Ectropy and Maxwell's Demon.

[jim_mich]

cloud camper, You make a lot of claims concerning myself, but you don't back them with any true quotes. I must assume you read words and then interpret them to suit your own thinking. If you are going to claim that I said something, please go back and show where it was said and quote what was said.

If I wanted to, I could take all of your statements, one by one, and refute every one of them. But it is not time yet for me to disclose all.

JM claims his device is identical to the original Bessler Wheel.

Identical is impossible because no one know exactly the internal construction.

But yes, I feel very strongly that the principle of operation is the same as Bessler's. Bessler built a couple one-way wheels and he built a couple two-way wheels. Obviously they were not identical. And obviously my wheels are not identical to Bessler's. And if you go back thru all my posts, you will never find me saying my wheel is identical to Bessler's

What you are doing is reading words, and then prejudging what is said. For instance, if someone, say Bessler or anyone, writes about "weights" in a wheel, what comes to your mind? Most people will think of an out-of-balance wheel. But what if the wheel is always balanced and it is the inertia and momentum of moving weights that rotates the wheel?

What if someone writes that weights move in and out? You might misunderstand, thinking that this means the weights move inward on one side and outward on the other side, so as to cause gravitational unbalanced, even when the witness says the wheel was balanced. This is prejudging.

I could go on and on. Even the fine people who have translated Bessler's words can misunderstood and cause the translation to say things that was not said in the original.

But Jim's device does not match Bessler's clues in any significant way.

I have looked at all known Bessler clues. I even posted a list of fifty clues. Back then, five yeas ago, I did not understand some of those clues. This was always a learning process. I now understand all of them.

Jim says he only uses two weights.

Everyone knows that multiple copies of a single mechanism can be placed around a wheel.

Jim does not describe use of impacts in his device.

There are a lot of things about my wheels that I have not described here on this publicly read forum.



What am I, the pet whipping boy for all the Bessler forum trolls? I'm done here for now. Time to hide under a rock again.

[cloud camper]

OK Jim - have it your way - here is your reference:

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 528#107528

I had questioned you about this clue and you said:

"I've read this quote a number of times and it makes no sense. I assume the translation is wrong. If a weight applies its weight vertically to the axis, then this implies that the weight-force is straight downward toward the axis, which would not cause any rotation. So obviously there is something incorrect with the way this is worded. Weight force would need to be applied downward on the rim, or at a right angle to axis."

This proves that you have never actively considered how this clue could apply to your device.

Your standard response is always that there is something wrong with the clue.

Then you decided that if "vertically" was changed to "right angles" it would make more sense to you.

So then I questioned you AGAIN on how this clue would apply to your device.

"Could you state how the weight applies its weight at right angles to the axis and begins moving the axis without descending itself?

You STILL could not answer the question proving you did not have a clue where it applied in your concept.

I also had given you a list of many of JB's rising and falling clues questioning you as to which of these clues DID NOT involve JB requoting Wager's false ideas and again you could not explain yourself.

You said "By the way, I did not say ALL the clues you listed were JB restating Wagner's false ideas. I strongly suggest you not put words in my mouth. Each writing should be looked at individually as to what it actually says and under what circumstances".

So then I asked you AGAIN:

"But now since you have researched these clues so thoroughly, could you state which of these clues are NOT JB restating Wagner's false ideas?

But you could not answer the question and still can't because of your blind belief that you have matched JB's device.

Samo samo, If I don't like the clue, it must be wrong.

[Furcurequs]

Hey Jim,

You have been making some pretty bold claims lately.

Now, technically, you've not come right out and made the claim that you actually have a working device, but you've certainly suggested the possibility in such a way that some might interpret your words as meaning that.

I think I may have even asked you before how you might share the news with the forum if you were to actually get a design of yours working, but I don't remember getting a response from you.

I believe, personally, I would contact a couple of forum members who I believe to be trustworthy and invite them to come and take a look at my working device so that they could both see it with their own eyes and even report back to the forum "yea or nay" - and even as I proceeded with the patenting process and the other portions of my own plan.

Anyway, do you really expect, though, to be treated any differently here in the forum with your own UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS than you might treat your own "whipping boy" Murilo?

Even he hasn't suggested that he actually has a working device, so we all can at least know that it's currently just a matter of belief on his part about whether his design will ultimately work or not once built. Of course, some of us, and maybe even with good reason, believe he might ultimately be disappointed.

...yet not too much unlike how I might be disappointed once I finish building my own designs - though designs I have chosen not to yet share publicly.

I suspect that if I were to see one of my own designs actually running before me, however, I wouldn't be too concerned with the criticisms of others here in this forum or elsewhere. Their words would be like water off of a duck's back or a goose's back (or whatever that cliche' is).

Anyway, I find your behavior highly suspect.

Of course, that's just my own humblie opinion. ...and so I, too, could be wrong.

Take care and good luck.

Dwayne

[ovyyus]

Cloud camper, many of Bessler's 'clues' don't seem to make sense. Sometimes that's because they might be cryptic or ambiguous to our current way of thinking. Sometimes that's because the original intent might have been confused in the process of translation/interpretation. The first place to start should be to achieve some degree of certainty about the translation. That's not an easy task for most members here, probably including yourself, because very few can translate Bessler's original German text.

You seem to have a special interest in Jim's use of Bessler's clues. I might remind you that every member here has their own personal perspective based on their current pet theory or build. Given that you do not know what was concealed inside Bessler's wheel I find it difficult to understand such strong opinions for or against anyone's use of the available data (technical inaccuracies aside). Therefore I might conclude that you have some issue with Jim, perhaps stemming from a perceived challenge to your personal religion, which is where your pursuit seems to have started. If that's the case then you should stop beating around the bush and get to the point.

