Smith66 should be banned.

[rlortie]

Jim_Mich,

Frankly sir I find myself in shock and dismay.

Jim Lindgaard wrote:
Show a build Jim_Mich. I haven't seen you or ab hammer build anything.

You respond by stating:

Open your eyes and browse my album at: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/download.php?u=53

Note that my user number is 53, which means that I have been a member since the forum started. And I've posted many ideas about many wheels.

Posting ideas of your own and mostly others is not what I call building.
In fact, out of a rough count of approximate 472 entries I could only find seven pictures, six of how to build a wheel stand and one with a wheel you may or may not have built.

True, You have posted many ideas, but that is not was not what the implication addresses. As others have implied you have twisted the confrontation to your liking, I for one am not a very happy camper.

With your education, recognition, and longevity on this forum, One would think that you have built more than one wheel of your own design.

Ralph

[smith66]

Ralph,
If you want, you can test bellows drawing water up and into it.
It requires only one bellow. Just make it rectangular, something like 3 inches by 12 inches.
It's open end, 1 inch by 3 inches would need to be placed in water without sitting on the bottom.
Then with a fish type scale, open the top of the bellow. Open it 2 & 3 inches and each time, weigh the water in the bellow.
With 2 different measurements, enoubh information would be known to validate or disprove Bessler's drawings.
I would be concerned for Bessler but I already know what you will find.
It's either that or people can keep putting themselves above Bessler and his work and when it comes to perpetual motion, people will always talk about Bessler.
Myself, I am a fan of his and always will be.

Jim

p.s. with a basic bellow, 1/4 x 4 x 48 inches will be enougn wood. just create a plastic tube ($1.27 @ walmart) glue one end and then place one end of tube between two boardz glued together.
fairly cheap test. myself? was actually preparing for more complex builds

[rlortie]

Jim_L, Smith66

This is not the appropriate thread to be discussing bellows!

Ralph

[cloud camper]

Jim_Mich,

Frankly sir I find myself in shock and dismay.

Jim Lindgaard wrote:
Show a build Jim_Mich. I haven't seen you or ab hammer build anything.

You respond by stating:

Open your eyes and browse my album at: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/download.php?u=53

Note that my user number is 53, which means that I have been a member since the forum started. And I've posted many ideas about many wheels.

Posting ideas of your own and mostly others is not what I call building.
In fact, out of a rough count of approximate 472 entries I could only find seven pictures, six of how to build a wheel stand and one with a wheel you may or may not have built.

True, You have posted many ideas, but that is not was not what the implication addresses. As others have implied you have twisted the confrontation to your liking, I for one am not a very happy camper.

With your education, recognition, and longevity on this forum, One would think that you have built more than one wheel of your own design.

Ralph

Ralph, you don't understand.

Engineers operate computer programs and write code.

They don't build things. If one actually wants to build something, you hire
technicians or contractors.

So it's all in the computer. If you write the perfect code, the job's done and you have a runner.

No messy hardware to deal with.

And we know how much trouble Bessler got into when he actually built his wheels!

[Fletcher]

CC & Ralph ..

My architect [if I had one] doesn't build houses either but he certainly knows how to build one to certification standard - my draughtsman has an even better knowledge & includes the fine structural detail, that usually the builder can follow - the builder can't build the same house without an engineering plan however.

jim_mich has wm2d & is proficient with it, just a you do CC - so what's the beef this time ? - that he hasn't shown many actual physical builds - well, neither have I though in 15 years I've had 4 or 5 major builds - believe it or not, I didn't have a camera in those days & since I learned as I went [because none worked] I dismantled afterwards - after that I got smarter & used the sim before I attempt a build proper.

Jim_mich hasn't said whether he has modeled his wheels in wm2d or any other sim package but he does admit to using the visual basic programming.

If you were to tell me you had a runner in wm2d but didn't reveal it CC should I trust or not trust your skills & knowledge of physics & the program ? - since you haven't shown much of your own builds or done much analysis of others ideas then I'd have no basis to judge your competence or sincerity.

[rlortie]

CC and Fletcher,

I drafted a somewhat lengthy response for your input. After having second thoughts I decided that it best I not post it.

I am not in the best of moods right now, I feel Let down by a fellow peer that I respected. I am left with doubts and a feeling of loss.

Ralph

[cloud camper]

If you were to tell me you had a runner in wm2d but didn't reveal it CC should I trust or not trust your skills & knowledge of physics & the program ? - since you haven't shown much of your own builds or done much analysis of others ideas then I'd have no basis to judge your competence or sincerity.

No, you shouldn't - ever. One would have to be a complete idiot to believe that a claim to a "simulated" runner equates to an actual one.

I too claim to have a simulated runner.

