Can we all agree on one thing???

[agor95]

I think we can agree that Item A in MT51 is a componet that will make a wheel run in one direction.

[John doe]

I would agree to a point.
The pieces could also be hung on a wall as a trophy like some people do for sport after they have successfully completed a hunt.
My only issue is to relevance to the discussion at hand. Are you suggesting this is the mechanism that bessler used to create his unidirectional wheels? If so what proof do you have?

[John doe]

Edit

[John doe]

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.

So you have no interest in this discussion I completely understand.

[agor95]

Can we agree that Item A from MT51 would rotate in an ACW direction only?

If the end is a weight and when it drops then it could re-bound of a block with some sort of rubber top?

[John doe]

I don't believe so but I would rather not get into it because it is irrelevant to this thread.

[Tarsier79]

I don't agree.

[John doe]

Since we agree bessler created a PMM machine.
He stated that the motion of his machines was caused by falling or swinging weights.
In order to swing or fall requires gravity.
Swinging or falling weights were seen heard and physically touched by many observers.
given the time of early industrial revolution the only comparable device would be the steam engine or a mechanical clock mechanism and we can easily rule these out.
I also don't believe he would have had the recourses to produce either of theses devices before Karl landgrave became his benefactor.
So bessler's machine was most likely gravity powered.

[John doe]

I don't agree.

What exactly do you disagree with??

[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.

So you have no interest in this discussion I completely understand.

Whoosh button.

[John doe]

If this discussion is pointless then why are you posting here?
Do you have anything of relevance or value to add to this discussion at all?

[rlortie]

I agree with the Royal Society motto;
'Nullius in verba' is taken to mean 'take nobody's word for it'. It is an expression of the determination of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment.

Apparently Isaac Newton, president at the time (1703–1727) was a firm believer of this motto. I, as an individual do not take Newton and his Principia as firm fact, I do not take his word for it. As the cowboys say; "There is not a cowboy that cannot be thrown or a bucking horse that cannot be rode". Laws are written to be broke!

I also am an admirer of science fiction writers, Jules Verne was quoted for his statement; "If man can imagine and write about it, man will eventually build it".

Inventors are recognized and praised for their useful inventions but receive nothing for their possibly thousands attempts of failure. That one belongs to Thomas Edison after inventing the light bulb.

Go back and review Fletcher's thread and look at things from a molecular level. Throw out some fresh seed in your field of thoughts.

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5504

[John doe]

You do realize there are 20 pages of posts and if the first few are any indication then there are some long posts too!

Notice I did not say it was the only way in fact I firmly believe it is not the only way. There are likely many ways once his principles are understood. IMO

[ovyyus]

Since we agree bessler created a PMM machine.

I don't agree. We don't know what was inside Bessler's wheel and we don't know what his definition of 'true PM' might include.

[John doe]

This is a very basic and fundamental building block that I thought we had already established.
As for your argument:
1)we don't know what was in his wheel. True. But This does not support your opinion as it does not exclude the possibility of a self sustaining wheel PMM.
2) We don't know bessler's definition if PMM. True this also does not support your argument.
3) it does not matter what his definition of PMM was the accepted evidence leans significantly (overwhelmingly?) to the fact that the wheels bessler demonstrated fits OUR accepted definition of a PMM which is all that really matters at this point and time.
I suppose if you really wanted to support your opinion you could go through besslers enemies and acquaintances and see if there is any such evidence but to this date I have not seen anything substantial to support this theory.
Of course that just my opinion.