## Saturday, 27 April 2013

### Update - and musings on the word 'pairs'.

The test rig did not perform as I had hoped.  I completed the construction of the single mechanism and oriented it so that when one weight fell, the other weight was lifted in a certain way, but there was insufficient mechanical advantage available to achieve the full lift.  I would like to show the details so that you can see why I was optimistic that this would work, but I'm not ready to show that yet.  The concept hidden below my initials at the end of each blog, is still the key to success in my opinion, and I have another design to work through before I can discuss this openly.

My theory that parametric oscillation was the key to understanding Bessler's wheel has kind of dropped in importance. I still think it has a part to play, but only in the way that moving weights within the wheel, back and forth, within the period of one rotation, will overbalance the wheel. "A parametric oscillator is a harmonic oscillator whose parameters oscillate in time. For example, a well known parametric oscillator is a child pumping a swing by periodically standing and squatting to increase the size of the swing's oscillation" (from wikipedia).  So the parameters of the weight's positions alter during the time of one rotation.  In other words I have discarded the notion that replicating the actions of a swing might be the answer, but I still believe the correct movement of the weights will lead to success.

One of the strange features of this research is that one can become completely convinced that a particular design concept is the answer. No other method can even be considered - that is, until you have proved to yourself that you were wrong.  Now another plan has slipped into my mind and is supported by another revelation about Bessler's words!  How cunning that man was, to present us with ambiguity upon ambiguity! One of the things I've learned about what Bessler wrote - and I guess it's fairly obvious when you think about it - he describes things in an ambiguous way, yes, and his words are accurate, but only in hindsight.  His intention was, in my opinion, to write comments which could be understood in more than one way, but even the alternative way was not right because only after his wheel had been built and sold could he then point to the many clues he had left and with a certain amount of glee, and say "that is what I meant when I said, blahdeblah!"  The words were written in such a way that no-one could doubt their actual meaning once it was explained.

Take this translation of one famous comment, "He shall be called a great craftsman who can easily/lightly throw up a heavy thing, and when one pound falls a quarter,it shoots up four pounds four quarters. &c." Apologia Poetica

There is an abundance of clues wrapped up in this ironic comment.  I found seven separate pieces of information in it, and the clever thing about it is that if is misinterpreted, or should I say, alternatively interpreted, it reveals another double meaning one of which is also valid. Plus of course it is also tongue-in-cheek by suggesting that it would indeed take a great craftsman to achieve something that appears, on the face of it, to be impossible - when another interpretation reveals what he really meant.

I will discuss the designs I have been working on upon my return from Spain, but for now I shall just comment on the following passage from Apologia Poetica.

" So then, a work of this kind of craftsmanship has, as its basis of motion, many separate pieces of lead . These come in pairs, such that, as one of them takes up an outer position, the other takes up a position nearer the axle. Later, they swap places, and so they go on and on changing places all the time."

Later translations suggest that the literal reading of the text goes, "a work of art must be driving many pieces lead; they are now always two and two;"  I did not see this apparent mistranslation when my friend Mike Senior first showed it to me.  Later he admitted that he took the meaning as 'pairs' simply because that is what he thought Bessler meant.

But the word for pairs is variously, 'PAIRS = paarweise {adv}; in Paaren; PAIR of twins = Zwillingspaare; paar = twos; paarweise = in pairs; in twos; by pairs'.  Why didn't Bessler use that well-known word paars?  I have a theory....

If you had two weights working together as a pair you would use the word 'paar'; but if you had three weights, A B and C, working together, first you might have weight 'A' move weight 'B' and then upon weight 'A's return under gravity, again, it moves weight 'C', 'B' having already returned under gravity.  So out of three weights you are using two and two = AB and AC, alternately.  In confirmation of this possibility  note that there are two drawings in Das Triumphirende, which show wheels with three weights to each mechanism.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

1. Welcome back John,..you have been missed.

2. Thanks Trevor, I had a feeling you might be the first to comment :)

JC

3. Yes, welcome back, I've been so bored I even checked out hui propeller toys just for inspiration !
Have you seen the way those blighters turn, just by rubbing a notched stick ?
The experts can't explain that one either.

