Time to turn my thoughts to gravity again. Today's blog is a two parter but each is connected with the other.
Firstly, some say that Bessler never used the word 'gravity' in his writings, therefore he did not ascribe his energy source to gravity. But the reason for its non-appearance is because he used such words as 'preponderance' and 'weight' instead. Preponderance simply means 'a superiority in weight', in other words, heavier than something else.
The apparently missing word, 'gravity', comes from the Latin word, 'gravitas'. In Newton's time, Latin was the language used by the learned, and books on academic and scientific subjects were written in Latin so that they could be read by people in all the European countries regardless of the reader's native language. Newton's use of the word, 'Gravitas', meant 'heaviness' or 'weight'. But he suggested that 'weight' should no longer be regarded as simply a property possessed by a 'heavy body', but that a body that seems to be heavy is being attracted by another body with mass, in this case, the earth. Thus the force of gravity was born.
The word for gravity in German today is 'Schwerkraft' but that did not come into common use for many years after Bessler's death. So just because the particular word 'gravity' isn't there doesn't mean that Bessler wasn't referring to it in his writings and the circumstantial evidence is clear enough that that is what he meant. If he could do it, then it can be done
Secondly, we've been taught that gravity is a conservative force and therefore it cannot be used as a source of energy. I have repeatedly pointed out that the forces of wind and water are also conservative forces and they provide excellent sources of energy. You can't have it both ways; either a conservative force cannot be used as an energy source.... or it can!
In relation to our research, the law of conservation of energy only defines what happens for a single weight mounted on a wheel and driving a gravity-enabled wheel. Picture Bessler's horizontal windmill, the one he was building at the time of his death; the wind acted on both sides of the vertical axle and with a number of sails or scoops, it was designed to rotate in the wind. if there had been just one sail or vane or scoop, it would have made half a turn and stopped - it needed several of them to work with each side on either scooping up the wind or deflecting it, to make a full rotation.
The same goes for an overshot water wheel for example. If it had just one bucket it would stop after half a turn. It needs a succession of buckets to make a full and continuous rotation.
A Savonius windmill still requires a miniumum of two blades or scoops to allow it to rotate and there are designs using three or more blades. My point is that even though gravity is a conservative force that does not rule it out as an energy source - as long as there are sufficient weights in complementary action.
None of the above wind or water driven designs will work with just one blade, unless of course, as in the case of the former one, it is designed to operate face-on to the wind. The different designs mean that the wind and water wheels use surface-changes to their vanes, scoops or sails to interact with their relevant forces to gain mechanical advantage, whereas gravity-enabled wheels use position-changes of their weights to interact with gravity for a mechanical advantage.
Horizontal windmills, or Savonius windmills present a larger surface area on one side of their axles than the other, which gives one side more leverage and makes them turn. It's just the same with gravitywheels, they present the weight on one side further from the axle which gives one side more leverage and makes them turn
The whole argument against gravitywheels is based on the calculation of one weight operating the wheel and not several.
I've said all this before, on my other web sites and on the forum but I will repeat it and repeat it until someone listens and makes the required paradigm shift.
JC
