What does 'something that works' mean?

[ME]

The poll is not about proofing something works, but questions the meaning of "something that works".
The minuscule difference: the former is from the perspective of the public and obviously needs an actual build. The latter (as I try to understand) from the perspective of the upcoming inventor.

Edison would simply be an idiot in trying something completely at random that couldn't possibly work. And yet he felt the need to try something over 3000 times, probably he was under the impression he had something that worked - perhaps not perfectly...
Actually he improved an already existing light bulb principle. Perhaps in two cases he had two actual working improved principles.

Perhaps "something that works" is just about semantics.
But with important distinctions.

One could support the total impossibility of perpetual motion, just by math.
And yet here we are, pushing and pulling on laws of physics.

We all understand the need for an actual build.

[KAS]

I'd be happy just identifying the prime mover.

[jim_mich]

I've attempted to explain the prime mover here on the forum, but people stick their fingers in their ears and run away screaming, "No, no, no. You are wrong." So I try to no long discuss such things.

Have a good day.

[cloud camper]

There's no point in discussing a prime mover based on CF when you have not even bothered to study the known science behind fictitious forces.

Since you cannot converse intelligently with the known science, why would anyone believe you have found an exception to it?

[jim_mich]

Cloud camper, you are a liar when you post such crap.

[cloud camper]

Why am I a liar for noting that you have not bothered to study the field in which you claim to be an expert?

Where are your discussions and experiments that show you have an intimate knowledge of fictitious forces?

[ovyyus]

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

JM pretended to be at Step F] of his plan in order to leverage a trade deal with me under false pretences. JM knew that pretending to have a working wheel was the only way I would agree to his deal to protect his patent application. He was obviously correct to think that I, like many others here, don't hold much trade value in 'ideas that might work'.

JM stooped pretty low in order to protect his motion wheel idea that, he says, is worth 'billion$'. He stoops even lower trying to defend his deception.

[ME]

I don't understand...
You traded a post-idea for a wheel-idea, and now we all have to decide on the validity on some plan-idea: that's the actual "meaning" of this poll?
Obviously there must be some higher goal hidden somewhere.

[preoccupied]

I don't read what's on the forum as much as I would like so I've missed a lot of stuff. I think that I found an idea that might be Jim_Mich real design. I mean I don't know, but I feel super protective of it. I don't want to share it because I think it would actually work and I want all of the fame and fortune for myself. Oh man, I feel so bad for Jim. I will probably outlive him and publish this idea for billions of dollars before he does. I want to be rich! Yes! Yes!! Yes!!!

[rlortie]

JM pretended to be at Step F] of his plan in order to leverage a trade deal with me under false pretenses. JM knew that pretending to have a working wheel was the only way I would agree to his deal to protect his patent application. He was obviously correct to think that I, like many others here, don't hold much trade value in 'ideas that might work'.

Sounds pretty straight-forward to me! Tell a lie that you have a working model and are in the process of making models of said working device.

Bill was not lead to believe he was trading a post-idea for a wheel-idea, but rather a working machine.

I can readily think of three ex-members of this forum who where flat outright banned for making statements of having runners.

Ralph

[ovyyus]

ME, as I've already said, the reason for this poll/discussion is to better understand what 'something that works' actually means on the forum. The relative participation response indicates considerable interest in the subject. The result so far seems to demonstrate that 'something that works' is a term generally understood to describe an actual working model. A higher goal might be that everyone can better investigate claims of 'something that works'.

The issue of why JM defines 'something that works' differently to most on the forum is clearly also part of the discussion here. I expect that if JM wasn't trying so hard to craft tenuous defense strategies then he too might agree that 'something that works' simply means an actual working model, as indeed he used to. How JM chooses to proceed is entirely up to him and I would never tell him what to do. FWIW, JM might consider Fletcher's suggestion about clarifying the steps in his plan and perhaps also consider making a minor change to his first step: Step A] 'First find something that might work!!!'.

[ME]

Ralph, that situations is actually completely different from the simple question implied in this poll: So actually we are all asked to make a judgement call about Jim_mich's action.

We have that reputation system, and we have Scott-the-site-owner.

Most of the times a scammer shows clear signs of trouble... red-dotted not only for an unsubstantial-claim.
As far as I'm able to"judge" Jim, he made indeed some very poor assessments but I don't see him as a clear cheater.
Perhaps I'm wrong here: hence a reputation system.

--
Ovyyus, I argued that such statement depends on context: to make the poll more interesting.
But the context seems (to no surprise) wider than such simple question suggests...
Anyway, I also expect option A to win, but I really doubt we will be better equipped in spotting cheaters (there are better questions to ask) - It will probably scare-off those who enthusiastically want to share their "working" idea which is actually not.

[ovyyus]

As far as I'm able to"judge" Jim, he made indeed some very poor assessments but I don't see him as a clear cheater.

What very poor assessments did he indeed make?

It will probably scare-off those who enthusiastically want to share their "working" idea which is actually not.

I certainly don't agree. Those wanting to enthusiastically share their ideas are always welcome here. Those wanting to claim their ideas are actually 'something that works' in order to leverage some kind of authority should probably reconsider their strategy.

[preoccupied]

Ovyyus wrote

What very poor assessments did he indeed make?

Come on ovyyus. You are just asking for more bad mouth on Jim_Mich. A feud is invading your innocent topic. Aren't there enough reminders that people disagree with him, like every time he posts? It's like you guys are acting like Jim_Mich is taking a shit and you're the janitor that has to clean it up or people will be infected. You don't want his shit all over the new members. But Jim_Mich makes friends with every new member. That's probably why his reputation was so good before the reputation system was restarted recently. He is one of the most interesting people on the forum and he might have a good idea. He gives a perfectly reasonable excuse for not sharing his design because he is not open sourcing it and requires a patent. Unfortunately I think I have found his idea on my own and now I want to be famous for it. Am I a thief if I become a billionaire and not Jim_Mich? I never knew his idea because he told me. If we have the same idea later on if I try to patent it, I will have to trust in the first to file law, because clearly Jim_Mich would win the first to invent, since he has been using notary on his drawings for years by taking it to the bank.

[Fletcher]

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 ..

A new member comes along whom you know little about. He says in a post that he has "something that works". So far it's a pretty unqualified statement and reasonably innocent.

You probably think to yourself "something that works" .. an idea; a concept; a hypothesis; in simulation; on paper; experiment; mechanically working wheel/engine ???

You are going to ask the question. What do you mean by "something that works" ? Can you explain what you mean by "something that works".

Then you are most probably going to get an honest reply, unless there is another agenda afoot. e.g. a simulation, anomalous experiment; I crunched the math etc etc.

For me, if that statement isn't immediately qualified (he puts context around it), it has to mean that he has a physical build that works as intended.


When someone says "I have a "working gravity/motion wheel/engine" then that sets a new context, not really subject to misinterpretation. But you still want to qualify that statement further and ask questions ... 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 ???

So that there is no misunderstanding.