Jim Mich...

[WaltzCee]

• The perfect epitaph for every PM'ist that ever lived, bar Bessler...

We've already heard your say.

[ME]

The parasitic belief that hijacked his brain would not allow him to deliver the results of his build, forcing him instead to perpetuate yet another pointless self-serving myth. The lesson is there for all to learn.

The same could be said for PM-Motion research in general.

I find myself constantly wandering around some border having on one side a land of new hope and emerging discovery but neighbors to the land of science with its warnings of pointlessness.

We probably all have more or less those same issues; perhaps some individuals have additional challenges.

[Gill Simo]

• The perfect epitaph for every PM'ist that ever lived, bar Bessler...

We've already heard your say.

Come again?

[Stewart]

There is one thing that Jim was adamant about for a long time,and I believe his point was more than valid.The translations of Bessler's original writings should be revisited,as there are many variables for each old German word,and any one of them could change the meaning of the passage.Also,many things said that were attributed to Bessler,were actually said by others.The translations and mis-quotes,when used as clues,can lead you down the wrong path.

That has been my mission on this forum long before Jim. Unfortunately, unlike myself and others who tackle the translations in an unbiased manner, Jim was not really interested in getting to the truth of what Bessler said, his motivation being that Bessler did not say what Jim wanted him to say, so Jim decided he needed to force Bessler's words to fit his theories. It's a shame, because it was unnecessary, as Bessler's words don't necessarily preclude Jim's wheel theory. Jim would quote mine and others' work when it backed up his theory and then tell us we didn't know what we were talking about when he didn't think it fitted with his theory. Jim had only a superficial knowledge of Bessler's written works and the German language, point blank refusing to learn (and even denying the importance of) its grammar. It was however impossible to engage Jim in rational conversation on the matter, and so I gave up trying. I put his irrationality down to his ill health, as I remember the time in the early days of the forum when Jim did act rationally and I respected and enjoyed his contributions. As I said before, that's the Jim I choose to remember and I mourn the loss of.

Stewart

[agor95]

@Stewart

I for one would appreciate any comments & insight seen from the translations with regards the conceptual designs.

I believe the collective positive contributions, from our different skills, when combined are greater than separate views.

Even different interpretations have value as reality is not black and white.

Regards

[Stewart]

Hi agor95

I believe the collective positive contributions, from our different skills, when combined are greater than separate views.

Even different interpretations have value as reality is not black and white.

I couldn't agree more. However, as I've said before, there's only ever one correct translation whose meaning could then be open to various interpretations, depending on its ambiguity. Jim did nothing to help us arrive at a correct translation, as he had no skill when it came to the old German & Latin languages. Thanks to grammar, there should be no guesswork involved in translation, but Jim confessed that grammar was of no interest to him.

Stewart

[Fletcher]

The parasitic belief that hijacked his brain would not allow him to deliver the results of his build, forcing him instead to perpetuate yet another pointless self-serving myth. The lesson is there for all to learn.

The perfect epitaph for every PM'ist that ever lived, bar Bessler... & the only eventual one for every PM'ist still alive.....until the lesson is learnt by one, at least.

My 2 cents ... taking JB's one-way wheels as the basic principle in action it appears to me that (assuming he was genuine) we are left with two options.

1. the unbalanced wheel that cannot find its equilibrium point (he says that). The problem being that every known circulating device consisting of internally moving parts in some way always has one PQ point or position of lowest GPE (assuming it is not mass balanced around the axle), which it will find and become stationary at - that is unless there is a permutation out there where the positive torque is greater than the negative torque so allowing the 'wheel' to never rest at the PQ point and keep on driving. That is what JB hints at having discovered or it is a misdirection.

2. the mass balanced wheel where masses move in and out or forward and back which doesn't have a PQ position because it never loses or gains GPE. This was jim_mich's favoured approach, even though current Physics says it is impossible also - aka - the Inertia wheel. Where it does gain credence is with the later two-way wheels which were stationary until given a push start etc.

Personally I think Ovvyus's and Gill's tomes ring true. Personally I think the most promising way forward for 2017 is to discover the basic lever mechanism used by JB - we have so little 'fact' to go on - but both JC and Oystein are confident they have found the secret mechanism enabling the gravity only circulating wheel - we have little choice but to await their findings or rediscover it for ourselves. If both can make convincing cases for their enthusiasm of their mechs then we shall see (eventually) if they are both on the same path (same mech) or not, and then we might explore the two scenario's above with that mech(s) in mind - or, there may be an option 3 which I haven't considered and escapes me as it stands today.