Stevo

1. Gosh, are you all yet still without understanding. Ah ha ha ah ha ha ah ha ha

4. How can we say anything he wrote is accurate in hindsight if we don't have the benefit of hindsight? Nothing he wrote has any accuracy, only ambiguity, because we don't know the source of energy he referred to as a prime mover. The one thing we know for sure is it *wasn't* the movement of weights, singly, in pairs, or in threes. We don't need research in that area to tease the meaning out of his words.

D

ab3e4i2l2mn3o3pr3s2tu.

5. I meant that he wrote with a view to showing people after the secret had been revealed that he told the truth in his comments - provable in hindsight.

JC

1. We'll never know for sure, unless there is a specific mention of energy or prime mover if you like, encoded somewhere amongst all the "truths".

D

6. Imagine inventing something and instead of sharing it, making it into a puzzle that you are supposed to solve if you want the invention, and generations later people are still trying to solve it.
If Tesla had have done what JB done the world would be much more polluted today than it is.

7. John,
If you will listen there is some information here . The anvils and hammers are meant to convey a certain mechanical principle which is hitherto unknown to most . That is : There are two ways that a lighter weight can impart momentum to a heavier object , one is obvious : through actual contact . The other not so obvious way is something I will call " relative movement dependent force acquisition " . So , a great artist will be able to cause a heavier weight to rise by moving the lighter weight very little . What , pray tell , would an even GREATER artist be able to accomplish ?

8. Yes,anvil anon,
if you watch a real Blacksmith at work, you will observe that every so often, he strikes the anvil, and not the work itself, this is to "take out the bounce",as I like to call it.
Maybe something there ?

9. Welcome back and its nice to see that the 'Ignorami' have not completed crushed this blog out of existence! You said 'I completed the construction of the single mechanism and oriented it so that when one weight fell, the other weight was lifted in a certain way, but there was insufficient mechanical advantage available to achieve the full lift.' Maybe the problem is that you are trying to lift a single weight with only a single weight. Ever considered lifting that single weight with all of the wheel's other weights that are dropping? To do it you will need (as Bessler and tg suggested) various connecting cords between them and of course the other weights and their levers will need to be present. I consider 'Mike Senior's' translation okay because it does describe what happens in an overbalanced type wheel. I think its important not to get too hung up on the word 'pairs' as many do. All overbalnced wheels with an even number of weights around their rim will have 'pairs' of opposite weights in them and its no big deal. Bessler said his wheels were 'exceedingly greedy' or something like that which means they did not waste a bit of energy from a falling weight that could be used to lift a ascending side weight. Efficiency is what Bessler used and so must anybody who wants success!

mike (just regular mike not 'senior' mike)

1. Welcome back yourself 'mentalrami', our new name for your 3 way personality (mike - TG - KenB). Time to let TG or Ken out to play?

2. anyone who thinks mike is tg or kenb is a "delusionrami"!

3. Do some research on BW regarding KenB's posts, and compare to TG's posts in earlier topics on this blog. You will find them too similar to be ignored. Plus they both live in the same town. The comparison was aready done and that is the conclusion.

Sorry mike...TG...KenB you are delusional. Sick people can't see this. An insane asylum would have been a great place to house you, but unfortunately the ACLU got it's way and now all the nut jobs are out on the streets. I'm sure someday you will make the news.

4. I see little if any comparison between this blog's "TG" and the old BW "Ken B" posts. I think TG admitted once that he had read everything Ken B wrote so he might be unconsciously using some of his words and grammar. That's not uncommon on the internet. Who says they live in the same town? With rotating IP addresses they might only live in the same region of the USA but its east coast is a big region!

10. TG was wrong, Doug showed that several times. He said more weight connections drop the efficiency. (For one example)

1. I have to disagree. If the 'connections' between levers were only cords then they could be very efficient and far more then say connecting rods, gears and such. Just look at all the problems Collins has with his two weight shifting mechs with weights colliding with levers and jamming things up. Cords eliminate this problem and also keep a wheels gross weight down to a minimum.

mike

2. No, not the cords themselves. He said the number of connections TG was attempting between levers is what was the problem. Something like that for each connection, the weight-force was being spread too thin or too evenly I can't remember exactly what he said, until by the time tg had something like 32 or 64 cords in there, it was certain to stop sooner than if he had no cords, sort of like just adding more weights like Bessler said, it would just make it heavier.

John's mechanism is a secret so we don't know what it does.

