The concrete arguments that Bessler was a fraud

[daxwc]

johannesbender

yesterday i wrote a longer response to this , but the interweb stole it when i submitting it.

A lot of times it can be retrieved by hitting the back button then refresh button after.
I tend to use Word Document and copy and paste now I lost so many.

[johannesbender]

i recently downloaded pawsoft fass , it is an application that does not rely on connectivity ,you can write up a topic or reply for forums with bbcode support.

[eccentrically1]

Since his head wasn’t cut off, wouldn’t it be an argument he wasn’t a fraud?

No one could chop off Bessler's head without first knowing what was inside his wheel. Did Bessler hide his secret like his life depended on it? :P

What about Karl? He knew. And not only knew, but said it was PM. If it was a fraud, why would Karl continue? Was he in too deep at that point to back out?
Did his reputation and social standing etc. force him to continue? Did he gamble no one would pay the price and expose the fraud? Did he not understand what PM was?

This is the closest to a concrete argument we have that it wasn't a fraud.

Or was it PM in a different way, an environmental engine? It's more difficult, it seems, to solve the riddle with that method, as opposed to a fraudulent mechanical method like Wagner's, or as a gravity wheel. We've seen thousands of variations of gravity wheels that don't work, all for the same reason.

If it was an environmental engine, wouldn't it be just as unbelievable that's how he did it? It surprises me that everyone rules out that possibility (too weak, not enough energy/force there to exploit, etc.) yet still look for a solution that requires it to either gain energy from gravity or its own motion (KE) or internal forces - CF, inertia, etc. - that has never been observed.
Environmental engines are proven to work. They've been observed.

[Robinhood46]

I think it was John Collins that put forward an argument that was very plausable, in my opinion.
Something along the lines of him understand that it was PM but felt that it wasn't really that impressive, as in what it was, or he thought it was, capable of doing.
A machine for pulling the skin of rice pudding may well be PM, but that doesn't mean it can compete with steam, horses or manpower.
I can't believe that it worked in any other way than Bessler implied. Had the deal gone through, to reveal a mechanism completely different and nothing to do with swinging weights it would have been known that he had been talking complete nonsense and deceiving everyone.
Telling everyone they are wrong because PM is possible by moving weights, to sell a wheel that doesn't work because of moving weights is a really stupid thing to do. Bessler was far from stupid, and so were the commitee of respectable people who examined the wheels.

[johannesbender]

i think i remember that in DT karl went so far as to decree that bessler invention was true and usefull , they commanded all the servants regardless of their ranks that bessler and his invention was from there onwards under their protection .

when they unlocked and checked up on the locked up wheel test , karl thought it ran long enough ,bessler even suggested it should be left to run longer but karl said it wasnt neccesary , so he was convinced.

we know karl was no fool

No. 43 This shows the perpetual stability machine of the well-known Professor Mangold at Rintein. He alleged it to be a motion machine, and he sought to hoax your highness, the landgrave of most blessed memory. However, as a wise prince you soon sent him away and knew that my motion machine was the better one. This figure speaks for itself and requires no explanation; it tells us that it would run readily if only it had feet and legs.

[daxwc]

http://orffyre.tripod.com/id28.html#_Ce ... _Landgrave,

[Robinhood46]

That certainly does some unplausabling of that argument.
Thanks for sharing the link.

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Daxwc,

thanks for sending us the link.

from there I took the part

But when I gave it any tolerable degree of velocity, I was always obliged to stop it again by force; for when I let it go it acquired in two or three turns its greatest velocity, after which it revolved at twenty-five or twenty-six times a minute.

we have the same information of two independent observers.
It will resolve with 26 turns per minute.
It can be stopped by force.
To reach the speed of 26 turns a minute it needs two or three turns.

Alone from this observations you can learn a lot.
When we have a self accelerating system, why is it limited to 26 turns a minute, why not going 50, 100 turns a minute ?

