What does 'something that works' mean?

[preoccupied]

The reason the patent office won't consider perpetual motion machines without a working prototype is because of the large number of submissions there would be with bad ideas. If ideas could be measured better for how good they were and there were a lot less possibility of bad ideas being submitted to the patent office, perpetual motion patents could be considered based on the idea alone and a patent could be issued on specs that could go to a factory and work as intended, before a prototype is made. It could be a purely drafted patent if there weren't mass confusion about the subject. So someone like Jim_Mich who has a good understanding of Physics could put an idea on paper and it could be something that works. I can believe that. We don't have to be the same as the patent office. I bet if Jim_Mich went open source with his idea that a very large percentage of you guys would think that his idea would work just on paper alone. And I believe Jim_Mich could go open source at any time, and still have a year to get a patent on first to file laws. If the patent office wants to hide the idea as a national secret, Jim_Mich could potentially then secretly lease his idea to energy companies all around the world without the general public being aware that he is becoming super rich because of perpetual motion and not his cover story of fur trapping and gold trading in the mid west wild frontier man.

[ovyyus]

Come on ovyyus. You are just asking for more bad mouth on Jim_Mich.

Really? You do know why JM calls me a liar?

[ME]

Actually ME, I think the original question on page one was a generalized one (the context as you said).

This meaning is important for understanding and clarifying claims of 'something that works' made on this forum.

I put this scenario to you ..

The original opening post was not as general as you suggest.

I thought I already split the various possible contexts.

1. The question was clearly in the specific context of a personal traumatic event related to someone's Plan....
2. The actual general meaning of such stand-alone sentence depends on the context where and when it's used: technically or commonly.
3. Anyone who will use the word "work" to describe a mechanism, will be confronted with Scenario 1, while just used in Scenario 2...
The poll hides under Scenario 2, but is just Scenario 1.

It's unwise in wanting a word, or a sentence to be stained and related to some historic event..... Whoever is right or wrong.

... how long does it run; what rpm can it sustain; how big is it; have you run it with a load and how much load can it handle and sustain rpm; etc etc ???

Yes, I agree those are the kinds of questions to ask.

[ME]

What very poor assessments did he indeed make?

I'll bite. I didn't do a "Jim"-study, so it's an impression:
1: You were able to determine a "working principle"
2: this means he revealed too much, this means it's possible someone else can do the same
3: Your post-deletion should also have implied a redaction of his own preceding ones
4: promising a model (I don't know if it would be actually "working". If I'm correct Jim denies at least the "working"-part)
5: Some of his defenses afterwards.

Your issue is clearly number 4, and clearly the "working"-part.
My issue lies with number 5, which is often provoked thus sometimes understandable, and luckily not directed to me personally;

I don't know how this all came to be: I just imagine Jim simply panicked because of that potential IP-sensitive post, which did set all things in motion except a wheel.

You showed some email-correspondence-proof some time ago: all I remember it didn't actually show what you wanted us to see.

But I understand your frustration as you explain the situation. Just as I understand the frustration as Jim explains the situations.
So all I see is mutual frustration.

All this, and yet I have to vote....Do I really have to choose between two sides of frustration?

Come on ovyyus. You are just asking for more bad mouth on Jim_Mich.

Really? You do know why JM calls me a liar?

I'm blessed enough with my own personal issues.

[KAS]

These "rules" of process all seem centred around keeping card close to you chest to me. just in case some one might steel your idea from the info supplied. And therein lies a non existent problem. No one can steel your idea.
No one can claim intellectual property to an idea that as already been published. Whether it be on a forum, web page, magazine or YouTube video.
It will always belong to the inventor.

So I suggest throwing these process suggestions in the bin and put your (physical working) idea forward as soon as possible. Then, it will always be yours.

[jim_mich]

I was contemplating doing a copy and past about the back-story concerning "something that works", but instead will simply post links to those threads...

Look at my "Motion from Motion" thread, from a year ago, page 5, over in the Community Buzz forum (You need to be a member to access it):
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 833#134833

In the first post of page 5, a discussion is in progress:

Then why does Bill lie about things?

Can you prove he's lied about something? I would rate Bill as one of the most trustworthy, honest, caring and selfless people on the forum.

I then included a link, in general discussion forum, from two years ago, where Daxwc also questioned if Bill lied:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... all#127808

And I posted the exact email conversation between Bill and I.

Before I made that posting of the email, Bill made this statement concerning events of three years ago. Note the sentence in red:

over a year ago I described in a forum post Jim's general required movement for the weights inside his so-called motion wheel. He claimed to me that he had completed a working model based on this principle and requested that I remove/edit my posted description (post #108554) so that it would not interfere with his patent process.

