Polymath

[daxwc]

Jim have you quit building the fluid wheel yes or no.

If Yes then we are back at "The Wright brothers were not proclaiming they had a flying airplane after the first time it crashed and that it just needed a special feature and quit."


You can make up the rest in your narcissistic delusional fantasy world because I didn't say it.

[jim_mich]

Jim have you quit building the fluid wheel yes or no.

Why are you so dense? After the PVC fluid wheel was built, and failed to function, there was nothing that could be done to THAT wheel to cause it to ever work. A fluid wheel needs a specific feature, which was missing from that first fluid wheel. That feature I discovered about a month latter. That feature can not be added on. It must be designed in. So yes, I quit building that fluid wheel just before it was tested. There was no more building to be done with that wheel. And that was more than two years ago.

But I have not outright quit, as you imply. I went on to build a third motion wheel last December.

[Furcurequs]

PS. I've found the part in blue, the concept, a principle, the something that works, so as to cause perpetual forceful rotation of a rotating wheel. I simply need to keep gaining bodily strength until strong enough to resume building and finish that which I've started. Contrary to those claiming otherwise, I'm not lazy. And I'm not about to just give away something that should be worth millions of dollars.

Hey jim_mich,

From what I've been able to discern from your posts, when it comes to your "perpetual motion" you only have speculative notions that have not been in any way experimentally validated.

Now, I suspect that most all of us would like to "believe," of course, that our ideas are going to work, but it would certainly be premature for us, and that's at best, to claim we "know" our ideas are going to work before we've put them to the test and found them to actually be valid.

Seeing so many people like yourself defending mere beliefs as if they were God's honest truth (lol) while even resorting to deliberate deception makes me doubt claims like Bessler's all the more, for it shows me quite clearly that there are indeed people in this world who will defend their own wishful thinking over the truth itself and their own truly ignorant understandings of things as if they were the ones in the right.

When some of your math and physics mistakes were pointed out to you before by myself and others, had you simply said something along the lines of "Hang on, let me check," and then, "Oops, you're right," like others do and I try to do, I would have had no reason to believe you weren't a competent person who had just made a few accidental errors.

Unfortunately, though, with your stubborn defense of your errors for weeks and months on end and in addition to that your absolute refusal to even admit some of your errors while resorting to name calling and deliberate deception and stuff, I'm afraid I now have reason to believe that you are not particularly competent in perhaps some very relevant things.

I, of course, have tried to address some problems with your actual arguments concerning your "perpetual motion" notions, too, but I've noticed you don't seem too eager to discuss those with me, either. ...lol

I think Donald Simanek's attitude is a good one, actually. If you have an idea, just build it and test it and learn something in the process - for that is science. That is the way it's supposed to be done.

Of course, he believes that none of us will discover anything that's not already been discovered so as to actually be successful in our quest - thinking that it's all mostly been done before. ...but that belief might one day be shown to be wrong, too. Perhaps we'll one day see.

This forum is filled with failed concepts and even when new ideas are presented in this forum, I personally seldom see anything I would get excited about, but I'm not going to spend all my time pointing out why other people's ideas aren't going to work. Most people seem to quickly get on with building and testing so as to see for themselves, anyway, and maybe they even learn in the process.

So, jim_mich, I'm left with having to tell you what I tell others. Good luck with your experiments! ...lol

Cloud Camper,

Nice post.

When it comes to the formalized Scientific Method that we sometimes see presented, I believe some important things are sometimes left out - like "gut feelings," "intuition" and "inspiration" which I believe, historically speaking, have been instrumental in making some major discoveries in the past. I think formally trained people who do science as a 9 to 5 job while answering to others tend to think in more cookbook ways.

I'm not at all dismissing experimental validation, of course, but a good inspiration can certainly help to lead one into areas that others may not have considered before.

Of course, how do you teach someone to be inspired?

[daxwc]

Jim: But I have not outright quit, as you imply. I went on to build a third motion wheel last December.

But you quit on that fluid wheel; I don't blame you, I would have too.

[WaltzCee]

Anyway Walt the thread is on whether Jim is a polymath if you want to pay that much attention.

I have been paying attention. On the same page you posted to me you posted this:

Come on Jim we are not fucking retarded; an incompressible fluid is not going to CF and race around a balanced wheel. You can’t get CF movement unless the fluid compresses. etc.

Also earlier in the thread someone mentioned:

Let talk wheel building. Did the Wright Bros. first airplane fly? No, they had to work out what some might call bugs in their airplane.

This thread's been sprinkled with various ideas of material and mechanics. I think it would be a welcome diversion from the usual dung and DNA slinging to discuss:

find a concept

[jim_mich]

and DNA slinging

Hey, on a lighter side, I could really use some healthy DNA, since mine has become permanently damaged.

I have found a concept, but full disclosure would cost me IP rights. So I can't disclose it here.

[jim_mich]

Jim: But I have not outright quit, as you imply. I went on to build a third motion wheel last December.

But you quit on that fluid wheel; I don't blame you, I would have too.

The fluid wheel version is still valid. Simply needs to be constructed properly.

[WaltzCee]

I have found a concept, but full disclosure would cost me IP rights. So I can't disclose it here.

I've had an idea about your wheel for a little while. Do you mind if I guess?

Hey, on a lighter side, I could really use some healthy DNA

If you want some monkey DNA, you're in the right place.

[ovyyus]

I've found the part in blue, the concept, a principle, the something that works...

