Talk:Johann Bessler

137.129.13.90 (talk) 09:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

POV

On December 5, this page was tagged for non-NPOV, and also listed in Template:RationalSkepticismTasks. However, there was no discussion here concerning it. The page has changed substantially since then, and appears to be properly factual in reporting now. So, I have removed the tag. —Długosz (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Citations

Several of the citations are apparently found in John Collins' book, Perpetual Motion: An Ancient Mystery Solved?, published by Permo Publications in 1997. I have not read this book so I cannot speak to whether it supports, debunks, or merely describes Bessler's Wheel. In any event, far be it from me to discourage someone else with some time to play around with the ideas. After all, even modern tires were an accident that happened while someone was playing with another idea; just ask Mr. Goodyear. :-) JimScott (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Marquess of Worcester

The whole paragraph about the Marquess of Worcester is poorly referenced. At best it is of questionable relevance and at worst it might be considered WP:SYNTH. A link to a broader article such as Perpetual motion would be preferable. AJRG (talk) 10:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The 2nd Marquess of Worcester died in 1667. Bessler was born in 1680. Fairly clearly, then, the Marquess of Worcester never commented on Bessler's work and this paragraph is pure WP:SYNTH. I've removed it. AJRG (talk) 07:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Gould's "Oddities" and Citations Needed

Rupert T. Gould has a whole chapter dedicated to Bessler's perpetual motion machine which provides virtually all the facts challenged in the article.

Is it okay if I remove the Citations Needed banner? -- Syzygy (talk) 07:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Letter by Leibniz

I have read R.T. Gould's essay on Bessler and his wheel, and though he cites at great length the various testimonies of people who examined the device and could find no deception, he doesn't mention Leibniz anywhere. Henry Dirck's old book on perpetual motion machines (which appears to have been one of Gould's principal sources) talks of Leibniz only in connection with his belief that perpetual motion was impossible, and never mentions any awareness by him of Bessler's work. I can only find references to Leibniz's letter ("Orffyreus is my friend," etc.) in not very reputable modern sources, without adequate referencing. If anyone can give acceptable references on this subject, please do so. Otherwise I will eventually proceed to remove it. - Eb.hoop (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the references to Leibniz. Please do not add them again without proper references (no websites or self-published books). - Eb.hoop (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Very incomplete data

The data presented in this article are incomplete. Therefore, it do not meet the full truth. For example, it is impossible that Bessler did some trick or fraud while the machine was sealed at the Royal Palace on two occasions; the first for nearly a month; the second, over two months. There are records of it. In regards the mechanism: we do not know for sure, but-without violating the first law of thermodynamics, one can imagine that it was achieved a ¨gravitational engine¨ . That is to say, Bessler gotten what others had failed: by a combination of weights and springs executed a rapture of gravitational energy to operate your machine. Who made the expense? Probably, the land mass -or density- of earth. Don't forget, E = mc2. John Collins -above mentioned- is a serious researcher who has worked for years with the work of Bessler. This cannot be ignored. There are many Internet sites with data. In addition, the genius -Bessler- often is near madness; not is can disqualify him just for being an extravagant personality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.67.71.100 (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Bessler's Proof (Mt 125)

They say the best place to hide something is in plain sight. Johann Bessler did this. Unfortunately most people do not consider his understanding of engineering. His drawing Mt 125 is proof of what he knew. Without such a proof in his drawings, it would not be possible for him to be credited with having been successful. With Mt 125, the concept is simple. If a pressure head holds x mass of water, then it takes x amount of force to open a bellow. An example is if a pipe holds 100 grams of water, it will take a force greater than 100 grams to open a bellow. And if the shift in force is greater than the work being performed, then his proof can work. And this is a consideration in torque. If a force of 150 grams opens a bellow and moves 2.5 cm's while the weight on the lever moves 5 cm's, then the work is 150 grams * 5 cm's. And if the water moving the diameter of the wheel weighs 300 grams and moves 50 cm's, then it's torque is 300 grams at 25 cm's. I know this math will be discredited. And since I am the only James Lindgaard on facebook, I would suggest on waiting for me to finish my build. After all, if a Bessler drawing can not work, then his work will always be discredited. I believe Johann Bessler realized this and it is one reason why he made so many drawings. If someone did not consider engineering, then they could not realize his work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James.Lindgaard (talk • contribs) 23:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Johann Bessler. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111004064722/http://digbijzcoll.library.uu.nl/lees_gfx.php?W=On&BoekID=016185 to http://digbijzcoll.library.uu.nl/lees_gfx.php?W=On&BoekID=016185

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Edits by Ken Behrendt promoting self-published work

Ken Behrendt has been improperly using this page to promote his own, self-published research on Bessler's perpetual motion machine. This violates Wikipedia policies on conflict of interest, self-published works, and reliable sources. I already removed that material once, but he added most of it back. I will remove it again soon and might need support from other editors to prevent this problem from recurring. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 07:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Eb.hoop2, I have removed it again. It uses his own sources (WP:SELFCITE), which are self-published (WP:SELFPUBLISHED). Also a non-neutral tone is used: Those clues had all been cleverly hidden by Bessler and him saying that he made about 2,000 computer wheel models without a source. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

And again. Ken Behrendt please talk on the talk page please. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 08:48, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Ken Behrendt continues to refuse to discuss the matter here at all, and simply persists in putting the material back into the article. Please advice. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 19:43, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Dropping in from the COI noticeboard to say that the text in question is a humdrum violation of WP:FRINGE, as well as being unsuitable for all the reasons mentioned above. XOR'easter (talk) 01:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I pinked and warned him on the COIN post.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)