Can anyone think of any other option than the two well known ones above ? Perhaps you'd like to add to the list ?

[ME]

3. A principle based on Maxwell's demon

I'm looking for an option which combines this with your option 1.
Possibly implemented like a two way wheel (so mathematically balanced), and yet prefers one way; thus creates imbalance by an almost arbitrary choice.

Of course my base-idea still misses some crucial parts... Almost there, for a year now, it could take several more days.

[Stewart]

Personally I think Ovvyus's and Gill's tomes ring true. Personally I think the most promising way forward for 2017 is to discover the basic lever mechanism used by JB - we have so little 'fact' to go on - but both JC and Oystein are confident they have found the secret mechanism enabling the gravity only circulating wheel - we have little choice but to await their findings or rediscover it for ourselves.

Sadly we saw Jim playing out the scenario we've witnessed all too often, and reaffirm to us all that no one has the answer until they've built a physical working device.

Jim once knew that to be true when he said: "My 'PLAN'... I posted this a while back. The first item on my list is "First get something that works!" This means a working wheel, not just a concept or idea.", a wise remark. It seems that unless we're very careful any one of us could succumb to Randall's Parasite.

We all know an imbalance of weight will work as a means to turn a wheel, and as Bessler says about MT13 "This invention would be quite good to run, if there wasn't so much friction or someone were available who always lifted up the weights above at D like lightning etc. etc. etc.". Unless we can replace Bessler's Demon with a physical mechanism or phenomenon, the concept of a perpetually overbalanced wheel is worthless.

It seems Jim found himself with a similar idea, but try as he might he could not engineer the necessary mechanism, and therefore did not have the answer. Likewise, JC and Oystein do not have the answer until a wheel is revolving perpetually in their garage. Until that point they are no nearer a solution than anyone else, and if they should try to convince you otherwise, then beware Randall's Parasite!

That being said, I'm confident that someone will eventually work out what Bessler did. If a successful wheel is built however, bear in mind that it's unlikely you'll hear it announced first on this forum. It's my opinion that this forum should by now have adopted a zero tolerance stance on unsubstantiated claims of success, while encouraging and supporting people in seeking the solution.

I look forward to some interesting discussion in the coming year, and wish everyone good luck in their research. Let's hope someone has success in 2017.

All the best
Stewart

[Fletcher]

... JC and Oystein do not have the answer until a wheel is revolving perpetually in their garage. Until that point they are no nearer a solution than anyone else ...

I beg to differ Stewart. Those two, at least, purport to have found some consistent code and cipher in both the Bessler pictures/drawings AND the texts.

Oystein has been more publicly forthcoming about the texts cipher/code he has found and says it is in part an on-page spacial code that delineates a particular mechanism (think of a connect-the-dots drawing). He says the mech is repeated many times over and sometimes in different proportions presumably to reinforce the point and show possibly performance alternatives from different mech proportionality.

In my estimation that puts them both ahead of the pack of non-running/working self sustaining wheel makers. Of course they would be nixed by ANYONE who produces and discloses a bona fide working wheel (and we all know the definition of a working wheel). It would still be an interesting by-line and point of discussion after the fact.

[Stewart]

Hi Fletcher

You seem to have great faith in JC and Oystein, so I'm curious to know why? I would love it if there was some code discovered that gave the answer. Job done! Has either one of them shared details of the "code" with you that makes you think they have something of interest?

Your post suggests that Oystein's code in the text reveals geometry rather than recognisable sentences? I worry that it's easy to see in drawings and text the geometry that you want to see, especially with drawings since geometry is used to create them in the first place, whether or not a code is intended to be hidden in them.

I've seen the information that Oystein has shared on his websites, and nothing there gives me any confidence he has discovered a viable code. I can show he is mistaken about much of what he talks about and refute what he seems to think is irrefutable. I hope he does have something more substantial, but I do fear the dreaded Randall's Parasite applies to code seeking too!

If either JC or Oystein have discovered viable and irrefutable coded information, then how come they've not managed to make a working wheel? The lack of a working wheel would suggest no useful information has been decoded and they're therefore no further ahead than anyone else! ;-)

I don't think we should have to put up with people boasting and goading others with claims of success while refusing to share. How is that at all helpful or of interest to anyone? What are people trying to achieve by shooting their mouths off before having a working wheel? They don't seem to be looking for help or offering any help, and no one is looking for or expecting anything from them either. There appears to be no point to it other than they're stroking their egos. I'm all for being enthusiastic about this subject, but it's easy to become delusional when working alone and without the constant watchful eye of your peers. Sorry for the rant but I just get exasperated by human nature at times!

