Can we all agree on one thing???

[ovyyus]

This is a very basic and fundamental building block that I thought we had already established.

Assumptions aren't great building blocks for any establishment.

[John doe]

True but my argument still stands.

[ovyyus]

What argument?

[John doe]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=airT-m9LcoY

[Tarsier79]

Bessler said he made a PMM.

I did not agree agors wheel turns CW.

I dont agree that coming to consensus br8ngs us closer to an answer.

I do beleive that having the most updated translated and complete set of documents could help some with direction.

[John doe]

I fail to see the revance of besslers definition of PMM. To me this is splitting hairs and counter productive. If we as a group cannot agree that bessler created a PMM machine then WHY would we be on a website devoted to this very said concept or even care or know the name of bessler?? If you are going to make an argument (reasonable discussion) then state your supporting evidence for said statement. For example a hypothetical person uncovers a document in which a plot was discussed regarding a Conspirscy between Bessler and Karl landgrave to defraud Peter the great out of large amounts of money and start a war with Russia. This would be worthy of discussion and could very well change everything! If you are going to state an opinion especially on one as so basic as this please be able to support it with facts of some sort, if only to say you went to a psychic and she said bessler was a fraud. Something anything not nothing. This would be like going to a Catholic Church website if one was an atheist! The only purpose I can see is to TROLL! Which I'm sure is a violation of site policies...
There is enough documented evidence the it meets OUR ( I believe the vast majority of the site will agree with me) definition of a self perpetuating machine that does not require an outside energy source.
If necessary we can conduct a poll to determine if my belief that this is the VAST majority consensus and the 2 or 3 nay Sayers are in a small minority to settle this then that would be acceptable to me. If I'm wrong I will sit down and shut up on this particular point. If I'm right then it is accepted unless theee is a reason to revisit said topic ( see example above).?!?
If not then let's move on to our next topic...

[ME]

Because: We want free energy.
Therefore: We look at Perpetual Motion (or the like)
Thus: We look at examples around; ie. Bessler.
Because: Current consensus (physics) sucks at Perpetual Motion.
Therefore: we need to cover more ground to find what we're looking for.
Thus: We agree to disagree as to how (we think) Bessler did it.
Because: We don't know.
Therefore: Nullius in verba.
Thus: An occasional "Whoosh".
Because: Some people search at the opposite of consensus.
Therefore: There's a reaction in terms of consensus.
Thus: People are not as free as wished or hoped.
...
(Back to square 1)

[daxwc]

“A Court of Statistical Appeal� has now been equated with scientific method. — Myre Sim

[daxwc]

Why do you feel the need to “frame the hypotheses� the John Doe? Hasn’t in your opinion the establishment restricting the properties of gravity put you where you are?

[AB Hammer]

Bessler said he made a PMM.

I did not agree agors wheel turns CW.

I dont agree that coming to consensus br8ngs us closer to an answer.

I do beleive that having the most updated translated and complete set of documents could help some with direction.

Agreed

[jim_mich]

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.

Why did you include falling weight? Bessler NEVER said that his wheel was rotated by fallingweights. It was Wagner that wrote about Bessler's wheel being rotated by rising and falling of weights. Bessler wrote in reply, that he was wrongly accused. Bessler wrote that any can go on and on about weights rising and falling.

It is obvious that once Wagner learned for sure that Bessler's wheel contained weights that Wagner and many others of that time and all the way down to our present time have ASSUMED that Bessler's wheel used gravity, simply because his wheel used weights.

Bessler wrote that his basic mechanism used two lead weights. Bessler wrote:

Code: Select all

Nemlich, ein Kunstwerk muß sich treiben           |Namely, a craft-work must itself drive
Von vielen sondern Stücken Bleu;           (Blei) |from many separate pieces lead;
Der sind nun immer zwey und zwey; (zwei und zwei) |which are now always two and two;
Nimmt ein Ding äußerlich die Stelle,              |change a thing outward the position,
So Fährt das andre an die Welle;                  |such drives the other to the shaft;
Dies ist bald hier, und jenes dort:               |this is soon here and that there:
Und also wechselt’s fort und fort. x              |and also swaps forth and forth.

