The war of the ego about an unrealizable illusion

[Oystein]

I will happily buy/pay John Collins' book again, as I have lost the download once more!

This forum exists because of JC's documentary research, effort and time!

Stop being an ass.

JC: Are paper version still out of the question?

[John Collins]

You did indeed say I had to sell my books Claudio, but if I had to rely on income from them I’d be completely bankrupt. It is definitely not a business, just a service which doesn’t even cover its costs. Scott’s wonderful forum which you have made extensive use of recently is another free service which costs him money. Any contributions you might care to make towards his costs would, I’m sure be appreciated.

Your attitude to me and my efforts to spread the facts about Bessler is puzzling, as you seemed to be keen to solve the problem initially. I am absolutely certain that Bessler’s wheel worked and that he left sufficient clues to enable someone to reconstruct it. It might have been yourself, only you gave up.

JC

[John Collins]

Yes Øystein, printed versions are available.😀

JC

[unstable]

Sorry John, how you can write to be sure of something you do not know at all ? Were you present during the tests that Bessler did? In this story there are no certainties and your attitude to want to prove that you know the truth makes me think bad about you.
It seems that in all the ways you want to entice and convince your readers about the "reality" (?) of the wheel's operation (PM), when you can not deny that all data point to fraud.
Even your behavior leaves me esterred. There is no magic wand so when you find a clue ... "now everything will work" ... it does not work like that and you know very well ... you are an engineer (mechanical engineer, if I read correctly), certain things you are required to know them, just for your qualification. If it had not been considered a physical principle, someone would have already noticed and discovered it for quite a while! It is not that a type of linkage or connection changes the cards on the table. Your (and your plural) irrationality leaves me stunned.
We are probably on different worlds. I am a very open-minded person but here it is bordering on the absurd.

As for the site of Scott, which unlike you, he does not advertise and does not want to convince anyone ... he has made available to those interested in a story in a virtual space. I well know that it has costs ... but I suppose it will have weighed the convenience of this virtual space. Maybe he does it for pure passion ... I do not know. The point here is not Scott's site but it's your willing to convince people and you're interested in this thing. The two things seem different to me.
I do not want to say that you are in bad faith but you should at least avoid opposing those who try to dissuade the gullible from this fact. If you were in good faith, what would it change for you if someone writes discrediting these theories ? If you reply, probably the reason for your interest in this story is the earnings of your business... and you feel personally attacked.

[Oystein]

Unstable; For your own well being I advice you to distinguish between the documentary researcher John Collins and the Perpetual Motion enthusiast and wheel builder John Collins.

If it wasn't for the first book and all the documents collected and made public by John, this site wouldn't be around. Neither would you be here. Or me for that sake. I can prove that John's work and some of his ideas beyond the documentary part, has materialized into something of value! This wouldn't be possible without his enthusiasm and hard work.

So without his conviction (right or wrong), none of this would have happened, so you will have to learn to live with that. Though JC may could have tried harder to separate his two roles.

I accept that his conviction may not lead him to a working wheel, but without his conviction he wouldn't have found certain numbers and figures that certainly leads us to hitherto unknown information.

There was something special about Bessler and his work. He traded secrets with religious people, and even stole secrets from many of higher rank and I believe he discovered another historical secret just before he made his breakthrough.

And about John accepting Bessler "lies". I would rather ask how you believe that YOU are way smarter than Leibniz? One of the smartest men in history?? He was there. You are here! His IQ is estimated even higher than Newton's. What do you have to add to Leibniz' conclusion, other than citing the words/books written by others? (as da Vinci warned about!)

Best
ØR

[Andyb]

Hi Bill,i had a think about the approach shown in your link and after some consideration i think the approach has merit ,the problem as i see it is a number of things ,1 the weights falling are to high in there initial ob causing the potential that they create to be to low ,example the weight takes up a position shortly after the zenith meaning the increase in force is lower than if it was started at say 2.30 ?,my second point is the weights reach a point of rest as soon as they do this the negative torque starts to build lowering the potential to spin the wheel 3 the approach of just allowing the system to react by the cable is not controlled enough ,releasing the weights at specific points that create a increase in angular momentum and a small imbalance looks more feasible ,but what do i know it just happens to be the approach i am looking at again at the moment, i hope my words are helpful ,all the best Andyb

[ME]

There are several options.
You could find the coordinates of all the weights and calculate the average.

An alternative is a pair-wise refinement, quick and simple.
Take a screenshot, and put it in any kind of paint-program.
Eight weight, four pairs. Per unique pair of weights find/estimate their average halfway position, just put a circle or a dot half-way.
With these four points, select two pairs, find their half-way point and add a circle (in a different color).
With these two points, the half-way point is now also the Center of Mass (CoM) of the eight weights. That means that we could temporarily put all the weights in this position and the wheel would create the same torque at that moment (test it!).

