The war of the ego about an unrealizable illusion

[Oystein]

If you study written work by Bessler deeper you should in a while be able to discover that he had enough knowledge to become rich. He also write that he has two secrets, not one! Why else would MT be valued at a high price?

You disregard the first secret, but what about the other one? The other secret isn't even viewed as impossible. The other secret is regarded as possible by consensus!

When I regained my interest in Bessler, I said to myself that IF I can find that he encoded some of his work, I will have to trust that it has a valuable reason. If he was an imposter he would most likely NOT spend much work and time encode public and private books without getting a penny for it.

"The other secret" can now be proven (accepted as real in private circulation), but why would he rather work on selling his wheel for the rest of his life rather than trying to get rich on "the secret of Kings and Princes"?

Could it be because the wheel itself was more important to him? If so, that doesn't sound like an imposter. His last written letter doesn't sound like the writing of an imposter either..

Are we thinking to much of ourselves? Can't we accept that some people are special and much more dedicated and clever than ourselves? Are we trusting the schoolbooks and overlooking simple facts of nature? Are we repeating the same errors again and again?

If we can prove that simple stuff is being overlooked year after year, century after century by students and professors all over the world..wouldn't that mean that even Besslers case could be thus? As simple and overlooked as Bessler himself stated.. He found it where everybody has looked before, and it's very simple. If we can prove that this is exactly what is happening in other fields of science and math...so why not in this field too...

As far as I know, there aren't many of the cleverest persons of history that has dedicated their lives purely to serious mechanical Perpetual Motion machines..They know it is impossible..If you know it's impossible it will become a self fulfilling prophecy..

Best
ØR

[unstable]

No Oystein, I do not agree with you. It does not entail any benefit to try to discredit scientific studies and derived physical laws affirmed and fully accepted by the scientific community.
What we are trying to do here is an obvious waste of time and energy that can be better used. The physical laws are consolidated but they are not dogmas. Through experiments everything can be tried and verified.

For the fact to be enchanted by the texts written by Bessler. Do you know how many people are able to make those who listen to them hang from their lips? It is certainly a great quality but it is not said that the writer in a certain way is telling the truth. It is only a question of charisma.

On the question of two secrets, I do not even express myself. Indeed for me they are just fantasies of some self-centered. I do not see the question very different from the myth of Tesla that the most ignorant have created.

Anyone of us, in a certain field, is more capable than others. This does not prove anything. We are all stupid and all intelligent. It depends on the context, on the moment, on the intuition and on a thousand of other things. What seems improbable is the fact that one person can succeed in burying the thinking of many great thinkers of history.

[Art]

Claudio ,

Quote " You of Anglo-Saxon derivation, by culture, give too much importance to what a distinguished man wrote."

I can't help it , but this sentence made me think of a joke my son's Italian father inlaw told me recently :-

Question - How do you stop an Italian from talking ?

Answer - Tie his hands behind his back ! :) :)

[unstable]

Ahaha :-)
I hope you were not offended. I did not know that way of speaking (that joke) but I can understand it. Many Italians really talk a lot and gesticulate continuously. I'm a case apart, I never know what to say and I never speak.

;-)

[Oystein]

It's not about discredit science! It's about exploring..

When Newton discovered "the law of universal gravitation" it all seemed fine..at first.. But what he missed was the total picture. If Newton was right, energy would be created when bodies was attracted by gravity. For a long time Nobody noticed that! Then Einstein found that this energy must come from a loss of the inner rotational kinetic energy of the atoms inside matter.

For some this is the ultimate theory.. but new things and "problems" appear all the time... At the deepest level Quantum physics and Relativity is not compatible. So there will be a new theory of everything finally.. Dark energy and gravity(particles) isn't really discovered yet! etc.etc.

This is not the time to dismiss the Bessler story completely.. Remember it..it may become useful...

What I said is that I can prove that professors teach students mathematical "ridles" today, that Bessler knew the real answer to, 300 years ago. Other mathematicians also knew and drew the real answer 500 years ago. You will not find the answer anywhere today other than in two German publications. Besslers is one of them. Some Rosicrucians knew, and some Masons know. But the answer is so simple and beautiful that many scholars should be ashamed for not discovering it.

