I disagree with this! For _this_ method of locomotion, the FEWER the sides on each wheel the better it will work. Therefore the tricycle with 3-sided wheels (ie triangualr) will be an improvement over their original new design. Even better would be the bicycle with two two-sided (sic) wheels. (These wheels would be lozenge shaped). For the bicycle one could then replace the circular engine with a linear rocker back-and-forth. Copyright James Wanless 2005 Patent pending!
Assuming your first comment is meant without sarcasm (of which I have encountered quite a lot:-( ) - thank you too - I hope you do indeed find my site of interest... Wrt your second comment - that is correct - he and I are separate individuals, with no direct connection other than our names - though I do quite like tarot!:-)
Just for the record, as I've stated elsewhere, the Miller-Rabin Test is unjustifiable (for which read _wrong_) There is nothing wrong with its _math_, however the preliminary logic is completely up-the-spout, as it computes Pr(A|B) at a critical point, rather than the required Pr(B|A) - if you don't believe me, read the paper...!
http://www.bearnol.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Math/riema nn.htm
My own (original) idea, but released under the GPL for everyone's benefit_ frm/thread/25130f0f89248f9a/ac072ae38ba5c0de?lnk=s t&q=perpetual+motion+wanless&rnum=1&hl=en#ac072ae3 8ba5c0de
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse
I disagree with this! For _this_ method of locomotion, the FEWER the sides on each wheel the better it will work. Therefore the tricycle with 3-sided wheels (ie triangualr) will be an improvement over their original new design. Even better would be the bicycle with two two-sided (sic) wheels. (These wheels would be lozenge shaped). For the bicycle one could then replace the circular engine with a linear rocker back-and-forth. Copyright James Wanless 2005 Patent pending!
No, I just thought it might help the authors of the paper if they had the full facts.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_ frm/thread/6ebfce5d3cf9076c/2e277b0625211ef5?lnk=s t&q=sci.physics+wanless&rnum=6&hl=en#2e277b0625211 ef5
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.math/brows e_thread/thread/4f55dec2b59de037/4d5bea3964a28a85? q=ecdlp+cracked+wanless#4d5bea3964a28a85
Who won the World Series this year?! :-)
Yes, indeed - the funny thing is (and it's a REALLY big joke! :-) it actually _is_ all true and complete ie correct...
J
Assuming your first comment is meant without sarcasm (of which I have encountered quite a lot :-( ) - thank you too - I hope you do indeed find my site of interest... :-)
Wrt your second comment - that is correct - he and I are separate individuals, with no direct connection other than our names - though I do quite like tarot!
http://www.bearnol.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Math/wanle ss2.html
http://www.bearnol.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Math/index .html
Just for the record, as I've stated elsewhere, the Miller-Rabin Test is unjustifiable (for which read _wrong_) There is nothing wrong with its _math_, however the preliminary logic is completely up-the-spout, as it computes Pr(A|B) at a critical point, rather than the required Pr(B|A) - if you don't believe me, read the paper...!
http://www.bearnol.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Math/Facto r/Factorfa.htmly onder.co.uk/Math/Facto r/Factorwa.html
and
http://www.bearnol.pwp.blue
http://www.bearnol.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Math/riema nn.htm