Are you optimistic ?

[AB Hammer]

Bessler007

poppycock

Poppycock? Poppycock? Well maybe, but I don't think so. LOL LOL

[Bessler007]

Hello Hammer,

Pure unmitigated, unadulterated poppycock up one side and adulterated down the other. ...of the highest order I might add. :)

It is no skin off my poppycock if some want to chase down empty rabbit holes. shuuu, I hear a wabbit.

[AB Hammer]

LOL, LOL, roll around and LOL! Thats all.

[MrTim]

Now look what you've done, Bessler007. You've gone and made everybody hungry....



;)

[Bessler007]

You know, Mr. Tim, I'm fully persuaded the foundation of my understanding is real. I've inspected the pieces of this puzzle. There are so many pieces. There is the reality of the physics with its mathematical descriptions. Then of course there is the politics. :)

If I were looking for some idea I'm sure I could kiss sufficient arse. I'm not really looking for an understanding. I know some have given up and desperately latch on to any idea available.

I've never audited a Harvard MBA course but I've listened to the description. Demur humble geeks handle the ideas of economics and form opinions. At times in the course they have to get in front of their peers and state conclusions all the while their geek peers challenge their ideas. It's brutal from what I've heard described. All of it is for the sake of understanding. At times I wish that could happen here.

Hungry folk? I'm preparing a banquet. Come sit at my table. Or not.

[docfeelsgood]

I'll bring bourbon !!

[Clarkie]

As I said before, Bessler007 is a complete waste of space who only loves the "sound of his own voice"

Pete.

[Bessler007]

Hello Clarkie,

How's the hooked on phonics coming?

You've got me curious. If you could point to the single most significant contribution you've made to the forum and the search for Bessler's mechanics what would that be?

I'm honestly curious.

[Bessler007]

Never mind, Clarkie. I took the time to review your posts.

One thing that prompted my curiosity was your last comment. Remember when you wanted to make the point of my spelling when in fact your spelling was in error? That was humorous. At that time you suggested I do something useful. I'm going from memory here. It's not worth citing exactly.

I have been thinking what you meant by 'useful' and an answer appears in your record. It seems you come to the table of ideas all petered out.

You once tried to buy into someone's idea but that didn't pan out too well. You wasted a little space crying about it.

You are a man of few words though. About 2 years ago in a thread on the GIS factors your only comment over 5 pages was, 'I absolutely agree with GIS.... I'm finalizing a design based on this now. ' It seems you hang on the periphery like a vulture waiting for something useful.

Aside from some boasting about your plastic life that's all I see.

Maybe if you're looking for something useful you should exchange some ideas and not attack those that are doing it. That is the function of a forum.

But back to the topic at hand about optimism of the progress of the group. Maybe Graham, it's something we like to tell ourselves....

[graham]

Well Bessler007 to be honest with you I have to say that I use the term "Group" quite loosely when refering to this forum.
What I should have said is "A group with a common interest". We don't actually work as a group for the most part, but as individuals sharing some of their ideas some of the time.Still it's better than no group at all.

I have already said that my optimism has faded over the years to be replaced with just hope. That doesn't mean that I've given, up but It does mean I'm more realistic in my expectations on a personal level and of the "group".

I do enjoy visiting here though, it's the only place I can talk about PM and not be considered somewhat crazy.

Graham

[Clarkie]

OK wanker, how many "wheels" have you built????

Show me something, other than a load of crap that you have posted, that you have constructed?

Tell the forum how you would build a wheel, or is that too dificult for you????

At least I'm prepaired to spend my money in search of the answer.

Tosser!!!!!

Pete.

[Bessler007]

Clarkie,

Of course you're willing to spend the money to buy into someone's idea. You have no ideas yourself.

Aside from encouraging people to spend some time analyzing an idea rather than going whole hog with a build and also documenting a significant error in the calculus of working model I think the cursory analysis of the principle of Doc's wheel comes to mind.

I have looked at some ideas people have posted describing some of the obvious reasons why they won't work. I have never looked at any idea you've posted. Have you finalized that design of Jim's idea yet? If you have, post it and I'll give you my assessment.