The part in red was a lie. An untruth. A misunderstanding of what I wrote. A jumping to wrong conclusions on Bills part. I made no such claim to Bill of a "working model".

Bill has since that time tried to use MY PLAN as an excuse to cover up his lie. MY PLAN was never mentioned in our emails. Bill has continually tried to use MY PLAN as his excuse for his out-right lie, which lie was:

He claimed to me that he had completed a working model based on this principle

I never made any such claim. Bill simply lied about me. And when I pointed out Bill's out-right lie, Bill tried to use MY PLAN as some sort of twisted excuse for why his lie was not a lie.

I feel I'm owed an apology from Bill, for him posting that I lied, and for his continuing personal vendetta against me.

The bottom line is that when I was working on gravity-wheel concepts, everyone was my friend. When I came to understand my motion-wheel concept, most everyone turned against me. And the playground bully trolls began to harass me without mercy. And Bill continues to push HIS meaning of the first item on MY PLAN list.

The truth is self evident. The first thing one must do in a search for PM, is find "something" (a method, as principle, a mechanism, a motion, a movement, a whatever) that "works" (to solve the goal of PM).

The FIRST item on MY list is not the building of a "working wheel". That comes later with the building of a proof-of-principle wheel. First you must get a design that works. Then you build the POP as proof it works.

Something that works is not the same as a working wheel. Something that works is the method, principle, mechanism, motion, movement, whatever, that gets you to the goal of PM.

Bill keeps saying that "something that works" is the same as a "working model". A "working model" would be "something that works", but the inverse is not correct. Before you can built a "working model" you MUST find some way for a PM wheel to work. If you get a brilliant light-bulb idea that is so obvious that it will work, that it is like dropping a 12 foot plank across a 10 foot creek, then you you have a something (a method or principle) that works. Only after building a functioning wheel may you claim a working wheel. If you have a sketch of an OOB wheel where you expect gravity to supply perpetual energy, then you DON'T have something that works. Any wheel that expects to gain its energy from gravity acting on rising and falling weights is impossible. It can't be done. So if this is your proposed "something that works", then you are not even at the first step yet.

I tell you the obvious, and you guys hit me with red dots and change the reputation rules, erasing all the many green dots I acquired over the past 13 years.

[cloud camper]

Simple solution - build something that works.

[preoccupied]

Come on ovyyus. You are just asking for more bad mouth on Jim_Mich.

Really? You do know why JM calls me a liar?

You've been saying that Jim_Mich claimed to have a working prototype at some time in the past. I just saw a post by Jim_Mich with him explaining that he didn't claim that and he even posted about it before with a copy of the conversation from his emails as proof. So what's the real story? Are Jim_Mich emails that he shared a lie? Did you misunderstand something Jim_Mich said or is Jim_Mich lying? Did Jim_Mich share his design with you?

[jim_mich]

I use the term "idiot" a lot more than maybe I should.

Bill simply does not understand that he lied. A lie is a lie. Bill's lie was:

He claimed to me that he had completed a working model based on this principle

This was not true. Thus it was an outright lie And bill has never made this right. Instead Bill keep doubling down. This statement is the reason WHY I call Bill a liar. Bill's statement, in red here, was a pure lie. And I've proven it to be a lie many times.

Is Bill an idiot? I sometimes wonder about his intelligence. I once considered Bill a friend here on the forum. But Bill turned into an evil ugly harpy.

[cloud camper]

All the problems go away if you just build something that works.

Since you say you have all the answers and have a prototype 99.7% complete, what is the problem?

[ME]

Besides the unfortunate battles, there are also opportunities to be found here...
(I just leave this open comment to ponder)

[jim_mich]

what is the problem?

I've explained the problem in great detail.

[Mark]

...
I tell you the obvious, and you guys hit me with red dots and change the reputation rules, erasing all the many green dots I acquired over the past 13 years.

Knock it off, Jim.

This has been explained to you:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 977#145977

[jim_mich]

Mark, you say "The rep reset was ENTIRELY Scott's idea and doing. "
But you also say, "I ran this proposal by Scott three years ago via PM."
And the pole was started by you, Mark, and NOT by Scott.
And the pole ran only about one day, a time I consider way too short.

And it is obvious many of you have hit me with red dots.
It takes only three green dots to become Acknowledged. And I know I've been given many more than three green dots, So it is the red dots that busted me back down to Reputation none.

Do you honestly think Scott would have changed and reset the Rep system without you making the request?

[cloud camper]

Why not build your reputation by building something that works.

Continually trying to browbeat others into believing you have "something that works" when you obviously don't only makes you look desperate and foolish.

No one likes fools and whiners!