I'm still being asked why I think Bessler's wheel worked purely on gravity and required no additional forces, and without giving away my own theory, it's difficult to bring something new to the table. However looking back at the evidence it still seems obvious to me that nothing has changed
Leaving aside, on this occasion the evidence we are all aware of regarding the numerous examinations and tests the wheel was subjected to, Bessler said in Das Triumphens, "NO, these weights are themselves the PM device, the ‘essential constituent parts’" There are several other examples where Bessler discusses his weights and to my mind there is no other option than to consider that his claims were sincere.
There is another point and it is this. Either we assume that Bessler told the truth and there was no additional force supplied, or he lied and there was another force present; in either case the wheel worked. If there was another force available how come no-one has discovered what it was and replicated Bessler's wheel? Such a discovery would be equally amazing and useful as one which only relied on gravity. If another force was present why wouldn't Bessler hint at it? He enjoyed dropping obscure hints about the way his wheel worked but he insisted that the weights were all that was needed. On the Besslerwheel forum several suggestions have been made at what such additional force might be, and none of them are as convincing as the idea that it was simply gravity as Bessler said. There was very little else available to Bessler at the time apart from ambient temperature changes or perhaps some kind of static electricity. Both ideas to my mind, simply won't do. Others have suggested centrifugal forces or some such derivative, but in all cases no continuously rotating wheel has surfaced, therefore I am certain that Bessler told the truth and gravity was the sole provider of power to the wheel. It's a case of Occam's razor which states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Just one assumption is necessary and that is that Bessler told the truth, there was no additional force.
When Sir Isaac Newton wrote his 'Principia', he wrote the whole thing in Latin, which was the accepted way to introduce matters of scientific and intellectual interest. University lectures were given in Latin and publications such a 'Acta Erditorum' were also published in Latin. Latin was a universal language at that time and thus students from various countries attended universities in England, France and Germany with equal ability to understand what was being taught. Newton used the word 'gravitas' for the force and in this sense, 'gravitas' translates as 'heaviness'. Everyone understood the term 'heaviness' as a concept but the use of the word 'gravitas' and thus 'gravity', came to be applied later to the concept of 'heaviness as if it had been coined specifically for that purpose. So when we say that Bessler used the word gravity he didn't mean it in the way we do, he just used the word 'heaviness' as the provider of the force which turned his wheels.
In other words Bessler did not think of gravity in the way we do with all its preconditions about how it can be used, he simply meant heaviness, and weights had heaviness and it was that which he was able to manipulate to his advantage.
Heaviness is a pressure or resistance we feel when we lift something up, or hold it. I liken it, for example to the same pressure we experience when we fight to hold an umbrella from blowing inside out in the wind; or a gust of wind hits you when you come out from the shelter of a building, or a strong current of water encountered when swimming. It is simply a pressure. I used to sail a lot as a young man and it's the same thing when you haul in a sail, the wind pressure fights you all the way. Gravity is a conservative force; so is the wind, and so is a current of water. Just because gravity is conservative does not preclude its use as a continuous pressure to drive around a wheel. The word conservative, as used in this instance, simply means that it does not stop, it continues to apply pressure, just as the wind does when it blows and water too when it is a current. Conservative forces don't really conserve their energy but they conserve their force or momentum. Hitting a ball, on the other hand, is an explosive event and therefore not a conservative event, It is not continuous in the way that gravity, wind and water streams are. Conservative means that it is not used up with nothing left, the force is conserved not exhausted. The opposite of conservative or conserved is un-conserved or not conserved, so the three examples above must be conserved or continuous otherwise we could not sail ships, turn windmills, use watermills etc., etc.
Lastly all calculations seem to apply to one weight moving in a circle, they seem to ignore the presence and effect of correctly configured multiple weights.
JC
10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.