3. KenB's spaghetti wheel won't work. I'm sure we will continue to hear this dribble from him (mike/TG/KenB) until he either dies or comes to his senses. Either way it will come to an end and then we will have blissful silence at last.

4. Primemignonite2 May 2013 at 08:15

My-oh-my!

We DO seem to be having some "mike/TG/KenB" type excitement happening here.

And, NO, this very gem of it's sort following (as we've come to expect from him or him or him)

"Welcome back and its nice to see that the 'Ignorami' have not completed crushed this blog out of existence! . . ." - Anonymous 29 April 2013 17:45 - "mike"

did NOT go unnoticed here. (Nice slithery try, Oh Hidden One.)

This most peculiar and convoluted tormented personage, he with his persistent blusterous appearance, outrage itself continuing unabated for way too long now, stands up high on twisted smoking hind legs regularly, veritably shouting evidence that capacity for any SHAME within him was killed-off DEAD, in his original birth womb long ago. (Imagine: living in SUCH a hell! Perish the thought.)

Not-to-worry though, for they that actually like this sort of cowardly, mouthy trash all gussied-up as entertainment, will have much, much more of it's like to indulge, in the ever-rolling out of NWO Days. ("Media" anyone?)

"NWO Days"

Indeed!

Down on our knees to obey HIS pig-bellied kind, for it is THEY that will be wielding the machine guns and whips. (Best believe it!)

And to end . . . would be a more pleasant sort of advice: Better get to hard work on that too-still B-W chaps and chappies, for the end of time for such work DOES draw neigh.

As always,

CHEERS!

James

PS For precise appropriate effect, SHOUTS were all intended and placed just-so.

5. Its almost even nice to see the usual wordy load of irrelavant gibberish from Collins pet hoaxing troll again because it makes this feel more like the pre-'hiatus' blog did. I guess the butt sting of the spanking he got from Collins after his last hoax has finally worn off and he's back to 'play' some more! This promises to produce much 'entertaining banter' in days to come.

mike

6. Only a complete loser would keep coming back to a place he is not welcome.

7. Primemignonite4 May 2013 at 05:07

"Its almost even nice to see . . ."

Come on now, mikee. You KNOW it is!

Indeed so!

As Atlas himself, King of Men, said to The Queen of the Air herself in "FREAKS" of '33, after having treated her to some rougher man-handling than nice, exclaimed:

"You KNOW you LOVE eet?"

And of course, she swooned agreeing objections.

And so you do as well, and for the very identical reason mikee - you LIKE it if not exactly 'love'.

After quite a while of handling such as yourself, one gets to know the type well. About them, there ARE no mysteries, just 'the usual' appearing here, there and everywhere seemingly, and invariably in differing wrappers. ("Ain't masochism just grand? The pattern of 'asking for it', IS a thing hard to break.)

One serious thing now: just after the usual obligatory foolishness that you wrote, you offered to us (with a shocking lack of equivocation) this JEWEL of a flummoxitous thingy:

" I guess the butt sting of the spanking he got from Collins after his last hoax . . ."

Heavens!

Did I miss some really important thing?

If so, might you be so good/bad as to direct our notice to it?

Thanks a whole BIG pile, mikee. You take really, really good care now.

Lovingly

James

8. Primemignonite4 May 2013 at 05:16

The most perceptive Anonymous of 3 May 2013 20:50 allowed to us this apt observation

"Only a complete loser would keep coming back to a place he is not welcome."

EXCELLENT!

I could not have stated the reality better.

Thanks for it. (My! What WILL it take for him to get 'the message' finally, Anon?)

Keep postin'.

James

11. Another good quote by Bessler.

"In its interior it gains - for how else does it grow out of balance?" AP pg.245

Adds to the idea that weights gain force by their swinging.

1. Primemignonite2 May 2013 at 07:04

I'd not noticed this Bessler quote before. Thanks for highlighting it.

Yes, it IS good, as is your observation following.

For some fun, let's now invert it thus:

'It's interior is out of balance - for how else might it gain?'

By this improvised inversion, could other views be attained for something of the better? (If so, then what thing might that be?)