All the best
Stewart

[AB Hammer]

I somewhat agree with you Stewart

I'm confident that someone will eventually work out what Bessler did. If a successful wheel is built however, bear in mind that it's unlikely you'll hear it announced first on this forum

It may not first be announced on this forum but on YouTube. But the how may very well be shown first on this forum, for a YouTube video will no be believed until proven otherwise.

Not being a skilled translator caused myself to depend on other's translations, but that is just part of the story. So I looked at what was from a skilled craftsman's point of view. Then went back through the school of trial and error, just as Bessler did.
Being a 30 year Blacksmith, understanding leverage and balance from those years. Working as a disabled person always adjusting to be able to get things done despite. Made me a very hardheaded individual in pursuit, but open minded to find a way.

I soon will be finishing my rebuild of the wheel that showed acceleration but correcting the timing issue I had with it. If successful, it will be a runner with out having to keep it under a load to keep it's timing on Q.

[Stewart]

Hi Alan

YouTube might be a good place to reveal the solution, although of course a video is no evidence of success. Only when a shared design for a wheel is built by one's own fair hands should one believe the problem to be solved!

Good luck with your wheel build, I hope you have success!

All the best
Stewart

[Grimer]

I also agree with you Stewart.

Much as I respect JC (without whose epic work on Bessler many of us, me included, wouldn't be here) he has cried wolf on at least one occasion - though he can't match my record. :-)

As for the other chap, I've never been persuaded by his code breaking claims and I don't warm to his bikini.

[Fletcher]

Hi Fletcher

You seem to have great faith in JC and Oystein, so I'm curious to know why? I would love it if there was some code discovered that gave the answer. Job done! Has either one of them shared details of the "code" with you that makes you think they have something of interest?

Hi Stewart .. yes, it is true that there is in me some level of "faith" in JC and Oystein. I'll try to explain why. It can not be belief (or science) until I see for myself what they have found (in full detail) before I can become a believer. Then I will be able to follow their logic and 'connections', view previous external examples using similar techniques perhaps, and displace leaps of intuition with facts (follow the road map) that give rise to consistent and repeatable predictions or pictures of mechanisms etc. I'll mention more on this later.

I assume you dip into JC's blog site from time to time as I do and read what he has to say on codes and ciphers etc that he may have found ? Oystein has also contributed in those blogs, as well as within topics here in BW.com over recent years. Neither has fully disclosed the full 'evidential steps' (the consistent connections of the road map) they 'discovered' to arrive at their conclusions or apparent certainty for reasons they have given.

Both of them have my 'interest' because I find them both sincere, amongst other things, and they have individually tackled a complex area that was mainly green fields with acres of unploughed territory. I have no doubt that codes and ciphers are there to be revealed in JB's published works and MT etc. What they might reveal is the question of the moment.

Ultimately there are a few permutations - either both are correct and each has the bulk of the others findings to the road map - one is correct and the other misguided because there is no synchronicity in their individual decoding and deciphering efforts - neither is correct and therefore both are misguided and infected by the Randall Parasite. Each permutation is as likely as another until they choose to reveal their work for scrutiny and testing.

Your post suggests that Oystein's code in the text reveals geometry rather than recognisable sentences? I worry that it's easy to see in drawings and text the geometry that you want to see, especially with drawings since geometry is used to create them in the first place, whether or not a code is intended to be hidden in them.

All good points Stewart - as far as I know in published form JC has given his interpretation of codes etc in drawings in JB's DT. Since they are drawn in perspective using geometry, as you point out, then there may be unintended red herrings infused in there. There would need to be consistent geometric translations and other optical formalities repeated and identifiable in more than one drawing to be convincing beyond reasonable doubt (the criminal bar) and balance of probabilities (the civil bar).

Personally I am excited about Oysteins' approach in particular - here he tells of using the various texts and placement of letters and word substitution etc. It's complicated and you'd have to re-read all his contributions on the matter. Suffice to say that he says that various texts and chapters use a discernible variation of a technique consistent with the time (although not well known), and which is repeated many times as I said before (albeit sometimes in different proportions). I don't remember Oystein talking about geometric translations and substitutions etc in JB's drawings before but I could be mistaken there. Anyways, if he is correct and it is provably consistent then that passes the lower threshold of balance of probabilities for me at least. What it means or what it leads to only he knows at this stage. What he has said is that it forms a mechanism in each and every case - the same mech.

If JC and Oystein have fundamentally the same mech then that would pass the reasonable doubt threshold for me, but that is yet to be confirmed. It is possible that they have the same or similar mechs in mind - what both say is that the elements can be found in the Toy's Page and that is a good start.

