What does 'something that works' mean?

[ME]

Something

I don't know Jim, I'm non-native to both kinds of English... what do I know?
But I do think such word "works" in any Indo-European language: "Something" could both mean "some thing"="an object", or an arbitrary thing. It's how one chooses its meaning. Both choices have its benefit, depending on context.
Although I hardly believe it's a language issue.
I think neither side of the involved actors in the back-story of "something that works" are faultless.

ME, I understand what you are saying. But why complicate something simple? Almost everyone seems to understand the simple difference between 'something that might work' and 'something that works'.

Of course, the problem with simply claiming 'something that might work' is that it gives no leverage in a trade deal and no authority in a conversation. Thus is born deception.

It's extremely easy !

But apparently complicated enough to justify a poll.

As with most claims: We should constantly try to get aware of the intent of the one who claims whatever.
One single sentence does not solve such deception, while still capable to obstruct any future conversation (because we 'voted'):

"I have a great idea, this is how it works".
We should focus on that "idea", and refuse to bombard such opening phrase by focusing on "work".
We could loose such idea (we can safely assume it probably doesn't work as-is) only because it reminds of some sentence "something that works" causing a traumatic spasm related to some completely different circumstance.

We all have a rough idea where this "poll" comes from, but an answer will not solve that specific issue. That thing can just be considered an unresolved crystallized issue, beyond breaking point.
Just trying to add some water here...

My dilemma: Being technically right, doesn't automatically imply it's the right thing to do...

The next one who plans a deception will obviously circumvent this whole issue; as seen with a recent smart guy who (probably because of some personal trauma) was able to perform a tactically sound assault on this forum: still not right to do.

I think for either solving perpetual motion or solving any other (control-) issue: try to remain as flexible as the situation allows.

[Mark]

I'll let you guys split the semantic hairs, but as far as this half-wit is concerned, it boils down to this:

An actual working model of a self-turning 'wheel' would be proof that what Bessler apparently did 300 years ago has been done again.

Yes, of course one needs a workable concept to base their efforts on if they expect positive results. [Goes without saying, I should think. Kinda like making a list of things to do today and putting "Wake up and get out of bed" at the top.]

But, an idea or concept is not enough. "Will work" is not proof.

[jim_mich]

Anytime there is a discussion where someone makes a statement about having a wheel. Bill goes into spasms. This is because of the guilt that Bill carries. Bill lied to the forum when he made the FALSE claim that I lied to him. I've proven that I never lied to Bill. But bill can't face the fact the he himself lied. Bill has tried to deflect this fact repeatedly. He makes the false claim the the first step A] of my plan MUST be a "working wheel". But I NEVER said that a "working wheel" was the first step. The first step was and always has been to find something that works. There us a huge difference that Bill is blind to.

Something that works is a principle, a method, a process, in other words "something" which when implemented works in such a fashion that perpetual motion is the result. This "something" is initially a virtual idea. But not just any wild-ass idea. It must be something that will cause PM. It must be something that works. The first step has never been a working wheel. That comes later when proof of principle models are built.

I always tried to keep the details of my personal wheel building secret. But when Bill posted his lie about me, claiming I had lied to him, then I had no choice but to expose Bill and his lie. But to do so, I had to reveal the status of my wheel building. (I'm good with ideas, but not so good at building wheels.)

Step B] of MY PLAN was to take steps that the idea survives. Note that at this step, it is still only an idea.

Step C] of MY PLAN was to define the principle or reason why it works. One needs to comprehend and understand why your baby is something that works. Else you can't design a good POP model.

Step D] is design a simple cheap working POP (proof of principle) sample model. This is where a working wheel is built. Previous to this you must find the knowledge of something that works. If you have done your homework, then you already know that it will work. But others need to be convinced. Thus it is THEY that need to see the POP wheel models. And you might expect to encounter engineering problems that cause delays.

Step F] is build more POP models, so a number of people can have hand-on exposure to the wheel.

I made a mistake a few years back when I thought Bill (ovyyus) was my friend. Such was a very big mistake. Bill is an evil harpy. He just keep harping about the meaning of "something that works", but stick his fingers in his ears and refuses to understand the it was MY PLAN that he keeps harping about, and that "something that works" has always been any idea, concept, method, principle, that if implemented causes perpetual motion.

[sleepy]

"Son,did you take a cookie from the jar?"
"No,Dad.I had my hand in the jar and was practicing opening and closing it when a cookie became lodged in my grip.I ate it because it would be rude to put it back after touching it."

Working wheel means only one thing.A wheel that is currently turning itself without any fuel or assistance or maids with wires or gerbils or planetary alignment or or or or.

[zoelra]

I believe you only have a working wheel when you have an actual physical working wheel.

That said, by chance, I too followed a path something along the line that Jim_Mich outlined. Years ago while experimenting with OB wheel designs I found what I believe is a valid prime mover and have been refining the design ever since. Once I have a working prototype that exhibits OU, I may leave it at that, and seek a patent on that design. It is a linear jack of sorts and could be married to any number of OB wheels, such as MT9. I would leave the actual wheel building to others.