But you are exactly right Fletcher - how would you ever know I wrote the
program correctly and took into account all relevant physics?

There are just too many variables programming and then translating a simulation to hard mechanics.

Any claims that a simulated runner equates to an actual one are ridiculous and ignorant.

[murilo]

I didn't read to this above post BUT I didn't like it! 8(

Now that is the real mark of a fool. To post that they didn't like something that they didn't even read.
Do you really understand how foolish that is?

Hehe...
Very old joke, dear!
If you where that smart you should ignore.

For example, this fresh new:

- on today newspaper, 'O Estado de SP', interview, page A14, the bigger letters at top say:

'Sanguinetti', twice ex-Uruguayan president, says that Brazil is subordinated to Venezuela and that Brazilians are jealous about Mexico.... 8((((

This is a very most pure shit and/so... I didn't read BUT didn't like it... 8(((

[Fletcher]

One would have to be a complete idiot to believe that a claim to a "simulated" runner equates to an actual one.

I too claim to have a simulated runner.

But you are exactly right Fletcher - how would you ever know I wrote the program correctly and took into account all relevant physics?

There are just too many variables programming and then translating a simulation to hard mechanics.

Any claims that a simulated runner equates to an actual one are ridiculous and ignorant.

Yes, I remember you saying you had a runner in wm2d - the difference between your statement about having a runner in wm2d & many others that appear here from time to time is that IIRC you have a gain of many percentage.

Most that appear here are new to the program & haven't accounted for dissipative forces or they are not aware of small idiosyncracies that can cause the operator to suspect he has a real energy gain; such as overlap/iteration errors where bodies overlap too much, or using square pins in certain circumstances - interaction with internal surfaces of polygons are fine if the polygon is open.

The point is that this is a program used in industry where you didn't build the code, so it has been & continues to be beta tested, so if you are reasonably competent with it, know the pitfalls, & still get a large net gain then it is unlikely to be a programing error - that doesn't rule out human error though, which is why another build in another program such as Solid Works &/or a physical build usually follows.

So, based on that, I'd have much more confidence in your 'runner' than if you'd built the program with your own code - perhaps without access to other programs such as Solid Works you would go the extra mile & build your own from the ground up, in a program & language you do know well, as a further check.

I doubt I'd be building plastic moulds for POC units to distribute without having done some sim building & POP physical building behind me, but who would have confidence if I haven't said or shown, for whatever reason including IP protection for a very simple principle.

[getterdone]

Hi Fletcher, your earlier comment about architects and draughtsmen got me thinking about this old Jacque Fresco video

If you scroll to the 10minute nark, I think you'll understand how it relates to this forum, and this topic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fb_bTUJp39o


With regards

Leo

[rlortie]

Fletcher wrote:

I doubt I'd be building plastic molds for POC units to distribute without having done some sim building & POP physical building behind me, but who would have confidence if I haven't said, for whatever reason.

My sentiments exactly! Only I would not bother with the sim building and go straight for the POP physical build.

Jim_Mich might save his ass if he were to state: "Yes I have built a runner, but I am not ready to release it yet". Building desktop plastic models, before capturing the public with an exhibition of a physical build, to my thinking is a dumb ass move. Excuse my language!

Ralph

[jim_mich]

Building desktop plastic models, before capturing the public with an exhibition of a physical build, to my thinking is a dumb ass move. Excuse my language!

Ralph,

A much better way of convincing skeptics would be a very big exhibition of many working desktop sized wheels shipped in one day to universities, skeptics, etc. all over the globe.

A working running model needs to be placed right on the bench in front of many people, with everything right out in the open. Thus they can't claim it doesn't work.

This needs to be done just after filing for a patent and quickly before a secrecy gag order can be issued.

If you publicly exhibit a model, then you cannot patent in most countries. The USA allows you to patent up to one year after public diclosure, but you loose patent rights on many other countries. So one must first file a patent application. Then publicly display the working models before you get gagged.

[Jim Williams]

Banning Jim L. is like banning that part of yourself that might be the solution. Yet his destruction is on him. I don't like what he did to me.

The poll shows that he is coming back. Maybe let the poll decide whether he should be permanently banned. Perhaps he will be willing to ban himself? It's on him.

Jim W.

[ovyyus]

This poll is irrelevant. The agreed rules are explicit. Agreeing to enforce them should be redundant.

[scott]

There is no way for me to ever be 100% sure if an account is a sockpuppet or not, or if a new member is a returning banned member under a different name. However the preponderance of evidence and community opinion was weighted enough in this case to justify it, so I banned smith66 and James.Lindgaard. Thanks to everyone who helps me moderate by keeping tabs on issues like this.
Best,
Scott