Note that he wrote that as one weight moves outward it moves the other weight toward the shaft, then they swap. On and on.

In the next paragraph Bessler then complains that Wagner's principle of rising and falling weights (which everyone believes can't work) is why nobody believed Bessler claiming his wheel was true perpetual motion.

Bessler follows this with:

Code: Select all

Zur Zeit mag noch ein jedes rahten,       (raten) |For now like yet one each guess
Durch was für wunderbare Thaten                   |by what kind_of wonderful action/doings
Dies’ Schwere nach dem Centro kehrt,              |This weight to the Center returns,
Und jene in die höhe fährt. x                     |and that to the extent/height drives.
Denn deutscher darff ich hier nicht reden,        |because German may I here not talk,
Noch öffnen alle Fenster-Laden;                   |else open all window-shutters;

In the past I've been castigated for saying that Bessler's use of "hohe" means the weight moves to the outer extent of the wheel, in other words to the rim, while the more common meaning of "hohe" is height. In defense, Bessler usually describes things twice, (double entendre) in an attempt to make his word clear. Thus in his first description he uses outward, and in the second he uses "hohe", or "to the extent", to the edge of the wheel.

Bessler used the word "gravity" only once when describing the oscillating motions of his weights seeking positions of rest. The two weight gravitate toward center positions, but can never find equilibrium. The two weights "gravitate" to a center position, Bessler does NOT say that they gravitate downward. Thus Bessler one and only use of the word "gravity" was not in reference to Earth gravity.

The bottom line is that you can only attribute swinging/moving to Bessler's weights. Attributing gravity to moving Bessler's weight is your assumption. It is never supported by any words from Bessler.

Sorry to burst you bubble. Feel free to attempt to prove me wrong. I have all of John Collin's books in digital form in my computer and also Wagner's two critiques. I can search for any word or phrase. PM-AAMS uses the word "gravity" or "gravitational" 50 times. When JC wrote PM-AAMS he assumed (and I think still does assume) that Bessler's wheel was rotated by gravity.

[eccentrically1]

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?

You didn't understand what I said, so you think it has no relevance. I completely understand.
This discussion will end like all of our discussions. After you've been here more than a few weeks, you'll notice it, and understand what I meant.

[Fcdriver]

I am greatly confused by the responses here? PPM is not In Question yes it's possible, it is not IF it is possible, it is how to produce excess power, and how much? Am in the understanding that NONE of you have produced a wheel that runs on its own? Can weights lifting and dropping cause PPM? YES! Are we not discussing how, Bessler got excess power, not If it worked, or ran? Isn't this whole forum about the amount of excess power? That he was able to lift out side weights producing work without stopping or slowing the wheel, isn't this the question, we have been trying to answer? PPM is NOT in question, it is how to produce excess power and how much?

[ME]

PPM is not In Question yes it's possible

Show the details in Public Domain. Without proof it simply does not exist. Nullius in verba.

[John doe]

Because: We want free energy.
Therefore: We look at Perpetual Motion (or the like)
Thus: We look at examples around; ie. Bessler.
Because: Current consensus (physics) sucks at Perpetual Motion.
Therefore: we need to cover more ground to find what we're looking for.
Thus: We agree to disagree as to how (we think) Bessler did it.
Because: We don't know.
Therefore: Nullius in verba.
Thus: An occasional "Whoosh".
Because: Some people search at the opposite of consensus.
Therefore: There's a reaction in terms of consensus.
Thus: People are not as free as wished or hoped.
...
(Back to square 1)

facepalm.
I am without response.
Now I can see why in 300 years no one has been able to solve this riddle.
No one can agree there is riddle.
What the riddle is
What the riddle says
Who wrote the riddle
A few even said the riddle was already solved.(I hope this is truth)
Or why we would want to solve the riddle in the first place.
It's like the Israelites wandering in the desert for 40 years.
Why did it take them 40 years to travel such a short distance?
Not because it was a very short distance relatively speaking.
It was because no 2 people could agree on which way to go so in essence the CHOSE to remain in the desert!
If I was Moses I would have said F it! I'll meet you in the promised land when your tired of wandering in the desert! Because that what I'm doing.
Peace.