What does 'something that works' mean?

[jim_mich]

Any "engineer" worth his title would never claim "something that works" for a concept for perpetual motion before he had built the proof of principle device. "The plan" is BS.

Any "engineer" worth his title would never claim "something that works" for a concept for perpetual motion that involves only gravity. In this respect I agree with you.

Any "engineer" worth his title would be rightfully skeptical of a concept for perpetual motion of any other sort. This is why I was skeptical when I first saw the results of my computer program. (at this point cue CC to inject that the computer program MUST be flawed.) After coming to understand what was happening, then it made perfect sense. Like a 12 foot log across a 10 foot stream.

When Karl got to see inside Bessler's wheel, he recognized why it worked. The mechanism is extremely simple. The principle needs a little explaining to under it. But then the principle is very simple. Karl was well educated, and knew mechanics.

Why is it you trolls give the gravity-wheel crowd a free pass, but jump all over me? And claim a motion-wheel cant' work. Even when you DO NOT KNOW much of anything about the principle.

You show me no respect at all. And then you wonder why I throw disrespect back at you.

Edit to add missing word: "simple" after extremely.

[Furcurequs]

Has it ever crossed your mind than just maybe I have completed a working wheel and that I do know what I'm talking about?

Bill,

I had been trying to find that quote the past day or so. I couldn't remember exactly how it was worded, though.

So, quite obviously, at one point jim_mich seems to have been trying pretty hard to pretend that he actually did have a working device.

...kind of like how he has tried in the past to pretend some of his mistaken physics wasn't mistaken and he was just being personally attacked by those pointing out his very real errors.

...kind of like how he has tried in the past to pretend his mistaken math wasn't mistaken and that he was just being bullied and bashed when I was pointing out the things he got wrong with his math.

[Furcurequs]

jim_mich,

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.

Sounds like a personal egotistical problem to me!

We all got busted, I too am back to one green. Where as I am no longer chasing Bessler's red hearings, I do not expect to regain my lost profile. But that is okay! I can live without it.

Ralph

jim_mich,

Look on the bright side! With the forum reputation system reset, you lost your RED dot from me!

I've not given it back to you, either... ...well... ...yet.

(Okay, I did toggle it a time or two temporarily just to see if it would change your displayed reputation. ...lol)

Do you want it back, though? I could certainly oblige you.

I thought I would give you a second chance, but you are kind of pushing it.

[eccentrically1]

Any "engineer" worth his title would never claim "something that works" for a concept for perpetual motion before he had built the proof of principle device. "The plan" is BS.

Any "engineer" worth his title would never claim "something that works" for a concept for perpetual motion that involves only gravity. In this respect I agree with you.

I didn't say "that involves only gravity". You added that so you could give yourself a pass, lol.

Any "engineer" worth his title would be rightfully skeptical of a concept for perpetual motion of any other sort. This is why I was skeptical when I first saw the results of my computer program. (at this point cue CC to inject that the computer program MUST be flawed.) After coming to understand what was happening, then it made perfect sense. Like a 12 foot log across a 10 foot stream.

When Karl got to see inside Bessler's wheel, he recognized why it worked. The mechanism is extremely. The principle needs a little explaining to under it. But then the principle is very simple. Karl was well educated, and knew mechanics.

Why is it you trolls give the gravity-wheel crowd a free pass, but jump all over me? And claim a motion-wheel cant' work. Even when you DO NOT KNOW much of anything about the principle.

You show me no respect at all. And then you wonder why I throw disrespect back at you.

It takes a troll to know one.
You will get respect for your computer program when you finish the last .3% of your 897 part wheel.

[cloud camper]

Unfortunately, we already know the program has fatal errors before even looking at it.

Since our "inventor" has no conceptual understanding of fictitious forces (his only technical comment is that they are "ridiculous"), we
know that they have not been accounted for properly.

Therefore garbage in = garbage out.

[ovyyus]

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

Has it ever crossed your mind than just maybe I have completed a working wheel and that I do know what I'm talking about?

So, quite obviously, at one point jim_mich seems to have been trying pretty hard to pretend that he actually did have a working device.

Yes Dwayne, and that 'one point' is significant. JM made the above 'working wheel' statement on the same day that he emailed me his false pretense trade deal offer - April 04 2013. Yet JM continues his silly deception and calls me a liar?

[jim_mich]

You trolls don't understand plain American English. Lets put this into its original context. Cloud camper was being his usual a-hole self.

So instead of your constant uninformed rants and tirades why don't you just complete your Proof of Concept and prove everybody wrong?

Has it ever crossed your mind than just maybe I have completed a working wheel and that I do know what I'm talking about?

Cloud camper was being VERY disrespectful, using words such as "constant uninformed rants and tirades". And I was trying to make a point that he did not know anything about my progress. In other words, maybe I had completed a working wheel. And maybe I did know what I'm talking about? Never did I state that I had completed a working wheel. Such was none of cloud camper's business

Instead of showing common respect, cloud camper kept ranting at me, using derogatory words.

And in that post cloud camper also tried to make out that I was ignorant.

There is no concept ever defined or taught about "useable energy" in Physics. This is a total fantasy.

And once again I had to put him straight:

So you're ignorant and have never learned about ectropy?

