Can we all agree on one thing???

[John doe]

I want to say up front that the above title is somewhat misleading.
Anyone can throw out any statement that they want AS LONG AS IT RELATES TO PMM. Anyone who disagrees with it can state there facts, theories,ideas, opinions, data etc to refute said statement.( Not your wrong because I don't like you and your dumb). Also anyone who agrees with it can state said same or just say agree. Afterwards a consensus is made to the stronger case and the debate is settled. Any debate can be reopened if there is new evidence brung to light.
I realize we all have our own individual projects ideas and opinions but I would like to use this to "sift" through much of the he said she said bs. and establish some more or less accepted standard true statements.
Obviously if one feels that a topic or subject is too close to his or her ideas for a PMM wheel then he is free to not comment or add to the discussion in anyway.
Having Said that I would like to open with what I think is a rather easy one by saying "Johann Bessler absolutely did create several PMM machines".

[John doe]

If we agree that PMM is possible
My next statement will be a bit tougher "if so then there are multiple ways to accomplish this and multiple energy sources and combination are also possible, not necessarily efficient or feasible but possible".

[John Collins]

I agree with your first statement although I take issue with the term PMM, as it has negative connotations as well as being inaccurate. Bessler's wheel was what was believed to be a perpetual motion machine, but it wasn't really perpetual. Besides having the obvious deficiency of being liable to breaki down at some point due to wear and tear, it was no more perpetual than an automobile is, providing it has its perpetual supply of gas. Some might say I'm being picky, but I do think that the term PM is doing us no favours.

JC

[John doe]

I am honored by your reply!
I also completely agree with you. Although I don't know of a better alternative off hand.

[Mark]

I agree with your first statement although I take issue with the term PMM, as it has negative connotations as well as being inaccurate. Bessler's wheel was what was believed to be a perpetual motion machine, but it wasn't really perpetual. Besides having the obvious deficiency of being liable to breaki down at some point due to wear and tear, it was no more perpetual than an automobile is, providing it has its perpetual supply of gas. Some might say I'm being picky, but I do think that the term PM is doing us no favours.

Ditto.

[Tarsier79]

We cannot prove it was not fraud, or used a power source of some kind (ie. environment, or a chemical reaction he thought was perpetual). We do not know if all of his wheels used the same principle, or even the same mechanism performing slightly different tasks.

The only thing you can and should agree on are the facts, such as:

1. Bessler was a real person.

2. Bessler showed a number of "wheels" performing work.

...

[John doe]

I disagree I believe there is more than enough evidence that has survived from that era, thanks in no small part to John Collins and various other sources to conclude that his wheels performed work as described and remained in motion for moths at a time without any outside assistance.

I do not doubt that various changes and possibly improvements were made to the prime movers of said wheel but I do believe they all employed the same principles.

[John Collins]

Tarsier, you're right in that we cannot 'know' with utter certainty anything other than what you have stated as agreed, but most of us begin with the assumption that his claims were genuine and that the documented history is the place to start our research, using what evidence seems to us to at least offer support for our assumption.

Sorry for that long sentence.

JC

[eccentrically1]

1. Bessler was a real person.

2. Bessler showed a number of "wheels" performing work.

3. We agree to disagree as to how he did it.

[ME]

"Johann Bessler absolutely did create several PMM machines".

I just take a leap of faith in assuming Bessler found some mechanical arrangement able to self-rotate and perform work.
I don't see any issue in calling such thing a perpetual motion machine within the margins of how we all think such thing could have worked.
We'll know how to actually classify such thing when some working variant is finally known.

I don't think we'll find consensus here, and I think that should be recognized and actually emphasized. Many people have many ideas, perspectives and a way of handling this PMM thing.
When things are not taken or addressed personally, then it's highly likely a cross-over between those different aspects will spark new ideas, even when not intended.
I think that's the most valuable thing to have.

Thus a larger area is needed to cover more ground instead of narrowing it down by finding some consensus.
The obvious side-effect to embrace: we will not always agree and understand each other;

[jim_mich]

1. Bessler was a real person.

2. Bessler showed a number of "wheels" performing work.

3. At least two wheels contained weights.

4. At least one wheel contained a spring.

5. We agree to disagree as to how he did it.

[John doe]

Facts are relatively easy.
The temperature is 72 degrees outside.
vs.
It is warm outside.
The wheel quickly accelerated to maximum speed.
The wheel took x time to accelerate to y speed.

I also realize we will not get 100% agreement but I think we can get a consensus as a group majority or hopefully vast majority Opinion.
Example 2: The Kennedy assassination. I believe Most people will agree that JFK was the president of the US, that he was a real person and was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald.
Now after that is where it gets tricky. Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. Most Scholars will agree with this statement but a few will disagree. It is this consensus that I'm after. We will never all agree except on the most basic facts but we can have a consensus Opinion what most likely happened using facts, logic, and reasoning.

[eccentrically1]

Hey now.

1. Bessler was a real person.

2. Bessler showed a number of "wheels" performing work.

4. At least two wheels contained weights.

5. At least one wheel contained a spring.

3. We agree to disagree as to how he did it.

[ME]

Your facts are relative: thus no facts.
From my European point of view "Fahrenheit" is just an arbitrary measure I could not even begin to reproduce: no fact there.
"Warm" is as subjective as feeling cold, which might indicate one has a fever (so this also screws up my measure of Fahrenheit): no fact there.
"Quickly" could be slow compared to a steam-engine or a spinning top, but faster than the seconds-indicator on my pocket watch.: no fact there.
"x" is called "x" for a reason, as like "y" as an indication of the question "why": no facts here, only a way to point to something unknown or variable.

The only facts, consensus and agreement one could take as a center-piece is the consensus called "physics"; only having a slight problem in acknowledging perpetual motion. The fact we are looking for PMM (or whatever one might call it), means we are willingly try to deviate from the consensus of "physics": we are still unsure in which direction.

As an example we could notice such directional dilemma on this forum:
The supposed "reason" Jim's motion-wheel is not supposed to work is because of "physics", which is a non-sense "reason" because "physics" doesn't allow such thing anyway. But what we do know for Jim's solution is to look in the direction of the physics of Centrifugal stuff.
The same "reasoning" can be applied to FcDriver's Harmonics-lever, we only "know" we have to look at leverage to even begin to understand his claim; but we are unable to disprove such thing based on "physics" while still hoping to deviate ourselves.
And many more...

While I'm on this forum I agree:

• Bessler was a real person.
• Bessler showed a number of "wheels" performing work.
• At least two wheels contained weights.
• At least one wheel contained a spring.
• We agree to disagree as to how he did it.

[eccentrically1]

Hey now.

*Bessler was a real person.
*Bessler showed a number of "wheels" performing work.
*We agree to disagree as to how he did it.
*At least two wheels contained weights.
*At least one wheel contained a spring.