I have been immersed in Bessleriana for so long that I have become accustomed to the idea that it will only be a matter of time before we prove that Bessler was right and it is possible to extract energy from gravity. Suddenly I realised I had got too used to the possibility and had forgotten what a bombshell that news would be should it come true!
The reminder came because I was rereading through Sir Isaac Newtons 'Quaestions' notebook the other day, and came across his brief comment about how perpetual motion might be possible if you could somehow shield half the wheel from the effects of gravity, when I sensed a subtext in his note. He wasn't suggesting that it was possible, what he was saying was that one way to achieve it would require the invention of a material which was utterly impossible. In other words he was implying that it was impossible and you would have to invent an equally impossible method to achieve it. So even my attempt to vindicate my stance by suggesting that even Newton considered perpetual motion might be possible, was flawed!
But I do not accept that it is impossible, because I am completely persuaded otherwise by the huge amount of evidence in Bessler's work, but it does demonstrate very clearly the monumental task we have in trying to persuade anyone else of our conviction. Newton has achieved an almost God-like status, and his work is taught world wide. Other scientists of the era have also defined physical laws which still stand today, and every scientist, teacher and in fact anyone with even a little education knows that Bessler's wheel violates some law and is therefore inpossible, so how come we few are so convinced that we know better, that we are prepared to go against the tide and do all in our power to prove 99 percent of the world's population have got it wrong?
Call it instinct, intuition, a feeling, a hunch, a sixth sense, a gut feeling - whatever it is, it has been in the mind of man for thousands of years. There was a magnetic wheel design in 8th Century Bavaria, and a design for another perpetual motion machine by Indian mathematician–astronomer Bhaskara in 1159. There are hints that they were being investigated as far back as the Sumerians, 5000 years ago. Somehow, we just know that it is possible to create a continuously turning wheel powered by weights, and therefore gravity. In Bessler's day the possibility was discussed by the intellectuals but most of those who understood the argument were swayed by those who said it was in violation of certain physical laws which could not be argued with. The mere fact that it was so hotly debated suggests that the idea went against man's intuition.
The sceptic's argument was logical and those who espoused it were unable to find a concept which would allow such a device to work. Phillipe de La Hire (1614-1718) wrote that 'one would need to find a body that was both heavier and lighter at the same time', as equally daft an idea as Newton's gravity shield - and yet there is a certain truth in the statements. La Hire's reflects Newton's idea too. Either the object changes weight or the effect of gravity on it varies; the end result is the same, the amount of the perceived weight alters.
There is a scientific consensus that perpetual motion in an isolated system violates either the first law of thermodynamics, the second law of thermodynamics, or both. The only question is this; is gravity an external force or not? To me it is obviously external. All physical bodies of mass are attracted to each other by the 'action at a distance' phenomenon hence the force must be external to the wheel - no question. We can therefore dismiss the 'scientific consensus that perpetual motion in an isolated system violates either the first law of thermodynamics, the second law of thermodynamics, or both'. That consensus does not apply here, a gravity-powered wheel isn't an isolated system.
In the end, simulations, learned texts littered with illustrations, lectures - none of them will persuade the hard-liners; only a working model will convince them that after 300 years Johann Bessler's claims were justified.
JC
10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’