Then there is the useful point I made about your ignorance of spelling. Buy em books and send them to school, what do they do? Eat the books.

There's really no call for the abusive name calling, Peter. It is humorous to be called a wanker by someone named Peter.

Honey, he looks just like your wanker! That settles it. We'll call him Peter.

[bluesgtr44]

Hey Bess.....

If I were looking for some idea I'm sure I could kiss sufficient arse. I'm not really looking for an understanding. I know some have given up and desperately latch on to any idea available.

Interesting synopsis....I look for a result! I come here for the Bessler information...he already did it! I like the input no matter what it is, it just might be that little something that gives me a spark. I don't see that as desperation in the sense that you describe.

I do tend to put a lot of weight on the performance aspect of his wheels....and for good reason, as far as I am concerned. This doesn't mean others should follow this approach, but don't dismiss or disregard these results when considering an approach. The performance aspect of his wheels were nothing short of phenomenal compared to anything we have apparently presented in this forum.

Hungry folk? I'm preparing a banquet. Come sit at my table. Or not.

Sure! Can you see the possibilities of it performing anywhere near what Bessler was putting out? I mean, this is a "Besslerwheel" forum....I'm not saying that other ideas and approaches are not of interest to me, I just look at the results of what he accomplished and that is what I want! So, can you see your theory coming anywhere near what he was getting?

Bess....he saw that motion and it changed everything! He had his first wheel up and running and on display in less than a year.....while running off to save a bunch of sick people, getting married....and finding the right place for his new bride and to build his wheel. My point is.....it was easy! He saw it! I honestly think that when he came across the solution, his concern was how to maintain it....keep it under control.


Steve

[Bessler007]

Hello Steve,

I see a desperation in some but not everyone.

edit: I get your meaning now. I'll comment on this.

I just look at the results of what he accomplished and that is what I want! So, can you see your theory coming anywhere near what he was getting?

I briefly outlined what I thought was viable in Doc's thread. That is an imbalance of power. Although the calculus of working model is flawed I suspect the calculus analyzing any model ever built has described the model to a high degree of accuracy. Also if the model were built we can be pretty sure it behaved as the math predicted.

For my benefit I've formalized the generalizations underpinning the idea of an imbalance of power. I've encouraged any one looking at this to do the same. Going from these generalizations I'm slowly coming to the actual mechanics that could accomplish them. That's been a very slow process of mechanical equivalents and simplifications. I've looked at machines but not to the degree some have. From what I've seen the mechanics of this design don't exist. I've never seen them but my background isn't that extensive.

I think Bessler was up against the wall with his wheels. I'm not sure what this design is able to do but it is an imbalance of power. I have just recently come to the point where I'm about to start making sawdust.

[bluesgtr44]

Hello Steve,

I see a desperation in some but not everyone. I'll directly quote you:

Quote:
I do tend to put a lot of weight on the performance aspect of his wheels....and for good reason, as far as I am concerned. This doesn't mean others should follow this approach, but don't dismiss or disregard these results when considering an approach.


I'm not clear on your meaning. What results?

LOL...I do feel a bit of desperation at times. The results that I am talking about are the eye witness descriptions as to how his wheels performed. I think these are about the best clues we have because he had to demonstrate his devices.....and these are documented articles that deal directly with the abilities of the wheels.

I think the one directional wheels were the basic concept....the bi-directional wheels were not nesseccary, just a way to prove they were not wound up like a clock. The first two wheels rotated at over 50 rpm's and could still do work....they had to be tied off....a constant imbalance seems to have been present. The first two one directional wheels had no mention of weights tapping/banging/slapping.....they were almost half the thickness of the bi-directional wheels...the Gera wheel about 4" and the Draschwitz wheel about 6" thick. It would appear that a "Z" axis isn't needed.

So, when I look at the MT designs and what he says about them, I surmise that whatever the device is that makes it work....will work with most of these basic designs. If it is indeed an OOB system, this device is what causes it....and it is a serious imbalance.


Steve