James

2. Bessler would have realized that for the center of gravity of his wheels weights to stay stationary on the descending side of the wheel it had to constantly rise as the wheel rotated and did work. That means it had to constantly be supplied with energy from some source. If tg is right that energy was slowly being extracted from the weights themselves. The occasional newcomer here who is actualy serious about Besslers wheels should be reading all of tg's (aka 'technoguy') comments that were made here from Aug 30 2011 to Jan 8 2013. Also read at a minimum AP (aka 'Apologia Poetica'). You will be very, very glad you did!

mike

3. Tg doesn't understand forms of energy or types of energy conversion.
Doug said something like lead mass can't be extracted from itself simply by rotating it in a circle, and that stuff about innate energy was complete malarkey. Newcomers should be reading Doug's comments that show tg's faulty logic if they are really serious.

4. TG is a one man nut job show. He can make gold from lead, didn't you know.

5. Primemignonite4 May 2013 at 05:55

Of course, I agree with the direct-above.

It's just the same old discredited, physically indefensible Behrendt theory. In-short if not sweet, it IS but driven madness to go-on-so.

With some types, once they have a thing gotten-in brain-wise, it just grows and festers 'til the victim accepts it as being an actual part of himself. (Ego syntonic, is the correct denoting term.) It is this very case here, I fear. Some bit of Reichian Psychiatry would pull the festering, wormy thing out sure. The improvement would be no doubt spectacular, change-wise for the better.

You are right Anon of 3 May 2013 18:53: Doug does seem to have a good physical reality-grip, and seems a reliable reasoner.

As a short-summing: The trick that does The Trick itself is to break Nature's symmetry by creating a mechanism custom-made to do this. The chap or chappie that accomplishes this, will own the world. (Oh! DO stress the obvious, James!) :-(

J.

6. I take TG's analysis of the wheels very seriously. Unless one is ready to say Bessler's wheels manufactured energy out of nothing, then they had to obtain it from a source somewhere inside of the wheels themselves. They weren't getting it by burning the drum's wood components or from slowly unwinding springs. That only leaves the weights to consider. TG mentioned that a single weight, if converted completely into electromagnetic energy, would be sufficient to level several cities! The "innate" energy (his terminology) of all of the weights could allow a wheel delivering only tens of watts to run for millions of years!

12. My theory is correct that it was really a time machine, it worked by breaking the symmetry of time, he originally got the idea for perpetual motion from the time-travelers from the 21first century , physicists are trying to do the same thing today:

http://www.pureenergyblog.com/2013/04/28/928/physicists-believe-its-possible-to-build-a-perpetual-motion-machine/

1. Now that's entertainment!

2. Ealadha, have you been time traveling again?

3. The day after he escaped from the army in the mountains he arrived at the monastery down on the flatlands, the monks allowed him to hide out there for a few days, but there were also time travelers from the twenty first century hiding out in the monastery and he got talking to them .....................

4. You used to say you were Bessler. Now you are spouting rubbish about Bessler being a time traveler. It's time to start acting your age, or at least join a forum more suited to your mental age level.

5. That is what I remember, meeting the time travelers and then inventing the time travel machines.

6. I am not making it all up .

7. Yes, it's all making sense now,
build a nice big horizontal windmill, to generate enough electricity to charge the Flux Capacitor, because my wheel's too puny.
Now, maybe if I jump off the roof of said windmill, I can reach 55 mph, and break the time barrier, before I hit the ground.
Darn! should've built another floor!

8. There were five different machines working on different principles.
There was two types with two on it, there was one type with one and one type with three .

9. Actually two types with one . Making a total of five different machines.

10. There was "TWO" types with two on it, there was "ONE" type with one and "ONE" type with three. TWO + ONE + ONE = FIVE . Yep, you are the Brainiac.

11. Ealadha, are you a bubble blower or a jelly fisher, or both?

A simple pendulum with a tee bar on the top,
on top of the tee bar are the two "hammer men", pantograph style,
a rod crossed to the opposite side of the pivot connects to the pantograph, so its action is reversed.
When the pendulum swings to the left, the rod pulls the pantograph "men" to the left, giving a little extra leverage to the tee bar, and of course vice-versa.
Would this not be a kiiking action?

14. Primemignonite2 May 2013 at 08:29

John, for one at least I am glad to see that you have noticed three's patterns. It does seem to have taken a while.

Interesting, aren't they?

