Posted by ovyyus (203.26.14.3) on April 24, 2003 at 16:20:40:
In Reply to: Re: Also posted by John Collins on April 24, 2003 at 12:08:38:
Hi John & David,
David has not collated his historical data collection correctly.
Some people have gone to great lengths to unravel the history (and mystery) surrounding Bessler and his various wheel demonstrations. Yet sometimes no matter how clear the data is made there are still those that will choose to see it not for what it is but rather for what they want it to be.
I firmly believe that it's imperitive we obtain accurate historical data on this matter before we can begin to have a sensible arguement or discussion.
Why is it that second hand references and pure speculations are continually used and mixed with the historical data ??? If we can't keep our data clear and clean then how will this problem ever be solved.
Take a look at the various websites and information on Bessler and tell me why there are so many descrepencies between the presented historical data?
My mum used to say: ovyyus, if you believe all you read then you'd eat all you see :)
David, when you've been through your battles trying the overbalanced wheel and you can't think what else it could be then it must be fraud, right? Not according to the data, though. May I respectfully suggest that it might be time for a little rest and recouperation.
John, we obviously need 'Blueprint' at your earliest convenience :)
Regards, ovyyus.
: :I think I mentioned all this before. I discussed the differences in the two kinds of wheel in my book taking several pages and going over it all with a fine toothcomb. I don't want to do it all over again David. It seems obvious to me that, in the case of the one-way wheel, when the wheel was stopped, the weights came to rest in an unbalanced position, and once the wheel began to revolve, gained force from the swinging which then occurred.
: In the case to the two-way wheels, I suggested that faced with the accusation that his wheels must be wound up, Bessler thought that if he could show that his wheels could turn in either direction that would seem to prove that they could not be wound up. So he thought of trying a mirror image mechanism in his wheel to see if they would react in exactly the way that they did. This would counteract the spontaneous starting of the wheel and obviously it needed a push to start it, since it could turn in either direction and it could hardly spontaneoausly begin to turn under those circumstances. The amount of push is subjective and also subject to the vagaries of translation. One man's two finger push may well be the same as a tolerable push by someone else.
: The evidence which I went over in my book agrees closely with the above scenario. The two-way wheels could only turn at half the speed and they were twice the thickness of the one-way wheels. I even carried out tests with a Savonius windmill, one on its own and then two fixed to the same axis but facing opposite ways. They reacted in exactly the same way. the single one spontaneously began to turn in the wind and the double one needed a shove to start it and then only turned at half speed.
: Hope this helps.
: John Collins
: snip...Except Bessler stated there was very little difference between the wheels, at least of no consequence, and, once the wheel recieved a full rotation the perpetual motion principle took over, the the wheel gained the force of its rotation from coordenated swinging weights. Are you saying the weights were always swinging?...
: : Even when the wheel was still? You are also inplying a difference in weight setup between the bi directional wheel and one directional. This implies Bessler found not just one but two methods of perpetual motion by weight, does it not?