Posted by ovyyus (203.26.14.3) on June 03, 2003 at 22:40:33:
In Reply to: Re: Anyone see this? posted by C.Z. on June 03, 2003 at 21:12:20:
Hi C.Z.,
Obviously I've touched on a nerve here. Geez, they're comming out of the woodwork on this one, aren't they :)
Isn't it funny how you offer no useful information whatsoever. Too busy trying to put me in what you think is my place. Why don't you tell me all about how Rutan's wheel works, or Techstuff's, so we can all understand and learn.
Regards, ovyyus
: I don't think you know what flippant means although you seem to personally define it. You are like so many other mediocre wannabe intellectual types.....you took one look at ruatan's wheel and said it didn't work. you provided not even the slightest coherent critique and call savage 1's comment the most flippant of all. what a riot. what makes you an authority on perpetual motion? On your site you say you think bessler's wheel worked without seeing it and then say that other's can't work with no mention of the method used to come to that conclusion. prolly cuz you don't want to embarass yourself any further. your character is showing.
: : Oops, sorry Viper, this was intended as a response to 'salvage1' or 'O.U.R.' (same person). Gets confusing when people don't autograph their comments :)
: :
: : : Hi Viper,
: : : Well, what a response.
: : : There are many instances of brilliant individuals who carry obssessions of one sort or another. Why does Rutan's obssession with the number 6 set him apart? For Tesla it was the number 3. I knew a guy at college who had to do things in 4's to save his sanity. It's a real battle to know which is the one true faith - they can't all be right :)
: : : IMO, the most flippant arguement of all is to propose that someone has a dark and hidden agenda just because what they say doesn't fit with your belief structure.
: : : No one can prove 'Techstuff' wrong. How can you prove a negative? One of the great scientists of the last 100 years suggested that extraordinary claims required extraordinay proof. I tend to agree with that. In the case of 'Techstuff', there is simply no proof.
: : : If I posted photos of one of my many wheel attempts along with some misleading claims of its operation, what would that prove? Certainly not that I had a working PM wheel. One thing it would prove though is that there is a hord of fools out there quite ready to believe in anything you put in front of them.
: : : IMO, belief is hazardous for a seeker of facts. The world of forces and energy (Nature) does not care what you believe, does it.
: : : Regards, ovyyus
: : : .
: : : : combine all the unbalanced individuals that make such flippant refuatations as the one below and voila! you may have the secret to an unbalanced wheel! I don't think that ruttan would be so obsessed with the number six and it's geometrical permutations that he built his house around it and even his pool table, coffee table, darn near everything in his house if there wasn't something to that wheel. the fact that people like "ovvyus" and others "claim" to be open minded about such devices(and even put up painstaking sights about it) and then are the first to cry RUBBISH or SCAM! tells us who are the one's that may be doing the REAL misleading about perpetual motion wheels.
: :
: : : : : Hi Viper,
: :
: : : : : Yes, there are many ways to build water wheels. Not PM but a fascinating construction non the less.
: : : : : Note the rave accompanying the photos is from 'Techstuff'. I wouldn't be taking too much notice to what he says considering his recent overbalanced wheel scam. It just amazes me how these guy's consistantly and repeatably get away with their rubbish!
: : : : : Regards, ovyyus