In thermodynamics, ectropy is a measure of the tendency of a dynamical system to do useful work and grow more organized. Ectropy, in a loose sense, can be thought of as the opposite of entropy. Ectropy is minus entropy. That is, instead of saying "lose entropy" you can say "gain ectropy", instead of saying "gain entropy" you can say "lose ectropy".

The term was introduced in the late 20th century by mathematician and philosopher Willard Van Orman Quine and is often more intuitive than its counterpart. The term's merit is that in order to understand a concept, it can be useful to look at it from the other side. Sloppily speaking, ectropy signifies order; slightly more exactly, usable energy. Actually, what we call energy is often ectropy.

The Earth, for example, gets electromagnetic waves from the sun and sends electromagnetic waves back into space, but the incoming waves have shorter wavelengths (higher frequencies) and therefore more ectropy. So the Earth's ectropy is increased by the sun. When we eat, we take in ectropy from the food.

For any perpetual motion wheel to work, the wheel needs to increase its ectropy. In other words, it needs to increase the usable harnessable energy within the device.

So I ended up schooling cloud camper about ectropy.

So you trolls picj out this on tiny obscure posy of mine as you try to force your words down my throat, trying to make out that I claimed to have a "working wheel".

Obviously you trolls DON'T understand plain American English. I wrote that maybe I had a working wheel. And the inverse of that would be that maybe I did NOT have a working wheel.

I was trying to keep my work secret. But you trolls refused to respect that.

[preoccupied]

No way ovyyus. That quote is him being a little argumentative with cloud camper. It's to be expected for Jim_Mich to get a little combative with cloud camper because he interrupts every post he makes with propaganda against Jim_Mich. He didn't say he had completed a working wheel, he is asking why cloud camper has such little faith in him. Jim_Mich is not like a poet with perfect expression. If he was he would have expressed everything he meant to say elaborately with a lot of detailing information, and it would be really annoying if everybody did that anyways because it would be so long winded. You have to see what's implied in what he is saying, and it's not that he has a working wheel made, it's that he doesn't like what cloud camper is saying.

[Furcurequs]

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

Has it ever crossed your mind than just maybe I have completed a working wheel and that I do know what I'm talking about?

So, quite obviously, at one point jim_mich seems to have been trying pretty hard to pretend that he actually did have a working device.

Yes Dwayne, and that 'one point' is significant. JM made the above 'working wheel' statement on the same day that he emailed me his false pretense trade deal offer - April 04 2013. Yet JM continues his silly deception and calls me a liar?

The very same day?! Wow!

It's obvious he was trying to take credit for something he hadn't done.

Most of us who have been following along can see what he has been up to, though, and for years now. If someone dares challenge jim_mich on pretty much anything, that person becomes the idiot/asshole/troll/clod_of_crap/bully/basher/liar or whatever the insult de jour is, when in reality it has been jim_mich himself who has typically been the one in the wrong and the truly deceptive and dishonest party on numerous occasions.

I don't see any hint that he is going to stop this behavior, either. ...and I don't see him settling for starting a thread like pequaide's where he can just share his ideas for others to either take or leave as they see fit. He seems to have to disparage and make false allegations against any and all his critics to defend what he wants to believe about himself.

Meet jim_mich:

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which relatively unskilled persons suffer illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than it really is. Dunning and Kruger attributed this bias to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their own ineptitude and evaluate their own ability accurately.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E ... ger_effect

[preoccupied]

Furcurequs? That was idiotic.

The Dunning-Kruger effect is for stupid people. It doesn't apply to intelligent people that you think aren't as smart as you think they are. I think that you know what you posted is inappropriate. This is a bad expression of your ego to post the implication that Jim_Mich has that. You know Jim_Mich is smart, you just think you are much smarter.

[WaltzCee]

It was a tad defamatory.

[ovyyus]

You have to see what's implied in what he is saying...

JM was implying that he had solved the problem. JM still implies, actually he insists, that he has solved the problem. JM says he's solved the problem so well that he doesn't even need to build a model to know it will work. I think the context is obvious.

[jim_mich]

Furcurequs, your psycho-babble has no place here on this forum. Personal attacks are verboten. Keep your crap off the forum,

PS. I see someone else must think the same since I see your posted has been red-flagged.

[preoccupied]

You have to see what's implied in what he is saying...

JM was implying that he had solved the problem. JM still implies, actually he insists, that he has solved the problem. JM says he's solved the problem so well that he doesn't even need to build a model to know it will work. I think the context is obvious.

You are correct. Jim_Mich solved the problem on paper. It seems to be really hard for him to talk about it though because his conclusion is very disagreeable here. It's a little uncouth to have to read things exactly as they are meant for ambiguous statements. This rudeness is only brought upon by Jim_Mich wishing to patent his product. I can understand your frustration, a lot of things can be annoying, but you guys should really be more patient as this forum is very unrealistic thing to be focusing on anyways.

[Furcurequs]

It was a tad defamatory.

I guess you or jim could take me to court if you think you have a case. ...lol

...but do we really want to have to put jim_mich through that sort of public humiliation - for we may have to pick apart all the examples in the forum of his actual ineptitude?!

...plus, you may feel out of place in a courtroom. I'm not sure if they have a peanut gallery.

Oh, wait. I forgot your claimed history. Maybe you would feel at home in the courtroom.

NB: I can play your retarded games, too. I just typically choose not to.