man did really understand anything (though to be fair he did understand a simple example I gave about failure under platen loading and failure under fluid loading) apologised and said he had to rely on advice from his underlings.

In the end, after a star chamber investigation, I was offered 15 weeks to write a report on the matter. I said I needed two years. Impasse.

So I spent the last two years of my service on gardening leave with full pay and I was able to get on with my own research in the same way as I am doing now. Not a bad result.

And if Hartlepool AGR should fail, then the PTB will be going through my papers with a fine tooth comb and wondering if materials really are held together from without and not from within.

[ME]

That's because they are mysterious. :-)

That may be so, yet the task of science is trying to make the unknown known.
You try to make us believe you're a scientist yet you're swapping science and mysticism.

What should we all learn from your job adventures?

[nicbordeaux]

I'm terribly sorry to read that Jim_Mich has passed away. I liked him. And I hope that there is an afterlife of some sort where there is an understanding of all things, and peace. RIP.

[Grimer]

That's because they are mysterious. :-)

That may be so, yet the task of science is trying to make the unknown known.
You try to make us believe you're a scientist yet you're swapping science and mysticism.

And what about Bessler then?
Wasn't he a mystic? in spades?

If you think there are no scientists who are mystics then I'm afraid you don't know much about science, sonnyboy.

What should we all learn from your job adventures?

As for your sneering about my job adventures, at least I've had 'em.
What have you ever had? Please tell us.

Who are you anyway? An anonymous Dutchman, of emigrant Italian extraction who won't even tell us what the E stands for. Anyone on this forum can find out all about me. What do we know about you? Bugger all.

For all we know you are an employee of Dutch Shell spent to spy on the forum and spread FUD if we look as though we are getting close to the answer - as we obviously are.

[ME]

We all have our stories and our own 'adventures'. For the good and the bad.
You felt the need to show your story. I asked for the reason why you put it there because I suspect it only adds to Walter's observation.
As your response shows, it's probably not to educate us about anything (unless it is - hence the question).

And does your answer really depend on the one who questions what you claim yourself, would it alter the answer?
Am I the one trying to make things more complex or mystique?
You claimed to be the scientist here on several occasions, in that case you should be the very one able and capable to clear things up - not me.

And for all you know I am all those things you think I am, but I'm not the one claiming (again) to be those things... (yeah well, me Dutch).
So I'm questioning the science you claim: and on a discussion board with sciency-like-things I think that seems a fair thing.
A not so surprising and recurring theme on this discussion-board: Who claims, who defends... Why should it go personal?

To give you an opening (i'm not wanting to corner you completely): Perhaps I see things wrong, and it's not fair.
It's not my will in any way to cause you harm, and I'm really sorry when it did - because for me this is just scientific enquiry (which I think you should be able to handle).
So perhaps (as an alternative for those pesky questions) you could wisely explain how it's not fair, so I can finally STFU.


At least this whole scene shows the following insight, and that is what I try to share:

I think you have nevertheless demonstrated perfectly why people, scientists and enthusiasts alike, need to explore new things in freedom especially on a forum whose primary goal is (to discuss about) breaking the currently accepted scientific laws of thermodynamics: basically almost "Crackpots" by simple scientific definition, if it was not for a possible presence of scientific curiosity to explore new and hopefully undiscovered boundaries.

Freedom goes down the drain when random people start to form a skewed-opinion on a personal level: so this form of freedom could become a career issue. (That's: Online-presence research is nowadays an important part of the recruiter/HR toolkit).

Perhaps there's a slight argument against online anonymity, but I think online pseudonimity should be mandatory for this very reason.
(For the curious & if you really want to know: I'm not a professional scientist, I just use science as a tool - thus it's not my own career I'm defending here. I don't think it should matter, perhaps some people do.)

All those added complexities while in the end, when perhaps someone on this forum found a mechanism of perpetual motion and shows the world, things still need to be explained clearly and at least a tiny bit understandable (usually in relation to known things).

And besides, this is an open forum: Of course it will be read by (some employees of) companies like Shell !! (while trying to put some windmills between our two countries... so you know).
Now you've made me wonder: would I fire myself if I'd work there...
(For the curious again: No, I don't work there. I think I already mentioned my profession somewhere on this forum, so I guess no need to worry - if there was any need for worries)

[Grimer]

You're up early. :-)

Starting at the end of your screed and working backwards -
Since you've already mentioned your profession would you mind re-mentioning it to save one having to read all your posts.

Personally I find it easier to interact with other people the more I know about them. Warts and all.

As for you being a Shell secret agent I was only being half serious. Having been here since 2005 I can't imagine the oil companies looking that far ahead. However, I do think any serious breakthroughs should be discussed in the Community Buzz rather than the General Discussion forum.

All those added complexities while in the end, when perhaps someone on this forum found a mechanism of perpetual motion and shows the world, things still need to be explained clearly and at least a tiny bit understandable (usually in relation to known things).

The problem with that, dear boy, as you would know if you had ever done scientific research, is that the clarity you seek only comes right at the end.
Furthermore, it will involve subjects which are not widely known such as Ashby's Law of Requisite Variety, Multi-Factor Analysis of Variance to mention just two.

Hell, in this forum people's eyes glaze over when one reaches the 3rd derivative of position with respect to time and as for snap, crackle and pop they think that's a joke. The only person I've got any really useful feedback from is cloud camper. though I must admit when I skid badly off the road I've often been pulled back by some kindly Samaritan. :-)

Freedom goes down the drain when random people start to form a skewed-opinion on a personal level: so this form of freedom could become a career issue.
Perhaps there's a slight argument against online anonymity, but I think online pseudonimity should be mandatory for this very reason.

I disagree. People use their full names on JC's blog. Even our resident gadfly, Primo-thingummy uses James Miller. I don't know whether John's made it a requirement or not but as far as I'm concerned it's a far better arrangement.

Not sure what you mean by a career issue? I suppose if you're an academic and it gets back to your institution that you are consorting with BesslerWheel nutters it might damage your chances of promotion.

That could be catered for by admin granting an exemption in such rare cases.

To give you an opening (I'm not wanting to corner you completely): Perhaps I see things wrong, and it's not fair.
It's not my will in any way to cause you harm, and I'm really sorry when it did - because for me this is just scientific enquiry (which I think you should be able to handle).

Fair enough. Perhaps I did rather go off the deep end. I apologise for the rant.
It's just that in bringing up all those years of struggle against the stream at the scientific coalface has left me somewhat pissed off with research and researchers in general. As for cornering me - don't worry - better men than you have tried. :-)

And I'll leave it there. Kissy-kissy and make up, eh!
Or perhaps we had better just shake hands.
People might get the wrong idea. :-)