I mentioned recently their seeming reluctance to expand on the answers to some questions I had put to my teachers many years ago, when I was trying to understand why Bessler's wheel could not work. I had received the standard physics tuition and understood what I was taught, but there were still questions bothering me which related solely to Bessler's wheel, and I have never ever been able to get a satisfactory response, not once in the intervening 50 odd years.
I shall try to be as succinct as I can. The laws of physics were designed to describe as accurately as possible each possible action and reaction, but sometimes they remind me of a legal document. They describe the simplest of actions in the most accurate terms possible and in the event often obscure the precise meaning they try to convey. It can sometimes help to look at the broader picture to get an idea of what is happening.
I'm assuming that we all know and understand the definition of a conservative force - and that gravity is conservative. It's not path-dependent and it can store or regain potential energy, unlike non-conservative forces.
For the above reasons we are assured that Bessler's gravity wheel did not work - except that it did. If gravity is a conservative force, what non-conservative forces are there? Well actually there aren't many. Oh they will point to friction and springs and some magnetic attractions. and the like, but it seems that it is difficult to identify non-conservative forces, because they are so few and not really relevant to our cause.
Now it is a curious fact that when discussing conservative and non-conservative forces no mention is ever made of the wind as a force. I've searched everywhere for a statement which affirms the wind's status as either conservative or non-conservative, but it just isn't there. Occasionally you will find a brief reference to the wind as being non-conservative within some other calculations but nothing else. I have maintained for many years that the wind should be identified as a conservative force and because it is capable of driving rotatable machinery i.e. windmills; then gravity too should be capable of driving a wheel continuously, but of course wind is non-conservative isn't it? No! This assumption is wrong and provably so.
All you have to do is compare the defining criteria for a conservative force as applied to gravity with those of the wind. Gravity is path independent, the object moved from A to B can travel by any path and this applies to the wind as it impacts on a windmill's blades. Gravity can store mechanical energy as demonstrated when one lifts a fallen book back on to its shelf; a balloon can be pulled along into the wind and held there with the potential energy of the wind available to carry it away. There are a number of similarities which confirm the wind's status as a conservative force and I have no idea why this fact has not been picked up by the establishment. I assume it is because the conservative nature of the wind does not raise questions the way the gravitational force does. We understand how the wind is generated and why it flows in a particular direction at any one time.
If the very idea that the wind is a conservative force disagrees with your own impression of it, consider the opposite side of the coin; if it is non-conservative how does it turn a Savonius windmill, or an anemometer? How could you even measure the strength of the wind because non-conservative forces are of brief duration.
I mentioned looking at the broader picture when considering conservative as opposed to non-conservative forces. I think of conservative forces as enduring forces, not explosive actions of extremely limited duration which non-conservative forces tend to be. Enduring forces conserve mechanical energy, non-conservative forces expend their mechanical energy and the energy released dissipates as heat etc.
JC
