Following some comments on my last blog, I thought I'd make my case again here rather than adding to the 60 or so comments already in.
I realise that the vast majority do not accept the possibility that a gravity-wheel can be driven continuously just by the force of gravity alone as, I believe, Bessler's was. But if I state my case often enough, maybe enough people, cleverer than I, will take it on board and devise a better explanation. Until then...
My analogy that the force of gravity was similar in its action to the wind or a current of water, and it was therefore perfectly reasonable to believe one could use it as a source of energy, is routinely scorned by most people. They have taken exception to the above analogy, ignoring the fact that is just an analogy. An analogy is an inference based on the idea that if two different things show a similarity in one sense, it may be possible to draw conclusions about other aspects of the thing. It is a way of looking at something differently to try to understand it. I was not suggesting that gravity was in fact either a 'wind' or a 'stream'.
The argument against, goes something like this. Air is a collection of gases, flowing molecules - and water is similar - and when they impact on certain surfaces we can make use of them to drive machinery - but, on the other hand, because gravity is an attraction between two masses, and there are no physical particles available (such as molecules of gas) to impact on the machinery in a way we can use, it is said that it is not capable of supplying energy in the way that Bessler seems to have done. But Bessler did not know about molecules or the laws affecting gravity; he could only observe and experiment. His empirical evidence gave him the answer, and as he said, "these weights are themselves the PM device, the 'essential constituent parts' which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force derived from the PM principle) indefinitely - so long as they keep away from the centre of gravity."
How anyone can read that sentence and not understand that it means he used gravity, is beyond me. But of course as some have suggested he might have been lying or incorporating hidden meaning within the text - or he didn't mean gravity alone. But for me it is plain and simple and he used gravity alone to drive his machine.
What gravity is, and what air and water are, is not relevant to my argument; the only thing that matters is that wind can move objects of mass, a current of water can move objects of mass and gravity can move objects of mass. It doesn't matter how they do it, just that they do.
One of the arguments used against the possibility of gravity as an energy source is that gravity represents potential energy. It's there if you've already put in the work. There's potential energy in a book on a shelf because you've lifted it and placed it there. Once you use that energy, when the book falls to the floor, it's gone until you lift it back up again. This is true - and it also applies to wind and water currents. Again, the work has to be put in first to gain the energy output. Release a balloon in the wind and watch it get carried along by the wind, and then grab it and take it back to the starting point (upwind) to release it again. Or put a toy boat in a stream and the same thing applies. It will float downstream and you can pick it up and take it back upstream again. Just because we have found a way of obtaining work from wind and water streams that converts the force of wind and water to rotational energy output, does not necessarily rule out the same potential conversion of the gravitational force.
And that defines a conservative force. Since the work done by wind and water currents can be reversed, i.e. the object moved can be taken back upstream, or upwind, to be released and able to be moved again, they are conservative forces, as is gravity. Notice the word up in upwind and upstream, its a clue.
I might not be able to add any comments for a day or two next week as I'm off to Rome on Tuesday and I'm busy writing some notes for the interview. I'll post a blog when I get back and tell you about it.
JC