Threes and sixes and twelves? (But, for the moment, might we not leave out those twelves as doubled?)

It is incidental by comparison, for actual the Great Work to be done, is to learn by what means near-instantaneous transfers of momentum between objects, may be rightly effected.

This is THE key problem to solve, for workers far enough along to benefit by any true discovery of it.

CHEERS!

James

1. 2:1 = ye ole simple Apologia wheel

3:1 = looks like its gonna be a bumpy ride
6:2 = 8 banger
12:4 = smooth sailing

15. Primemignonite3 May 2013 at 08:08

TO: Anonymous of 2 May 2013 20:47

Be all of that as it may, the Apologia Wheel is the foundation of balance for that is yet-to-be but must; get that one right, and all the rest will fall-in right behind.

The Anonymous of 29 April 2013 at 23:21 (was that you 2 May 2013 20:47?) and his masterstroke of observation to wit

" "In its interior it gains - for how else does it grow out of balance?" AP pg.245

Adds to the idea that weights gain force by their swinging. " (Marvelous!!!)

Lends JUST the thing needed for combining with the first for passionately longed-for success, but, it is THE NUT itself that needs the great attention paid it, being the toughest and as well, the very last hurdle for overcoming.

As a certain favored respondent over at BWF is fond of saying when the impulse strikes him so "I reserve the right to be wrong" which here, I do as well.

Tata!

1. Primemignonite,
just been musing on the Apologia Wheel, how's this for a simple solution?
The dark parts are weights, the light, gaps.
The weights are connected at the centre of the wheel by cams, or pantograph arrangement.
The two bottom weights swing together, and the cam/pantograph device lifts the top weight, causing the wheel to over balance.
Too simple?

2. @STEVO

Someone on BW built a very elaborate design like you mentioned. I will see if I can find the topic.

3. @Primemignonite

Both Anon posts were from me. I'm not pulling this stuff out of thin air. Just wetting the whistle, lubing the skids, ... , planning a surprise.

4. Anon @ user, I guess if the BW guy built the wheel, and it worked, we would know all about it by now.
Oh well, just musing anyway.
I still wouldn't mind taking a look at the design though.
Cheers.

5. What I was originally thinking of was some pictures I remember seeing of a metallic version of the AP wheel. It was constructed by Georg KÃ¼nstler. If you are a member of www.besslerwheel.com go to into the Discussion Board, click the Albums link, find Georg and you will see the pictures. If you are not, you should join. The amount of information there is incredible and extremely insightful.

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1801&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

6. Just a little more musing,
I've always thought that if you take a wedge shaped section from a plain wheel, like a pie slice, the missing section will turn to the top.
So, how do you continually replace the first slice, and then take another, before the gap reaches the top?
In the Apologia Wheel, if the dark sections are wedge shaped weights, that can pivot at the axle corner, the bottom two will swing together, the top weight will flop left or right, depending on which way the wheel is started, flopping right, the gap will appear at 11 O'clock, this gap will want to turn to 12 O'clock.
Bolt another Apologia Wheel to the first, with it's gap out of phase, to the left, and the gaps will want to turn to 11 and 1 O'clock.
Bolt on a third Apologia Wheel, yet again out of phase to the left, and three gaps will want to turn to 11,12 and 1 O'clock, but what if trying to find this position is too far for the next top weight to come around on the first wheel?
It will flop over, effectively moving the gap back, and the cycle starts again.

7. @ anon,
checked out BW site, don't need to join/sign in to read info, what Georg did was to split eight rollers, and mount them around the wheel. I was thinking of splitting the whole wheel into three sections, but I think the mechanism required to move the top segment would be more than "carpenter's boy" simple.
My later musing is so simple even I could make it!
:-D

8. Primemignonite4 May 2013 at 06:17

Sorry STEVO. I was not ignoring you. Just bound up by stuff going on over here.

Musing is a good thing to do, no doubt.

Well, all things should be tried and then eliminated if found wanting.

The Apologia Wheel is a curious thing. I comes to us along with scripture. (How might there be relationship there, if any? Yet MORE musing would be required here.) As for my own little self, I've discovered an aspect of it's reality that is spectacular-absolutely. Cripes! Bessler was SUCH a tricky and subtle clue-leaver. All I can say about it is . . . that there IS something special right there. I isolated it physically and it does operate as NOT advertised. (By this alone I assert NO claims of self-sustaining anything; I'm not going down that razor-lined path.)

