Can we all agree on one thing???

[John doe]

He used several weights that weighed 2kg apiece.

[Phaedrus]

✯ His wheels were made out of wood.

Is that a fact? All his wheels were made completely out of wood (except for weights and springs)? No levers made out of iron or steel or brass or something?

[Art]

I agree . We don't really know that it was all made of wood inside .

I would be very surprised if he didn't use materials like leather , glue , rope and of course we know he had metal to use for various types of pivots , axles of pulleys etc (not to mention the availability of metal sheet of the type used to fabricate organ pipes)

Even the outside covering of the wheel was a treated fabric of some sort and not wood.

Bessler served time working at a wide variety of crafts and was quite proud of it - wood was a commonly used material yes ,-but I can't see why he would limit himself to only using it .

[eccentrically1]

I think Marchello meant just the framework of the wheel itself.

✯ Bessler was a real person.
✯ He 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.
✯ One wheel could restart after being slowed to 5ish rpm.
✯ His wheels' frames were made out of wood.
✯ At least one wheel was observed to slow down under load.
✯ The uni-directional wheels were self starting.
✯ The bi-directional wheels needed a slight push (est. 5 RPM).
✯ two to three rotations until coasting speed.
✯ One wheel was observed to lift one of its supports.

[daxwc]

"At least one wheel contained a spring." - Is just hearing something by one person just cause for proof? It is not like he saw something; maybe he was mistaken as to what it was.

[Sam Peppiatt]

John Do, I would like to add one additional known fact about Bessler's Wheel(s), and maybe the most important one, it had GREAT SIMPLICITY. Which is the mark of a good design. And sometimes the most difficult to imagine. Please see J.C. book page 189.

[jim_mich]

"At least one wheel contained a spring." - Is just hearing something by one person just cause for proof? It is not like he saw something; maybe he was mistaken as to what it was.

I don't think Professor Wolff was mistaken.

From JC's PM-AAMS, pages 70 & 71:

Professor Wolff obliged, with an account of the proceedings on the 19th December, 1715.
-snip-
When he put the wheel onto another support and reinstalled the weights in their previous positions, he pushed down on an iron spring that gave a loud noise as it expanded upwards.

Springs and weights of the kind he describes are not to be found in my machine!

without the necessity of external assistance for its continuation – such as the mechanisms which are to be found in other ‘automatics’ – e.g. clockwork, springs or weights that require rewinding.

And so a definition distinction is to (page 74) be made between the terms “perpetual� and “eternal�. But “perpetual� my device certainly is in the sense that it is not a clockwork mechanism which requires the use of springs which need to be wound up again

Bessler states the his wheel contained no wind-up springs. Never does he claim that his wheel contained no spring of any type.

[John doe]

John Do, I would like to add one additional known fact about Bessler's Wheel(s), and maybe the most important one, it had GREAT SIMPLICITY. Which is the mark of a good design. And sometimes the most difficult to imagine. Please see J.C. book page 189.

I agree.

[ME]

Eeehm... before this list grows larger and larger, what are we actually trying to accomplish here?

When Bessler is considered an actual historic person, perhaps it's also needed to address this person as (wiki:) In the year 1680 "Johann Ernst Elias Bessler was born in the German town of Zittau in the Kingdom of Saxony". Luckily we have John-Collins-Investigations and others for such facts :-)

My personal take on this is that we need some way of convincing ourselves PMM is even possible, or we all are just fools on this new April's day for as long as we tried finding such anomaly.
So Bessler is only needed as excuse for such quest, as Bessler is (at least for me) the single thread carrying the possibility of perpetual motion (or the like).
I know such hope could easily be misjudged as fact, but for PMM it's the best hope we got. Any other inventor or invention is either a debunked hoax, or more fragmented in information.

So for the current list, which eccentrically1 nicely reiterates for all our conveniences: which one is actually helpful for (re-)creating PMM?

