There is a need among us Bessler-obsessives to find out how he made a successful gravitywheel. We look for the solution by studying what he wrote and what he drew and what others said about him and his wheel; we modify the translations to try to get the last important detail that we believe might have been missed and we look for double-meanings in his words and so on and so forth. I am as bad if not worse than most because I seek to find what I deem to be hidden clues deliberately left by the inventor as a guide to those who followed in his footsteps. "Seek and ye shall find", says the bible and I have certainly found! Misapplying the quote, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", I am fully aware that my finds, so clear to me, are obscure to others. I understand the reasons for this and am content to offer my suggestions in the hope that it will help and inspire someone else with more expertise than I to substantiate my finds.
This brings me to another curious facet of our obsession. On the one hand there are these clues which, like the smile on the Cheshire cat, seem to fade into invisiblity, upon deeper scrutiny, revealing nothing more than the number five - and then there are the clearly articulated clues written by Bessler in the plainest language which are either ignored or separated into those we individually accept and those we reject. Why is it that when we are searching for clues as to how he succeeded, by sifting everything he wrote or drew, do some of us, sometimes, ignore the plainly written advice he gives us?
Bessler advised against using simple over-balancing designs to make a gravity wheel spin and said he learned the hard way that trying to arrange for more weights to be on one side of the wheel than the other wouldn't work. Yet I see many attempts to solve the problem with simple over-balancing wheels. Why do we ignore the words of the man who solved the problem? Overbalancing does not form the chief principle behind Bessler's wheel, although I believe it still has a role to play, as I showed in my explanation at http://www.gravitywheel.com/
This brings me to another curious facet of our obsession. On the one hand there are these clues which, like the smile on the Cheshire cat, seem to fade into invisiblity, upon deeper scrutiny, revealing nothing more than the number five - and then there are the clearly articulated clues written by Bessler in the plainest language which are either ignored or separated into those we individually accept and those we reject. Why is it that when we are searching for clues as to how he succeeded, by sifting everything he wrote or drew, do some of us, sometimes, ignore the plainly written advice he gives us?
Bessler advised against using simple over-balancing designs to make a gravity wheel spin and said he learned the hard way that trying to arrange for more weights to be on one side of the wheel than the other wouldn't work. Yet I see many attempts to solve the problem with simple over-balancing wheels. Why do we ignore the words of the man who solved the problem? Overbalancing does not form the chief principle behind Bessler's wheel, although I believe it still has a role to play, as I showed in my explanation at http://www.gravitywheel.com/
He also said his weights gained force from their own swinging. A weight which swings and as it does so, gains force i.e. strength/speed, can be seen demonstrated by anyone on a swing. That is how the kiiking swinger works his way up to the twelve o'clock position.
He said too, that he only needed gravity and no other energy source to make his wheel go round. I have already explained on my gravitywheel web site why gravity alone, while still being a conservative force, can be successfully used by means of the twin weight system, suggested by Bessler, without conflicting with the laws of physics. Despite his assurances, most people still believe that there must have been some other force available and necessary to allow his wheel to complete continuous rotations and so they seek a different solution.
He said too, that he only needed gravity and no other energy source to make his wheel go round. I have already explained on my gravitywheel web site why gravity alone, while still being a conservative force, can be successfully used by means of the twin weight system, suggested by Bessler, without conflicting with the laws of physics. Despite his assurances, most people still believe that there must have been some other force available and necessary to allow his wheel to complete continuous rotations and so they seek a different solution.
If we are serious about finding the answer to Bessler's wheel, we should start by taking his clearly written advice to heart. If this is insufficient for finding the solution then we should look for more obscure clues - as I have done.
I know I allowed my enthusiasm to run away with me and claim that I knew how the wheel worked, but at the time I believed that to be true, as we all have from time to time. I was unwilling to share this information without testing it first, but having publicised my personal conviction that I knew how it was done, I left myself with no alternative but to reveal my belief and thus put myself in front of the firing squad. But this does not mean that the basic principle is wrong. No other one provides such a close match to Bessler's description nor provides a potential solution, and I have explained this in detail at http://www.orffyreus.org/ and http://www.gravitywheel.com/
My mechanism may fall short of the required design to fulfill the principle, but in my opinion the principle itself holds up well and will I am sure lead to a working gravitywheel .
JC
My mechanism may fall short of the required design to fulfill the principle, but in my opinion the principle itself holds up well and will I am sure lead to a working gravitywheel .
JC
