I don't know how many people who chance upon this blog, have actually heard of Johann Bessler and his claims to have built several perpetual motion machines, but of one thing I'm certain - the vast majority will have learned that such a thing is impossible and would utterly confound the laws of science if such a device were ever able to see the light of day and work.
The history of science is littered with the corpses of those knowledgeable people who delivered their prognostications after much observation, experimentation and deliberation. There is a veritable cornucopia of websites listing these sad, deluded experts who knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that some things were impossible, only to be proven wrong within a surprisingly short time. There is therefore no need for me to detail any, but I found an interesting trend noted in a magazine of no lesser standing than the International Business Times and I have provided a brief extract which seems to support my contention that, like the advice, 'don't believe everything you read in the papers', you should not believe everything the scientists tell us:-
"A rise in the number of studies published in scientific journals has been accompanied by a surge in retraction notices, casting into doubt findings that influence everything from government grants to prescriptions written for patients, a Wall Street Journal analysis found.
Citing data compiled by Thomson Reuters, the Journal found a steep rise in retraction notices in peer-reviewed research journals, from just 22 in 2001 to 339 last year. The number of papers published in such journals rose 44 percent in the same time frame. The article pointed to other studies finding that fraud and misconduct were becoming increasingly prevalent.
The article noted that new scientific studies look to past research for guidance, so that a flawed study can cause a cascade of faulty or fruitless research: for example, when the renowned Mayo Clinic had found that data about using the immune system to fight cancer had been fabricated, seventeen scholarly papers published in nine research journals had to be retracted.
In addition, doctors rely on research to prescribe the most effective treatment. An ultimately discredited study suggesting that two high blood pressure drugs worked better in concert led doctors to put more than 100,000 patients on a treatment schedule that may offer no benefits and dangerous side effects.
Part of the problem is that scientists are locked in competition for the prestige and money that flows from being published in a recognized journal.
"The stakes are so high," said the Lancet's editor, Richard Horton. "A single paper in Lancet and you get your chair and you get your money. It's your passport to success."
Citing data compiled by Thomson Reuters, the Journal found a steep rise in retraction notices in peer-reviewed research journals, from just 22 in 2001 to 339 last year. The number of papers published in such journals rose 44 percent in the same time frame. The article pointed to other studies finding that fraud and misconduct were becoming increasingly prevalent.
The article noted that new scientific studies look to past research for guidance, so that a flawed study can cause a cascade of faulty or fruitless research: for example, when the renowned Mayo Clinic had found that data about using the immune system to fight cancer had been fabricated, seventeen scholarly papers published in nine research journals had to be retracted.
In addition, doctors rely on research to prescribe the most effective treatment. An ultimately discredited study suggesting that two high blood pressure drugs worked better in concert led doctors to put more than 100,000 patients on a treatment schedule that may offer no benefits and dangerous side effects.
Part of the problem is that scientists are locked in competition for the prestige and money that flows from being published in a recognized journal.
"The stakes are so high," said the Lancet's editor, Richard Horton. "A single paper in Lancet and you get your chair and you get your money. It's your passport to success."
This report concerns us today but why should it not apply to the last three hundred years too? There is plenty of evidence out there proving that many established beliefs are later found to be wrong. I underlined one particularly damming point, 'new scientific studies look to past research for guidance, so that a
flawed study can cause a cascade of faulty or fruitless research'. Isn't that exactly the problem we face here. Previous conclusions about the viability of Bessler's wheel have effectively wiped out any sensible consideration of its potential as an alternative means of generating electricity?
I have found so much circumstantial evidence that Bessler's wheel really worked, that I am certain that this legend is going to prove possible and that a large quantity of egg is going to appear on many a professional scientist....and I can't wait!
JC
10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’
I have found so much circumstantial evidence that Bessler's wheel really worked, that I am certain that this legend is going to prove possible and that a large quantity of egg is going to appear on many a professional scientist....and I can't wait!
JC
10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’