The only reason which I have found is the speed difference between the inner, not known mechanism and the outer wheel we can see.

So in my opinion to that is, that the inner not known mechanism must fall faster, turn faster, than the outer.

When both, the inner and the outer had reached the same speed it will run with 26 turns a minute, which will be dependant on the diameter of the wheel.
This will lead us to the term natural frequency.

A wheel in wheel construction will not produce impacts, and we will also have no speed difference. But impacts, knockings where heard.

So we need something what Besslers said, it is a wheel and not a wheel, because it has rims and has none. "weil es Felgen und auch keine hat".

[Robinhood46]

Hi georg,
I've always believed CF to be responsible for regulating the speed. The falling/swinging of the weights that caused the movement would only be happening up to a certain speed. As the wheel increases speed the CF would affect the mechanisms and no more speed can be gained. The wheel would be moving the weights, as opposed to the weights moving the wheel. The slightest drop in speed would be compensated by the mechanisms functioning because of the reduction in CF. It would be acting as an auto regulator.
As you see with the octagon, it is always a step behind. CF would cause this to happen with the weights.

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Robinhood46,

a walking octagon is always behind, if it has no additionals.

The difference is a rigid or loose connection.

All my constructions use loose connection.
They are coupled but loose.

If you look for exampel to the octagons, they have eccentrical weights, they can act in addition.
http://www.kuenstler-energie.de/fileadm ... cddb3d.jpg

So the walker is a construction as when you swinging your arms during walking.

But all arms are swinging in one direction, caused thru the impact on the downgoing side.
So the torque is created during the first impact.

[daxwc]

We haven’t heard any concrete arguments that Bessler was a fraud. There is lots of concrete character flaws which suggests he was a fraud.

[Robinhood46]

We haven't heard any concrete arguments that he was a fraud because there aren't any.
The concrete character flaws could be put down to being accused of everything under the sun by the scientific community to defend their belief that it was impossible.
Bessler's problem was simply that his wheel was proof of how stupid they all were, and this they did not like. It wasn't Bessler's fault they were all stupid enough to not know the difference between knowing and believing.

[Robinhood46]

Steven Hawking has spoken of "model dependent reality". Perhaps consciousness is nothing but the sum of all this anticiparity modelling. We are left with a fundamental question. Is reality "out there" waiting to be discovered, or do we somehow impose our imagination on it to create it? (as the mathematician John von Neumann believed).

[daxwc]

The concrete character flaws could be put down to being accused of everything under the sun by the scientific community to defend their belief that it was impossible.

Unfortunately his character flaws come way before the wheel. He had a poor and shady reputation before he ever got that far.

[Robinhood46]

The scientific community had a pretty good reputation of getting things wrong, mixing up facts and theories and generally being more interested in defending their beliefs than seeking the truth.
If we are to base our judgement on the track record of the people involved, it should at least be applied to both sides.
Most humans don't live long enough to accumalate as many mistakes as the scientific community has made collectively. One must not forget, the only real argument he was a fraud, is that collectively it had been decided he was, even before he built the first wheel.
No individual was able to reproduce Bessler's wheel, as a fraud or as perpetuel motion. No individual was able to show proof he was a fraud. No individual was able to understand what Bessler was saying.
Each individual prefered to believe what they thought to be the truth as opposed to the truth that was before them.
Sweeping facts under the carpet that one doesn't like is not science. When you have the truth, it can withstand any and all arguments, because it is the truth. When the need arises to disregard facts, modify facts or use speculation to justify the invalidity of an argument, the need also arises to question one's truth.
Bessler's wheel is, and always has been, a valid argument.
The scientific community does, and always has, found it very difficult to question it's beliefs.
Insulting the ability of the committee, specifically selected to check there isn't a maid turning a wheel in the room next door, is a fine example of how individuals defend a collective belief. Intelligent people, we must listen to what they say, because they are intelligent. Except when what the intelligent people say doesn't correspond to what we already know.