* Bessler was a real person. - The currently best Public-Domain evidence we can use as excuse.
* He showed a number of "wheels" performing work. - Basically the reason for our interest in Bessler.
* We agree to disagree as to how he did it. - From the premise "We don't know" and we all deviate differently from accepted science;
* At least two wheels contained weights. - It seems logical there should be a wheel as a way of perpetual transport, and some cargo to be transported. Why not "all his wheels"?;
* At least one wheel contained a spring. - I'm still not convinced this spring is really a mandatory part of a working mechanism (Jim explained), and perhaps only some installation tool .
* His wheels' frames were made out of wood. - This was a counter-argument for the alleged importance of the spring.
One could wonder if wood on itself has properties beneficial for creating PMM not found in (let's say) iron; perhaps (not unimportant) only low-cost and easier to process.
Would Bessler 2.0 nowadays use plastics and stainless-steel or still revert to wood? - which could be a matter of opinion and not fact.
* The uni-directional wheels were self starting. - I think the most fascinating fact, and difficult not to have some hypothesis about.
* two to three rotations until coasting speed. - (...)
* The bi-directional wheels needed a slight push (est. 5 RPM). - Was this 5 RPM for both wheels? [Merseburg 40 RPM (thus 1/8), and Kassel 26 RPM (thus about 1/5) ]
The term "5 RPM" is either too specific or too incomplete at this point, depending on what we want to achieve with this list;.
* One wheel could restart after being slowed to 5ish rpm. - which is basically implied by the previous fact;
* At least one wheel was observed to slow down under load. - (...)
* One wheel was observed to lift one of its supports. - Would crappy construction be beneficial for any PMM?

To short it up:

• Bessler was a real person
• He showed a number of "wheels" performing work
• We agree to disagree as to how he did it
• At least two wheels contained weights
• The basic mechanism can be considered a simple machine (opinion?)
• The uni-directional wheels were self starting
• Two to three rotations until coasting speed
• The bi-directional wheels needed some minimum speed
• At least one wheel was observed to slow down under load.

Marchello E.

[John doe]

Good point once again ME. As the OP of the the thread I would say my original intent was to spark a discussion which would lead us on a possible journey to besslers invention via consensus. Thus far the thread has been relatively conservative as far as our relative points added and yet we can even see some disagreement even on these mundane points.
My theory is something like this for example. Establish a baseline of facts which we pretty much have. Using logic intiution and whatever else is available develope a working groundwork for a reproduction of besslers machine and or an alternate route to the same end result. For example. Karl landgrave saw the inner workings of the machine. He was a credible witness. He paid bessler a large sum of money to view his machine. He was a noble and likely highly educated for his time. He was a sponsor of bessler and offered him a job and a title and access to resources to recreate his machine. I therefore conclude that Karl landgrave saw and understood besslers device. He was satisfied that it was indeed as advertised a pmm machine. Therefore pmm machines are posdible.

[jim_mich]

After you have filled your list of known facts and observations, then you need to compile a list of "facts" that Bessler stated about his machine. Such a list might overlap this current list, such as Bessler describing his machine as being a wheel.

Such a list will be much more likely to cause disagreements. Some will twist or miss-translate Bessler's words to make them say what they want him to say, and will then accuse others of twisting Bessler's words simply because the two members don't agree. Then instead of calmly discussing the differences, one member sticks his fingers in his ears and runs off in a huff.

The source of any statements by Bessler should be listed.

We might want to start a new thread.

[daxwc]

Jim:

Such a list might overlap this current list, such as Bessler describing his machine as being a wheel.

Such a list will be much more likely to cause disagreements. Some will twist or miss-translate Bessler's words to make them say what they want him to say, and will then accuse others of twisting Bessler's words simply because the two members don't agree. Then instead of calmly discussing the differences, one member sticks his fingers in his ears and runs off in a huff.

"A wheel appears on the scene - is it really a wheel, for it does not have the normal type of rim. It revolves, but without other wheels inside or outside, and without weights, wind, or springs." - You are correct Jim because Bessler did so much dancing that nothing can be made of his own words.

[John doe]

Besslers words must be weighed with a grain of salt especially when he is being openly evasive.

[John doe]

After you have filled your list of known facts and observations, then you need to compile a list of "facts" that Bessler stated about his machine. Such a list might overlap this current list, such as Bessler describing his machine as being a wheel.

Such a list will be much more likely to cause disagreements. Some will twist or miss-translate Bessler's words to make them say what they want him to say, and will then accuse others of twisting Bessler's words simply because the two members don't agree. Then instead of calmly discussing the differences, one member sticks his fingers in his ears and runs off in a huff.

The source of any statements by Bessler should be listed.

We might want to start a new thread.

I disagree if only for convenience and clarity sake.
As for disagreements that's called a discussion.
State your opinion and supporting evidence and let the weight of your argument decide.
If you can't run with the big dogs stay at home we don't need your input anyway!
Or sit on the sidelines and watch.

[eccentrically1]

We agree to disagree how he did it may be the only one that makes everyone's list.
I think everyone has his own idea about how it was done, and it's not going to be exactly like anyone else's.
Because we're looking for something consensus tells us is impossible, then we take what we know, or think we know, is true, and fill in the missing parts of the story with parts that make possible what we think happened. The missing parts are the problem we have, not so much the parts we agree on. Consensus says one thing about them, and some of us say otherwise.