Was Bessler for real?

[Dbowling]

There are MANY, MANY people who truly want you to be successful, and millions who desperately NEED you to be successful and give this information out to the people. What we don't need is constant claims that you have something without ever showing us a working device. I for one would bow down and acknowledge your greatness if you truly came up with an answer. However, until such time as you demonstrate a working model, you somewhat resemble a large bag of hot  air.


I myself have built devices that are able to raise a weight from the bottom half of the wheel to the top half of the wheel, making the top half continuously heavier than the bottom half, but this does NOT mean I have been able to sustain rotation. You have a working device when you actually have A DEVICE THAT WORKS, and not until. We will sing your praises when you finally demonstrate that you do. Until then, silence is golden.
David

[garrypm]

Hello

[johnny874]

A surprising number of people on this site are fans of Bessler. So I tread carefully when I say he had a background in watchmaking.

The problem I have with Bessler (leaving aside for the moment that his machine or something similiar has not been replicated) is that no-one has been able to demonstrate mathematically (theoretically) how such a machine is possible.

Ok. So they may be difficult to build. Fine. In that case show me a mathematical model indicating viability. A model showing anything other than net torques and forces adding up to zero.

When one considers powerful financial motivation and a background in watchmaking, fraud remains a real possibility.

When considering why an inventor would destroy their invention (for reasons of secrecy or because they were worried about being eviscerated and hung) all I can say is that 'evisceration' trumps 'patent infringement' every time.

Even if my view is wrong (it is after all only an opinion, based on the same facts available to everyone else), we have to ask ourselves what 'use' a perpetual motion machine would be...even if someone had managed to build one (sometime in the two most recent centuries of intense scientific progress).

Perpetual motion machines, even if they functioned as intended, would not in most cases be capable of performing useful work (I use 'work' not in the sense of moving something from one place to another, or the 'term of art' scientific sense, but in the sense of doing something useful for human beings aside from spinning aimlessly around).

That is why the United States Patent Office automatically rejects applications claiming perpetual motion. Because even if they worked and generations of nobel prize winning physicists were all fools, they would still be useless.

Perpetual motion machines attract scientific nutters like a powerful magnet (I include myself in this category as I find them fascinating). Accordingly, Bessler was one of us. For that, even though skeptical of his machine, I still love him.

  Read my last post in FYI. I give a basic description of how hydraulics easily accounts for one of his wheels.
Unfortunately, AB Hammer has continuously psoted I am a fraud for that concept. It could be his lack of schooling and experience in engineering. This is why I do my best to be patient with him.
  What does need to be remembered is that what Bessler knew is not currently an accepted principle in engineering in the fashion he used it. But then, when has a fluid been used to perpetuate the motion of a wheel. I believe this is what most people fail to consider, it is not what we know now, but what Bessler knew then. And as for myself, the concept of using fluid and pumps is found in his drawings if a person has schooling and/ or experience using mechanical drawings to work from in building components for machines. I myself have plenty. Both school and work.

                                                                                                                    Jim

edited to correct spelling

[christo4_99]

It is a wonderful thing to know that somehow, somewhere you made a choice that nobody else ( or very very very few ) have made .

[circle]

i will put my two cents in here
use deductive reasoning
cancel out that which can not be
let all that was seen to be be reflected in your speculation; every effort was made to document truthfully
let all that was described be understood deeply; be honest with yourself when evaluating your guesswork
moreso than anyone else you yourself can lead yourself astray and thereafter you yourself are a defacement of truth;
be quick to identify errant thought, errant logic, errant insight
having a true understanding of german cultural history is probably essential to unraveling the data
two essential points; springs had first been added to clocks little more than 50 years before the first wheel
understanding how weight was measured can give a needed insight
the german history describes an investigation with all the rigor of a modern investigation with the one caveat; that none view within
i solved it five days after finding that it existed
several of the days were spent in the effort of determining if enough data existed to determine what was within
it does
on a seperate note
here in this image is the work of airy detailing the mathematical foundation it is built upon