[cloud camper]

We can easily understand this insane situation of continuing to claim PM without having a working wheel by applying some simple psychology.

The total irrationality is that one demands to be recognized for having “something that works� in spite of having nothing that actually works.

We note that our “inventors� father was a sucessful inventor. Also his siblings.

So why would our “inventor� keep insisting that he has invented PM with no results to show?

Situation A: He must see himself as a successful inventor to “measure up� to the other inventors in his family.

Situation B: An individual with our “inventors� known NPD disorder has a morbid fear of failure in front of others.

In psychology this is known as a Must Have/Can't Have dichotomy.

In the ego of our “inventor� he MUST do anything possible to be recognized as the inventor of PM.

This is the Must Have part.

Simultaneously, our “inventor� CAN'T have anything happen that would give the appearance of failure so any possibility of failure must be avoided at all costs.

This is the Can't Have part.

If our “inventor� were actually to fail in his experiments, this would be a disgrace worse than physical death.

So we create an irresistable force against an immoveable object with this mental dichotomy.

What is the solution then?

The solution is to try and convince others that one has “invented� PM without enduring the risk of failure entailed in doing actual experiments!

Then we observe that our “inventors� forum avatar shows 99.7% completion of a prototype that for months now only needs a few holes redrilled before it can be tested.

We know that one of his three sons lives only 70 miles away and is interested in helping finish the build. But according to our “inventor� is too busy with his business to help drill a few holes.

We see our “inventor� post confidential medical information in an attempt to “prove� he is too feeble to do any experimenting.

But spending 3 hours mowing his property in the hot July sun seems to be no problem.

Of course these are only the latest excuses. The entire list of excuses would fill pages.

Then we observe our “inventor� claiming to be a CF expert but yet performing no experiments or expressing any interest in the known science of fictitious forces even though his own wheel concept relies on them.

No, our inventor prefers to “learn from life� rather than study what physicists have already discovered through tedious and exhaustive experiments.

The observations here show that our “inventor� has no plans to EVER physically test his wheel concept as the risk of failure is simply too dangerous after years of unsupported claims.

[jim_mich]

Working wheel means only one thing.A wheel that is currently turning itself without any fuel or assistance or maids with wires or gerbils or planetary alignment or or or or.

And I fully agree with you.

But the question is not about a "working wheel". It is about finding "something that works". A some concept, process, principle, whatever, that will actually cause PM.

[jim_mich]

I believe you only have a working wheel when you have an actual physical working wheel.

And once again I agree with you.

But the question is not about a "working wheel". It is about finding "something that works". A some concept, process, principle, whatever, that will actually cause PM.

[zoelra]

@Jim_Mich,

I find myself agreeing with you too.

My prime mover finding is what has kept me focused and confident about finding a solution. I tried to make that point in my last post.


[edit] Jim, are you saying if you find something that causes or enables PM, then a working wheel is (or should be) a foregone conclusion?

[Furcurequs]

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.

But the catch-22 is that without finishing steps 'D' and 'E', I can't claim step 'A'. Without an actual working physical wheel, there is no proof that step 'A' has been accomplished.

[jim_mich]

Furcurequs, you assume that "proof" MUST be physical. As I keep saying, any good engineer can take a simple idea or concept, and tell you if it will work to gain extra force and energy. The "proof" need not be physical. It can be analytical.

The post that you throw in my face is from two years ago. I know that the more ignorant uneducated ones need physical proof of a working wheel. That was the catch-22. But more intelligent people can grasp the concept and very quickly understand why it works, and thus don't need a working wheel plopped down in front of them

But you seem to be too dense to understand.

[agor95]

@jim_mich @ovyyus

Your contributions have been noted and your membership here has been long.

However the many years were you have been unable too forgive a personal problem is not a positive contribution to this forum.

This issue should be resolved by judgement by the other three moderators.
[AB Hammer, John Collins, rlortie]

I need a break, so I am ignoring and revoking your green dots.

I expect better of moderators over that actions of new members.

If the other moderators carry the judgement of solomon then can you get the word out to use all?

I wish you well and piece in the future.

[Tarsier79]

In this endeavour, proof is physical. Without an actual build, nothing is proven. You can support a hypothesis with math.

Take the galloping bridge in Tacoma. They could have shown the plans to 1000 engineers, and the flaw in the design may never have been picked up.

[jim_mich]

There are no moderators of this forum.
Those with personal forums are moderators over only their personal forums.

I'm sorry you feel the way that you do. If you look more closely, it is almost always Bill that posts subtle digs and such. It is Bill that starts the quarrel each time. I've asked him to stop, but he uses every opportunity to stab and twist.

And it is cloud camper who also start quarrels.
And Furcurequs who just can't stay out of the fray.

I try to never start the fight, But I'll never again put up with the bullying that was thrown at me over the last few years.

Again, agor95, I'm sorry you feel the way you do.

[cloud camper]

Continually claiming PM while doing nothing whatever to support your claims will always start a fight.