The war of the ego about an unrealizable illusion

[unstable]

Thank you and good luck to you too.

My multi-stage lifter is very promising.... to fail :-)))

[eccentrically1]

"The energy can't be perpetually drawn from the machine's environment, that isn't PM."

Might it be considered PM while the energy source isn't defined?

I'm not sure what you mean? Do you mean Bessler's wheels drew energy from the environment, but either he didn't know that, or he knew it but that was his "secret", and allowed him to claim genuine PM?

[Oystein]

It seems ovyyus claims that Bessler himself knew what drove his wheel, but avoided telling it, and that is virtually the same as saying Bessler was lying. Bessler apparently made up a mainly fake story about only weights, levers (and springs) driving his wheel as long as the universe exists.

Quote ovyyus:

Bessler never spoke or even hinted about what actually lifted those weights - the physical principle at work inside his wheel.

That opinion is fine, but the statement seems just a little to bold or cocksure to me. I also believe it's possible that Bessler found a physical principle, substance or method of harnessing such that he may have thought could slip the wrath/axe of Peter the Great, but we have no evidence, other than the uncomfortable lack of the opposite in history.

[Fcdriver]

Before man could fly, it was told by scholars, that it was impossible! To compare the Wright Bros, statements to Bessler, might be a better form of understanding.

https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-o ... ight-flyer

[unstable]

But probably his story is also true, who knows. What we can not understand is how he managed to raise the COM in a repetitive way, even if only slightly (only a bit)...
Once we understand this we will be able to achieve the same result, I suppose.
I am studying a mechanical method that allows this to be done, but with gravity alone it is not possible and the use of springs is a double-edged sword

[Fcdriver]

The Wright brothers soon found that their success was not appreciated by all. Many in the press, as well as fellow flight experts, were reluctant to believe the brothers’ claims at all. As a result, Wilbur set out for Europe in 1908, where he hoped he would have more success convincing the public and selling airplanes.

[cloud camper]

Frank Driver - why are you wasting time posting on the forum when you have a working wheel to get patented and into production?

Don't you have far more important tasks to be doing now?

Are you getting bored with your working wheel?

[ovyyus]

That opinion is fine, but the statement seems just a little to bold or cocksure to me.

It's not opinion, it's fact. Bessler never spoke about what actually lifted the weights inside his wheel.

[ovyyus]

I'm not sure what you mean? Do you mean Bessler's wheels drew energy from the environment, but either he didn't know that, or he knew it but that was his "secret", and allowed him to claim genuine PM?

eg: James Cox knew that fluctuations in atmospheric pressure powered his clock, yet he claimed it was a 'true PM' because his mechanism harnessed what appeared to be a relatively undefined perpetual force. By today's standards Cox would be labelled a fraud for such a claim, yet he was able to act in good faith at the time (and retain his head if so challenged). In this regard, Bessler may have exercised an advantage that no longer exists for us.

[Oystein]

That opinion is fine, but the statement seems just a little to bold or cocksure to me.

It's not opinion, it's fact. Bessler never spoke about what actually lifted the weights inside his wheel.

Yes he did!

[ovyyus]

Reference?

[unstable]

I am currently playing on this. According to the logic and theories of physics, it should not be possible to climb beyond the starting point ... who knows, maybe there is a method, I'm referring to the COM obviously...
This multistage lifting system with levers does just that ! It came to mind looking at the toys page. I think Bessler did something quite similar to what I showed. Even if it's not like that ... In a sense, one raises four.
As you can clearly see, the single element is the same mechanism that I had proposed in the other thread.
I use the same weight of the lateral falling weights to increase the weight of the lateral weights on the lower levels ... a kind of concatenation and reaction.
As you can see, the three weights on the last stage (up), go up beyond their starting point (also the two lateral weights). But of course those lateral weights at the inferior stages come down. During the movement of the weights, from a certain point (which will be our starting point) the COM rises slightly. It is clearly the secret of Bessler !
It is HIS SECRET !!

[Oystein]

Reference?

Sorry I had to post and then update because of work. Here is the update:

That opinion is fine, but the statement seems just a little to bold or cocksure to me.

It's not opinion, it's fact. Bessler never spoke about what actually lifted the weights inside his wheel.

Yes he did!

My comment was only pointed at the insinuation that he kept secret about something else (a physical principle) driving the wheel. But since you challenge me again, I will point out where I think you are wrong.

I think you make assumptions again, based on your prejudices. If Bessler wasn't a liar, he then told the truth. And if he told the truth, the following quote explains what drove the weights and the wheel:

You even say it is a fact that Bessler left out and/or lied about what drove his weights! A fact is a bold statement when you simply don't know!

Quote Bessler:

These weights (themselves), on the contrary, are the essential parts, and constitute the perpetual motion itself; since from them is received the universal movement

you see, we look for and see what we are taught, or already believe.

When you read the statement you read about hiding his physical principle behind description of weights etc, by a lie. But if you just read it without any original view or belief, you will see that he say that the weights themselves drive themselves. As I have said before, but you refuted me; People see what they are already taught or believe, even if they actually see the same thing as another person, and the other person see another thing. A thing is best viewed without any prejudices.

[Oystein]

And this is why I can say it's a fact that both ORFFYRE and ORFFREY has the Gematric value of 88, but you can't say it's a fact that Bessler never mentioned what drove his weights.

One is truth, and the other is a lie (untruth).

We could discuss if a false statement is a lie when you believe it's true, but that is another question of definition and psychology.

You see?

[Fcdriver]

Frank Driver - why are you wasting time posting on the forum when you have a working wheel to get patented and into production?

Don't you have far more important tasks to be doing now?

Are you getting bored with your working wheel?

Did you ask a question I had already answered above?