What this mean is that there are simple straight forward math solutions today, that is being overlooked. The reason is that we are being taught that there is nothing to look for there! We think what we learn is all. It's not. So there could also exist other same kind of simple overlooked facts in nature too. Nothing to get angry about really. Only those who look can see.

Best
ØR

[unstable]

Ok Oystein, now I understood what you wanted to say ...
However, one should not presume to believe to make significant discoveries without adequate theoretical preparation and without the means of scientific investigation necessary for the purpose. Here we are playing. The methods of scientific investigation are very different ;-) Maybe someone from this forum would have adequate preparation but perhaps they lack the appropriate means.
However, I'm glad you're satisfied with looking for some flaws in current theories... It's just that I doubt you'll find anything interesting. In any case, good luck

[Oystein]

Remember all physics theories in existence today is based on the presumption that Bessler's wheel never existed.

The laws that prohibit it from existing was made from a quote saying: Since nobody has been able to make a wheel that turn by itself, this must be because the law of conservation of heat energy (Thermodynamics) is also universal and without exceptions! (A big jump from heat experiments to a universal "law").

The person (Helmholtz) writing this "law" or really it's a theory, wasn't present during Besslers demonstrations, neither did he talk to anybody who was there. Possibly he hadn't even heard about Besslers then forgotten wheel nor read his books, read the Royal certificates or explored Machinen Tractate. It is even said that he was away a long time to explore and disprove the possibility of Perpetual Motion himself, and he failed. It must be impossible then..

The problem with the law as a universal law is that we shouldn't have energy at all anywhere!!! When saying this, it is like saying God does not exist to a christian. All rediciolus answer will fly at you.. but still it's true!

Now we use this same law to disprove and laugh of Bessler's wheel.

I am pretty certain that some time in the distant future. Bessler's wheel will have a place in the new theory of everything. Filling the same theoretical "void" as the energy surrounding us. The energy that could't be created (nor destroyed). Though Quantum Physics is built upon the fact that energy pops in and out of existence all the time! The justification of this by science is that "this happens so fast that it doesn't count.." Answers like that pisses me off :)

Finally, this is where physics and religion actually meets!Since energy can't be created, it "must be God that created it" But if Bessler's wheel was real, we finally can get rid of this problematic "God"! Finally we can live in peace happily ever after :)

Best
ØR

[unstable]

Neither you and I were present at the test of his wheel. But the word (the writings), on the two of us have a different effect.
It seems to me that you sometimes think a little like Senax. Both try to mix quantum physics with classical physics. In a purely mechanical wheel of considerable size like that of Bessler, one can only apply the theories of classical physics.
Bessler could at most have used some particular material or some chemical reaction. He certainly did not get PM because of the unbalancing of the weights by levers. This is truly impossible and we have all experienced it extensively. In this case the physical laws are not wrong. It is simply not possible. Not because the textbooks state that, but because what you read on those texts (that is not possible) is what you verify by trying.
Science does not forbid you to try. It warns you about the result ... which you can check at your expense.
What I find really absurd is reading of users who still build physical models of the various MTs, perhaps mixing the drawings (the concepts). This is really a waste of time and money. Of course, time and money are theirs ...
Of all those concepts (some really of a disarming naivete) everything has already been tried. They do not even work if you mix them. If there is something it is certainly not in that designs.

[Oystein]

I'm not trying to mix it or use it. But only on a general overview level. I conclude that we are not there that we can dismiss Bessler's wheel on a universal level yet. If so, all our theories should play well together and give us all the answer to our universe. We are simply not there yet.

I don't use Quantum physics or Relativity in my daily life. But I have read to understand enough to be able to see where Bessler's wheel could fit in in the case it was true! If it has a possible place, I am justified to keep searching. That is why I point out that there are several aspects of energy and gravity we still can't prove.

Bessler wrote that it was only his principle and "God" that was able to create energy from dead materials. I don't believe in God, so then...Besslers energy creation principle could even solve the whole riddle of the universe.

Where does our energy come from? Is energy actually being created and destroyed all the time (usually in equal amounts) just as Quantum Physics state...

I think Bessler's legacy has great importance!

