This question seems to have surfaced again recently and despite reading a lot of patent advice I am uncertain if I can answer the question asked in the title of this blog. What follows is my take on the issue but it is quite possibly erroneous in some aspects, for which I apologise.
Let us assume for the sake of argument, that a means has been found to produce a continuously rotating wheel, driven only by the force of gravity. This has nothing to do with Johann Bessler's work. It seems safe to assume that this would be patentable, in the USA and many other countries.
However, suppose someone should come along and announce that the wheel in question is an exact copy of Bessler's wheel, and therefore it could not be patented. This raises two questions, firstly so what? Bessler did not patent it so it's fair game for someone else to patent, and secondly how do we know it is an exact copy of Bessler's wheel; everyone knows that he did not reveal the secret of his wheel, so we can never prove or disprove that as a fact.
The decision on the first point may depend on the outcome of the second point. If it was proved that the new wheel did in fact copy Bessler's wheel exactly, would that negate the possibility of patenting it? Personally I don't think it would, even if it was proved that it was exactly the same design as Bessler's. Look at a patent today; it covers every possible alternative reading of an invention. It tries to cover all eventualities because the patent lawyer knows that the opposition will read everything in the patent to try to find a chink which he can use towards a new patent application. Bessler's clues leave the field wide open for similar patent applications
The fact that Bessler left sufficient clues to allow someone to reconstruct his wheel exactly would not, in my opinion, be enough to make any future patent application invalid. The clues, such as they are, are so obscure as to allow the formation of numerous designs which 999 times out of every thousand will undoubtedly fail due to the fact that he wrote them deliberately obscurely to keep them secret, and as I said recently, I think they were only there to allow him to point to them post the sale of his wheel, to show how devious and clever he had been.
I am aware of only two people who believe that they have solved most of the clues and are close to achieving success, and expect a working device soon, either simulated or an actual build - myself and Ken. Having said that, in illustration of the difficulties in deciphering these clues, both Ken and I have arrived at our widely differing solutions via completely different sets of clues.
I should also mention that there are others who also feel that they are making progress in the right direction although I'm not aware of any soon-to-be announced working models.
This blog raises one more point. It has been said many times, that even if somebody succeeds in making the continuously-turning wheel there will be no way of knowing if Bessler's wheel resembled it in any way. I would reject that argument utterly, my own design has borrowed extensively from Bessler's work and while I am unwilling to share anything until I have finished it, I am confident of success, but does that mean that Ken's wheel will fail? I have no idea, but I have made mine without any springs and that he will see as a major error. LOL
Finally, should any of us succeed and knowingly base it on the information Bessler left in his clues, would it be morally wrong to patent it without acknowledging Bessler's part?
JC
10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’
10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’