@"Anonymous 3 May 2013 18:25

@Primemignonite

Both Anon posts were from me. I'm not pulling this stuff out of thin air. Just wetting the whistle, lubing the skids, ... , planning a surprise."

OK. I understand.

We all await surprises, the better ones especially.

Standing by . . .

James

16. When I read AP I noticed four outstanding No-No's of basic Christian Taboo . The first was that Bessler declared himself free from sin ( the Bible strictly enforces that all have sinned ) which he later recants . The second is that he changed the wording of the Bible ( It is written that any man who adds or deletes a word from the text will be damned ) when he added 1717 to the Matthew quote . Third he implies that the infamous " End Times " are close at hand . Fourth he implies that when folks see the operation of his machine nakedly they will sing " Christ is Risen " thereby equating his device with the Second Coming of Christ , when ( again the Bible clearly states that no man knows when this will happen and if they say they do they are false ) . I am not saying that these things point to fraud but they are suspect IMO to anyone who knows about the Bible .
CW

17. Primemignonite4 May 2013 at 11:21

Hello CW,

Most interesting. I'd not noticed from before any of what you have now cited.

I am certainly no expert or anything near that, appertaining matters-Biblical, however I do know as certain knowledge that there exist many differing versions of the Holy Scriptures. What a problem this presents to us insisting precisionists (I think this is rather often the case, CW.)

On account of this, I myself would prefer to grant old Johann doubt-benefits near-uniformly. Might not these things of seeming error be simply products of various errors not at all conscious but, nevertheless, ones well meant?

In the case where, as you have now recounted it, he makes that seeming offensive exclamation, perhaps the possible fact was that he meant it only symbolically (as in 'appearance' for the Apologia Wheel is, after all, a Three type thing, no? I assure you that I, as well, have been likewise struck so as to imagine the very same), or it got lost in translation, or was just another untoward effusion which he regretted later and, maybe, was sorry about, taking it back subsequently. Of these we cannot know truly. Is this not so?

For myself, these mysteries make the search even more alluring, CW. (Also, I do have some amateur, armchair theories about the person 'types' that will be 'allowed' the secret and, they that absolutely will NOT! As to just how this might go, I'll here leave the thought to your doubtless capable imagination. For a great and needed change, I am most happy to know that there seems to exist some one - apparently yourself - for whom these most weighty matters do take some SERIOUS place. The great majority of P-M seekers-after seemingly desire only to take "the secret" by it's throat for exploitations according to doubtless unclean, inner directions of raw WILL. Oh! How I lament this. It is like being in the desert.)

Kindest Possible Regards,

James

18. James, "seems" is a strong word! Chris is not as versed in Bessler as he thinks he is. Bessler was talking about his wheel being available for viewing on Easter (get it?) of 1717 and that hopefully it will be ready in time. Every other point Chris mentions is either rubbish or misconstrued. People, if you are going to quote Bessler, then actually do it, and give citations, otherwise it's from memory or horribly out of context, etc.

Quote from AP:
"With God the time is soon present, 1717
when Christians sing: Christ [has] arisen,
when everything again lives and flourishes,
and when the day for travel serves,
then I can see come to me
then also (with God's help) my
PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE will revolve;"

19. Primemignonite5 May 2013 at 00:29

Ed Orffyreo,

Oh! Yes, I suppose it can be that circumstantially.

Thanks for clarifying.

That is a very nice quote of JB's. (Looks like I'm going to have to reread AP.)

Are you "-Ed"? (Not sure.)

James

20. I read Bessler in different light all the time ..as if someone has promised to tell me a secret but given me no specific time or place to listen . This is what it must be . Bessler said he would print EVERYTHING concerning his machine . And so it is , if he is to be believed at all , DOWN IN PRINT . Even for the sake of combining several images of the MT one has to take things at face value and not , from one time to the next . It does not hurt to approach the problem from different angles spontaneously . As far as me not being an expert on Bessler , I do not claim to be but rather a conscious and purposeful antagonist . When reading Bessler , at any given point one must ask " what does this have to do with his discovery ? " . For instance this :
I cooked the flesh from dead bodies,
Put everyone where it belongs;
Many doctor came quickly and gone,