Ironically (or now I'm not sure anymore if that actually should be "disturbingly") you can do this kind of CoM-finding science/math with a compass and a straight-edge.

Anyway, when this CoM is way to the left or way to the right then this configuration would try to lower this CoM, and thus itself and thus auto-rotate.

So that should be simple enough. Now the hard part:
I could quote something from a book but apparently air-tight conspiracies programmed me that such would be really bad unless it is from certain books approved by certain conspiracies...
It's so confusing, I really have to stop thinking... Is there some Conspiracies-'R'-us, or is perhaps this Jones-guy still active to help me out?

[ovyyus]

We are probably on different worlds. I am a very open-minded person but here it is bordering on the absurd.

Claudio, that doesn't sound very open-minded. Some people are here simply to discover how Bessler accomplished his remarkable demonstrations. Others seem more interested in promoting their untested belief or idea. Some deliver endless affirmations of their faith or scepticism in pm. There are even those who try to discredit science as a way forward (usually without knowing much about science). An open-minded researcher might not be so distracted with all this fluff and twaddle and focus on trying to discover how Bessler powered his wheel... and demonstrate something that actually works.

[Oystein]

If any ref. to me.. My reason for pointing to the likely incompleteness of physics just because I want to be sure if physics is complete. If physics is complete, Bessler's wheel was fake, and I would like to move on. If physics isn't complete I have a reason to keep working.

So physics doesn't seems to be complete. We haven't even discovered what gravity is yet! Therefore I think it's to early to give up! If relativity was correct down to it's core, we could describe the mechanism of gravity. If it is correct we should be able to measure a constant stream of gravitational waves emitting from matter. We haven't. We should then be able to tell what dark energy is. We can't. It's just numbers that fill gaps in our formulas!

Then to Leibniz. Leibniz believed Bessler wasn't a fraud. He got to knew Bessler and tested the machine and so on. Leibniz believed that Bessler had discovered a hitherto unknown material that accelerated falling bodies.

If that material would exist, it either brakes the laws of physics, or needs to be "refilled". Bessler said his wheel never needed to be "refilled". If so, still, at least some physics law was broken.

This material that Leibniz dreamed of, would be something similar to a material that would expand when put under pressure. This also would be in conflict and in opposition to existing physics. Yet here it is described:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ompressed/

Next, we must think: are we really finished with developing our understanding? Could we have missing even utterly simple stuff? Could what we are being taught hinder us to discover such things that Bessler discovered? My conclusion from my work with Besslers material is that I now can prove to myself that simple stuff in history is being overlooked by learned men. Education tells them not to look for it, but still it exist for everyone to see. So I concluded that since so very simple tasks was given by great men in history, was never solved! So why wouldn't there be other simple tasks remaining unsolved. People have a hard time finding/discovering things that we don't know what looks like! (Meaning that education can lead us forward to a point, but it can also lead us past the simplest things to discover).

Plato wrote: Why should we keep looking for a thing, if we don't know what it looks like? How would we know that we have found the thing, if we don't know what it is or what it looks like? The question was not given to make us give up, but to reflect on how we may learn things! Plato believed basic knowledge was already within us. This is what invention is about! Discovering new things, that we haven't been taught! He then gave the task of squaring the circle.. etc.

Best
ØR

[ovyyus]

Leibniz believed that Bessler had discovered a hitherto unknown material that accelerated falling bodies.

Reference?

[Oystein]

Sorry..it was Christian Wolff that in 1722 wrote:

..the unknown substance which applies continuous pressure to heavy bodies when they fall, and which adds to the force of their impact...' - letter from Christian Wolff

Ref. www.orffyre.com

Leibniz on the other hand in 1714 wrote: "I do not regard that movement to be solely mechanical but stemming from some physical principle. But what it is I can still not puzzle out. It will be useful because the machine can exhibit considerable energy for an extended length of time. In which case, I cannot call this work of skill a fraud, if it is able to deliver what is expected of it...'

Ref. www.orffyre.com

Best
ØR

[unstable]

The only way I know to obtain acceleration it is by gas expansions. Internal combustion engine. For now I can not think about other trick... but this is an energy input and not PM. Gunpowder ? :-)

[Oystein]

I think they were wrong..

But a material that expand when put force on would also do the trick..

I think Bessler spoke the truth about his invention.

Best
ØR

[ME]

But a material that expand when put force on would also do the trick..

Likely not. It's hypothetical.

[ovyyus]

Sorry..it was Christian Wolff...

No, neither one of them said they...

...believed that Bessler had discovered a hitherto unknown material that accelerated falling bodies.

IMO, Leibniz pointed to the solution to the puzzle, which had nothing to do with mechanics or gravity.