The questions for me are do they have the same mech and I think that is a possibility if they have both been diligent and haven't fooled themselves along the way ? Or one has the mech or none has the mech - same permutations as before. Whether they can apply the use of the mech in the right way to achieve a self-sustaining gravity wheel is another matter entirely - both are adamant that it was a gravity only wheel so even if by chance they have the mech but can't apply it correctly then eventually the greater computing power of the members here and others will be able to run the permutations. They believe they can find that right usage without going public at this point in time.

I've seen the information that Oystein has shared on his websites, and nothing there gives me any confidence he has discovered a viable code. I can show he is mistaken about much of what he talks about and refute what he seems to think is irrefutable. I hope he does have something more substantial, but I do fear the dreaded Randall's Parasite applies to code seeking too!

You'll no doubt get your chance. What he says is that he hasn't shared the entire road map and how those connections are made, and confirmed. So like sitting next to the motorway we are only seeing the traffic flow at that juncture and point in time and not the whole motorway traffic flow.

If either JC or Oystein have discovered viable and irrefutable coded information, then how come they've not managed to make a working wheel? The lack of a working wheel would suggest no useful information has been decoded and they're therefore no further ahead than anyone else! ;-)

See my answer above - having a mech is one thing - how to use it effectively another. Remember my two options above in thread. Was there a third (other than what ME suggested) ?

I don't think we should have to put up with people boasting and goading others with claims of success while refusing to share. How is that at all helpful or of interest to anyone? What are people trying to achieve by shooting their mouths off before having a working wheel? They don't seem to be looking for help or offering any help, and no one is looking for or expecting anything from them either. There appears to be no point to it other than they're stroking their egos. I'm all for being enthusiastic about this subject, but it's easy to become delusional when working alone and without the constant watchful eye of your peers. Sorry for the rant but I just get exasperated by human nature at times!

All the best
Stewart

As I said they at least appear to be ploughing green fields, new directions in the search for Bessler's answer. I applaud that because to me it seems a logical way for JB to hide in plain sight his wheel workings to be discovered later. Generally I agree with you about premature proclamations etc. And I am also a study of human nature so am somewhat cynical in my beliefs.

In JC's and Oystein's case they are perhaps holding a light on an otherwise unilluminated area of study for the Bessler researcher. Neither has claimed a working wheel but each is claiming to have discovered something significant in that search. If their status reports about their directions helps any one of us get over the barrier of gravity wheels are impossible then I'm all for it. Of course I'd like some confirmation but that is no different from everybody else making claims here.

OK, I'd like to make some analogies with yourself Stewart (no offense intended). You have taught yourself over many years to be an expert in Bessler's translations (by my estimation at least). You probably built on some formal education and learned the 'skill' of translations from Old German and Latin etc to English. To do that you had to learn the rules of syntax and grammar etc, and to apply them correctly for the time period, dialect, regional locality, and anticipate Bessler's level of education in languages not native to him etc. As we all know even the English speakers here as a first language still manage to send mixed messages because of colloquialisms and use of the vernacular and not applying grammar correctly etc. This is just the way it is. I'd hazard to say that you refine your translations periodically as your understanding and 'intuition of meaning' improves with familiarity ? You might even be 'better at' Old German writing than even Bessler was or his printer for example. But you'd still find the most accurate meaning to be conveyed in the context of what was written. But .. Bessler never wanted to be concise or present his work as a technically accurate bible about how to construct a self sustaining wheel - he wanted to convey ideas and abstracts without ultimate detail. He was successful. So to be technically proficient at translations is an indisputable bonus for all of us trying to find meaning in JB's words, it will not in all likelihood result in a mechanism being revealed, in and of itself.

Conversely Oystein and JC are working in a field of decoding, deciphering and encryption that requires exactitude, repeatedness, complete accuracy and repeatability (save for printing errors). If the 'key' is found then the pattern is repeatable and discernible each and every time. There is no doubt what the message says once you have the cipher key and apply it correctly, and in the correct language. In that way it is unlike translations of language which require 'skill' or 'artfulness'. It is mathematical in nature, precise. The trick is to find the key to unlock the encrypted information. Oystein says it took years of study, and verification that he had the right key, and that he was applying it correctly, and that it was repeatable etc. In my books it is no lesser a skill to have learned than the art of translation. But it could lead to an undisputed message.

What that message is and how it should be applied might be another quest because encryption and ciphers etc often have layers within layers, and that is what I believe Oystein discovered and verified, at least to himself at this time.

Sorry for the long rant.