You have the right question, but why the exclamation point. If you are sure then why the question mark. You have helped make my point of how easy it is to turn a point of view. You have asked a question and made an interjection both in one sentence. Please do not think I am critisizing you or your grammer as it is a common practice today.
Once again what would or could happen in three hundred years and a foreign language.
You have proved my point about mis-information and is he a liar.
There is no trick question, it is a riddle/parable. Out of this you have allegedly attacked a priest and dishonored him. There is always somebody out there who will believe your statement.
Now that you have seen what can happen do you still wish to say that Bessler was a liar. "Think twice about what you think you know" is the name of this game.
That's a trick question. It could also be the son of the mans priest (naughty naughty priest) or a son of god, etc. Good answer though Fletcher!
I for one am convinced that Bessler tells you everything you need to know in his "little book" (AP). Does he mislead you? Yes. (Why shouldn't he? It's his secret after all!) Does he lie? Maybe, maybe not. (If he tells you something, and you don't believe it, does that make it a lie?)
"....the mechanism is so simple that even a wheel may be too small to contain it...."
"Sometimes the harder you look the better it hides." - Dilbert's garbageman
I am also certain that he did not lie in his writings, but yes he did mislead intentionally.
Can you explain this because I don't see a difference between misleading and lying by the written word. Thanks.
I probably used the wrong word silver eyes. By 'mislead' I meant that Bessler would write something that might be taken at face value when first reading it, but further consideration will allow a slightly different interpretation. There are many examples and we have discussed some of them here before, but one that comes to mind is his statement that says something like 'springs are not used in his machine in the way you think'. That can be interpreted in several ways, i.e. no springs are used at all; or springs are used but in a way that is not the same as you are thinking; or springs are used but they are not vital to the wheels' motion - etc etc.
So when I said he mislead intentionally, I did not mean that he lied, just that he wrote in sufficiently vague terms that it would be difficult to tell exactly what he meant until after the secret was revealed.
If the mechanism is as simple as was described,I can easily see how Bessler would quickly become obsessed with hiding it.But if you release NO press about it,the hubbub quickly dies.So what better way to protect your invention AND keep up interest in it, than to put out bits and pieces of info that make it seem like you are very close to discovering the secret,but info that keeps you looking in the wrong places.He may have been a genius at public relations.On that thread,the sound of eight weights hitting the side of the wheel could be easily arranged,even if they had nothing to do with driving the wheel.Ask yourself this:How long have you known about Bessler?How many times have you re-read his writings/drawings?How many working PM wheels have you built?.................yeah,join the club.
Trying to turn the spinning in my brain into something useful before moving on to the next life.
If someone gave you the diagram of an engine and left depictions of vital components out of the diagram, and you or anyone else had never seen one before, you would have a jolly time reproducing it.
Don't get me wrong.I will continue to study Bessler and his clues,and I will incorporate all that I learn with all that I know.But I also will continue to build anything that looks promising to my mind,even if it flies in the face of what we think we know about Bessler's wheel.Even if it's not round.My whole intention with this thread was to possibly help some of the incredibly smart and talented youngsters who have joined our ranks recently,to not put all their eggs in one basket.Let your mind wander freely amongst the unlimited ideas about PM.
Good Hunting!
Trying to turn the spinning in my brain into something useful before moving on to the next life.
sleepy wrote:...
On that thread,the sound of eight weights hitting the side of the wheel could be easily arranged,even if they had nothing to do with driving the wheel....
You have proved my point about mis-information and is he a liar.
There is no trick question, it is a riddle/parable. Out of this you have allegedly attacked a priest and dishonored him. There is always somebody out there who will believe your statement.
Now that you have seen what can happen do you still wish to say that Bessler was a liar. "Think twice about what you think you know" is the name of this game.
That's a trick question. It could also be the son of the mans priest (naughty naughty priest) or a son of god, etc. Good answer though Fletcher!
Ralph
Sorry Ralph I don't understand what you are saying. I never said Bessler was a liar, I said one can't say he lied about everything , that he changed everything, and told the truth as well. Unless he was a earlier incarnation or pracised Keely speak.
Last edited by Silver Eyes on Wed May 04, 2005 6:06 pm, edited 2 times in total.
~If he tells you something, and you don't believe it, does that make it a lie?)
If it's a lie it's a lie, it doesn't matter if you believe it or not. I guess the questions here are how honorable was Bessler? Will we ever know? You guys have opened up too many questions.
John Collins wrote:I probably used the wrong word silver eyes. By 'mislead' I meant that Bessler would write something that might be taken at face value when first reading it, but further consideration will allow a slightly different interpretation. There are many examples and we have discussed some of them here before, but one that comes to mind is his statement that says something like 'springs are not used in his machine in the way you think'. That can be interpreted in several ways, i.e. no springs are used at all; or springs are used but in a way that is not the same as you are thinking; or springs are used but they are not vital to the wheels' motion - etc etc.
So when I said he mislead intentionally, I did not mean that he lied, just that he wrote in sufficiently vague terms that it would be difficult to tell exactly what he meant until after the secret was revealed.
I hope this helps?
John Collins
Yes thanks John. A simple answer for a simple question.
sleepy wrote:...
On that thread,the sound of eight weights hitting the side of the wheel could be easily arranged,even if they had nothing to do with driving the wheel....
Indeed.
I remember reading him saying that the sounds were a real function of working items though and not a disguise.
As this is sleepy's thread I hope he does not mind if inject the following.
We have bounce around the pros and cons as to telling the truth and talking like a politician. Bessler was good at it and I think that it is time to move on. As to telling us everything without saying nothing except to the very receptive is not new.
If anything we need to next look at the witness reports and copies of original witness statements. For example, Leibniz was known to be in a legal battle with Newton for plagiarism. Compare witness reports for discrepancies and possible conjectures of different descriptions.
