The publication of my ideas about conservative forces on the Besslerwheel forum was met with a mixture of benign criticism and some somwhat less than favourable comments, as expected. You can't expect to suggest that 300 years of scientific advances might have overlooked some small detail without incurring criticism and argument, and I am not dispappointed by the reaction - it has got people talking about Bessler's wheel again.
What has surprised me is that among a small number of emails I received which offered their support for my conjecture there was one which apologised for not saying so publicly. The reason apparently was that doing so might diminish their standing in some way. I find this remarkable and it seems to mimic the situation between the majority of members and the rest of the world and indeed the whole history of the search for perpetual motion.
Many people who study Bessler's writings look for subtle deceptions and double meanings in everything he wrote and while I am guilty of seeing encoded messages in various places that are not as clear to others as they are to me, I think that he wrote the truth without dissembling and only restricted the information enough not to give the secret away. So when he wrote such phrases as, 'the machine was set in motion by weights'; 'Weights gained force from their own swinging'; 'the weights applied force at right angles to the axis' and Karl's view that' he did not disguise the fact that the mechanism is moved by weights', I think he spoke the truth and I have no doubt whatsoever that the machine depended on the presence of gravity and indeed was run by gravity alone. I see no need to invoke hidden meanings in phrases which describe in normal everyday language, the way the machine worked. There is a phrase, 'the law of parsimony, or succinctness', which describes the principle of choosing a theory that requires fewer new assumptions, and in this case the simplest interpretation is the most likely one to be right, I think.
I understand why some highly intelligent and experienced members of the forum insist on sticking to the belief that gravity cannot run the wheel because it is a conservative force, but I regret that they dismiss my thoughts with friendly humour but no serious consideration. And yet I read Bessler's words and can only conclude that gravity was the mainstay of his machine and just because gravity is a conservative force may does not completely and utterly rule out a way around it. If my suggestion does not meet satisfactorily the criteria sought by those who would deny it, then I can't help but compare them to the rest of the scientific community who also refuse to contemplate such a possibility.
So once again I point the reader to my web site at http://www.besslerswheel.com/html/conservative_force.html, where he will read about the 'mysterious other force' which helps the weight complete its rotation without using any additional energy which wasn't generated by its fall.
JC