[cloud camper]

Thanks for posting Ovyyus - No I have no religious issues with Jim.

I just have an extremely good BS detector. When I spot inconsistencies in
statements, I tend to go after them like a bulldog.

Jim has stated many times that he believes all Bessler's clues and is constantly implying he has duplicated his device.

So if that is true, may I ask some simple questions? May I study your statements to verify they are consistent with each other?

Nobody likes this of course, but this is standard practice in science and physics. This is how truth is arrived at. It takes longer and upsets people, but that's the way it works. This is part of the scientific method and is called the peer review process.

If one cannot survive the peer review process, they have no business patenting - at least in science/physics.

If Jim thinks I am too rough on him, wait until he tries to convince mainstream physicists or even a patent examiner. If he starts stating concepts like "useable energy" to a patent examiner, they will just throw up their hands and toss everything in the dumpster.

Jim must be prepared to physically and mathematically demonstrate how CF-CP does not equal zero in a rotating system. This is the gold standard against which examiners will judge.

I am currently patenting my two devices and the big problem is how to produce the math that will convince an examiner that I might actually have something legitimate!

[daxwc]

Cloud:

Nobody likes this of course, but this is standard practice in science and physics. This is how truth is arrived at. It takes longer and upsets people, but that's the way it works. This is part of the scientific method.

It is standard scientific method to attack people before they present their principle or model?

Jim doesn’t have a working wheel, because all the clues align to say he doesn’t; if the principle wasn’t patented already it would be human nature to remain silent or misdirect people. If he had a working wheel patented he would be too busy to worry about Cloud or the forum.

[daxwc]

Wasn’t it you Cloud that thought everybody should be more lenient to nuances in the forum?

[ovyyus]

Well cloud camper, I think Jim has already stated numerous times that he will not reveal personal work details that might cause him to deviate from his plan. It's clearly his choice.

...this is standard practice in science and physics. This is how truth is arrived at. It takes longer and upsets people, but that's the way it works. This is part of the scientific method and is called the peer review process.

It may be standard practice in science and physics communities but in this community, guess what? :D

BTW, your BS detector should get a good workout here, if you haven't already noticed. On the whole I think our community does a pretty good job of coping with the various personalities this particular field of interest can attract. Good luck with your patents.

[Art]

.

"Men like to make the wheels go round, which is why so many men go round in circles ."

- Henry David Thoreau .



. : )

[justsomeone]

I think it might be difficult to show a proof of principle experiment to show how CF or gravity could power a wheel without giving it all away.

[rlortie]

justsomeone,

Why do you feel it would be difficult, Bessler did it and got away okay! If you were to specify Cf or gravity without the other, it might paint a different picture.

Ralph

[justsomeone]

Hi Ralph. I was referring to an open experiment proving that CF or gravity is not conservative.

[rlortie]

Ok! so we have a device shaped like a drum suspended in a frame with open axle bearings. It in turn is connected via belt and pulleys to a 12 volt automotive alternator. There is no indication of any outside power source or energy.

Amperage and volt meters are appropriately attached to the open wires leading from the alternator to a 12 volt battery. Also attached to the battery terminals is a load tester.

The amp and volt meters show a reading of 2 amps and 14.2 volts
(28.4 watts). How long do you think one would have to leave it running to convince the learned that it is ectropic in nature and self-sustaining?

Ralph

[cloud camper]

Well cloud camper, I think Jim has already stated numerous times that he will not reveal personal work details that might cause him to deviate from his plan. It's clearly his choice.

...this is standard practice in science and physics. This is how truth is arrived at. It takes longer and upsets people, but that's the way it works. This is part of the scientific method and is called the peer review process.

It may be standard practice in science and physics communities but in this community, guess what? :D

BTW, your BS detector should get a good workout here, if you haven't already noticed. On the whole I think our community does a pretty good job of coping with the various personalities this particular field of interest can attract. Good luck with your patents.

OK Bill, thanks.

Jim does not have to reveal any proprietary information. But most of the questions I asked did not require revealing any sensitive data. Such as which Bessler clues about rising/falling weights were not just JB restating Wagner's false ideas. Which he still can't answer.

If Jim identified even one clue as not involving JB restating Wagner, his whole theory that JB did not use rising/falling weights would go out the window, along with the reason for his endless rants and tirades.

Also wouldn't you think our self proclaimed CF expert should know something about CF as it applies to rotating systems?

In this exchange where I informed Jim that CF-CP always equals zero in a rotating system, Jim stated that this was just "idiotic".

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 3&start=45

This was evidently brand new news to our CF expert as he has always stated that since CF is nonlinear, then it must be nonconservative and therefore capable of doing work.

It is not idiotic and is taught in every physics 101 course and illustrates that after subtracting CP from CF in a rotating system there is nothing left over to power anything. One can temporarily spike one or the other but overall energy in the system remains constant by the first law. No exceptions have EVER been found.

But this is "idiotic" to Jim because he doesn't like the implications. So the principle must be wrong.

This is the exact physics principle that any patent examiner will base his exam on. How can you prove to me mathematically that this firmly established physics principle is false?

[ovyyus]

How can you prove to me mathematically that this firmly established physics principle is false?

A working physical demonstration is the only acceptable proof of principle. Math can then describe it. Physics principles aren't necessarily proven false when modified or extended.

Cloud camper, I have a personal question for you. Why do you hide your visits to the forum and provide no info about yourself in your profile?