[Oystein]

Neither you and I were present at the test of his wheel. But the word (the writings), on the two of us have a different effect.
It seems to me that you sometimes think a little like Senax. Both try to mix quantum physics with classical physics. In a purely mechanical wheel of considerable size like that of Bessler, one can only apply the theories of classical physics.
Bessler could at most have used some particular material or some chemical reaction. He certainly did not get PM because of the unbalancing of the weights by levers. This is truly impossible and we have all experienced it extensively. In this case the physical laws are not wrong. It is simply not possible. Not because the textbooks state that, but because what you read on those texts (that is not possible) is what you verify by trying.
Science does not forbid you to try. It warns you about the result ... which you can check at your expense.
What I find really absurd is reading of users who still build physical models of the various MTs, perhaps mixing the drawings (the concepts). This is really a waste of time and money. Of course, time and money are theirs ...
Of all those concepts (some really of a disarming naivete) everything has already been tried. They do not even work if you mix them. If there is something it is certainly not in that designs.

There are not just the MT drawings themself maybe, but what Bessler left out. if you study MT you will see that Bessler left parts out of the drawings. These are parts of the secret principle. Some places he tells you to be smart, then you will know what to add. Then when all is learned there are only one principle left. My advice is to start looking for the parts that Bessler removed. He describes a "special handle", a scissor that has some overlooked property, and he describes many weights falling and connected together through a "connectedness principle". He describes preponderance.. (over-numbered weights) and he removes certain handles and weights in certain drawings... There are much to learn..I promise!

This is all in my opinion though it can be seen and counted!

[unstable]

Oystein, do you see that there are many contradictions ?
the landgrave stated that the mechanism was very simple. Bessler always spoke about a "cross bar". A cross bar just made the wheel spin hard. then he wrote of more cross bars present with the addition of pulleys and weights. Weights that fall ... a mysterious principle of interconnection between weights... peacock tails ... children playing with heavy weights...
LOL !! (I joke)
... seems to me all a misdirection.
I am convinced that even with the most intelligent and efficient mechanism, there is not enough energy to complete a cycle, and this is perfectly in line with the physical laws. on the other hand, if the cycle were completed, the energy needed to overcome the friction from where it would come from? If we think that its wheel was even able to provide a discrete mechanical energy on the outside. People, they're all lies, it's impossible.

[Oystein]

You say that you and I have never witnessed Besslers machine. Though I have several time my self witnessed and touched a self moving machine, and discussed it with the inventor:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kM01yrGeCMI


Best
ØR

[unstable]

I knew that machine, I saw it online several years ago. The motion is not perpetual ... after a long time it stops. this I had read about that configuration.
However, a great idea, congratulations to the inventor.

[Oystein]

You must listen to the inventor though. We and Bessler was never talking about Forever Motion.

Until parts wear out. or parts become dusty, greazy/ungreazy etc. Free energy could even be a principle of just one cycle!! After some weeks the inventor must clean the ball and the track for some black matter collecting from rolling metal on dust...

You see you can calculate the energy output from the machine quite easily!

How much energy does it take to make a heavy metal ball run at a constant speed pr. day? (Air resistance, rolling friction, mechanical vibrations, sound/noise etc.) Now if you multiply that number with the number of days it run. You must then find or account for that energy at the input, or else it is a proof of breaking a "law". But the input is never above the initial speed of the Ball!! He only accelerate the ball up to it's permanent speed by a finger..Then the speed stay constant for days and weeks..

The numbers doesn't match! You have all you need in front of you man. This is my answer to you initial post.

It is even easy to see that it breaks some law because it should always run for about the same period of time. He says that some times it can run for 3 days, another time for 3 weeks at the same speed. AND AT THE SAME INPUT! Now you make that energy balance scheme equal zero both times. One time 10 times more output from the same input. This shouldn't be possible at all..

The ball consumes more energy to run, than he puts in by finger-starting the ball. You should cry! This is all the proof you need! right in front of you! Do you travel to see it? Do you try to calculate input versus output? NO you complain about how it's not good enough... It is as close to a natural "miracle" as you can get.. God damn it...cry your heart out :) It should trigger feelings in a real researcher of nature though..

Best
ØR

[unstable]

It is undoubtedly a fascinating system. Magnetic fields mixed with pendulums can work wonders ... but I do not think "it is a proof of breaking to" law ". If so, the media would have spoken extensively.

Was he familiar with the Bessler wheel ? have you talked about it ?
Surely a good candidate to try to find the solution ;-)