Walt, in the early days of this forum people regularly claimed 'something that works', when in fact they only had an idea or concept. This caused problems because, as we know, people can get very carried away with their strong belief's and make claims that aren't true. JM was one of the first members to take a stand on this issue in an effort to clarify the difference between 'something that works' and an idea or concept of 'something that might work'. JM stated that 'something that works' must be taken to mean an actual working model and NOT just an idea or concept or plan. Everyone agreed and there was, from that time, a simple means to test claims of 'something that works', ie; an actual working model and NOT just an idea or concept.

Then JM adopted his motion wheel belief and now claims that 'something that works' can be an idea or concept without an actual working model proof. No prizes for figuring out why he changed his position. Such is the nature of strong belief to make monkeys out of men.

So, should we now accept that anyone with an idea or concept and no actual working model proof has 'something that works'?

[ME]

If you want some monkey DNA, you're in the right place.

Maybe there are actually billions of monkeys trying to access this forum, and only a few are able to get through some filter: and here we are - It ain't Shakespeare yet, but if it was not for that filter the quality could have been a lot worse.

How many monkeys would it take to gain some beneficial effect?

[jim_mich]

Why do I need to continually straighten out people’s lies.

Bill is mistaken. Bill is wrong. The correct term, which I long ago put into the Bessler's wheel Wiki, was a "Working Wheel"

A working wheel would be a perpetual motion wheel that once set in motion continues to rotate while outputting usable rotational torque until physically stopped or the components wear out.

A perpetual motion wheel that is only a concept on paper or in a computer simulation is not a working wheel.

I stand by that definition of a "Working Wheel" which I wrote a long time ago.

The Wiki definition is different than what I posted as 'MY PLAN' a long time ago as Step {A} First get something that works!!!

Though the wording is similar, it is not the same. The meanings are different.

Much later Bill made an erroneous assumption concerning a private email between us. And in order to save face, he accused me of lying. And ever since, Bill keeps doubling down, rather than simply admitting his mistake.

Bill seems to think that I don't know what it was that I wrote in both cases. Read again the definition of a "Working Wheel". It has not changed.

Then read again the first step of My Plan. It says "First get something that works!!!" In other words, find some method, some mechanism, some means, some principle, which is capable of producing PM.

My claim has always been that I have found a method, a mechanism, a means, a principle, that is I've found something that I'm sure works to produce PM. I'm as sure as dropping a 12 foot beam across a 10 foot creek works to allow crossing the creek.

So far, I've never claimed a "Working Wheel".

Bill makes the erroneous assumption that Step [A] means a "Working Wheel" rather than what I actually wrote, which was "First get something that works!!!"

[cloud camper]

Nothing but classic JM word twisting going on here.

Our amazing polymath is so desperate to create some kind of legacy out of nothing he will do or say anything.

The sad facts are that he had years to physically test his ideas but was too lazy to get out in the shop and found that simply lying about results was easier than getting his hands dirty.

Now the excuse is he's too sick to do any prototyping.

Extremely sad but has only himself to blame.

[Furcurequs]

jim_mich,

The post in the following link that apparently you yourself made most definitely contradicts what you have just stated in this thread about what was meant by "something that works" in your plan. I won't directly quote it here since it is in community buzz, but it seems you have most certainly changed your tune.

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 6580#86580

ETA: Since this has been addressed before, the relevant quote has already been posted in a General Discussion thread, so I'll just quote Stewart quoting you!

Jim - did you even read the quotes I posted?

You say see post #135427 in which you say:

A "working wheel" is not the same thing as "something that works".
You. Bill, have confused the finding of "something that works" with a "working wheel".

This is a direct contradiction to what you said and believed in 2011:

My 'PLAN'... I posted this a while back. The first item on my list is "First get something that works!" This means a working wheel, not just a concept or idea.

This is not a personal attack on you - I'm trying to understand this contradiction and I think this needs to be cleared up one way or another or there's no going forward in my opinion. You can't call me a liar, as I've presented clear evidence.

Stewart

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 441#135441

[ovyyus]

Bill is mistaken. Bill is wrong. The correct term, which I long ago put into the Bessler's wheel Wiki, was a "Working Wheel"

Nope, wrong again. Like a crooked politician you're trying to misdirect, now by pointing to an irrelevant wiki entry.

Long ago a crooked politician wrote on the forum:

"First get something that works!" This means a working wheel, not just a concept or idea.

Your words, not mine.

[Wubbly]

Hey, on a lighter side, I could really use some healthy DNA, since mine has become permanently damaged.

Did you try changing your diet? There are several doctors out there claiming if you change your diet, you can cure all sorts of diseases.

Joel Fuhrman
http://www.amazon.com/Joel-Fuhrman/e/B0 ... 880&sr=1-1

Mark Hyman:
http://www.amazon.com/Mark-Hyman-M.D./e ... 203&sr=1-1

David Perlmutter:
http://www.amazon.com/David-Perlmutter/ ... sr=1-2-ent

And if you really want to jump off the deep end, you can follow the herbalist Richard Schulze who claims ANY disease known to man can be cured.
https://www.herbdoc.com/about-natural-healing

On the other hand, maybe there is no help for you, and everyone else is right in claiming you are an id#%t.

I've found something that I'm sure works to produce PM.

I wrote stock analysis computer programs, wrote hundreds of Bessler wheel type programs before finally finding the solution to perpetual motion.

A hand written program does not prove you found a solution.
Yes, you need some healthy DNA because it is affecting your thinking.
Maybe it's time to get off the planet.