Having spent the last 50 years or so, trying to replicate Bessler's wheel, I still occasionally err by making assumptions which turn out to be wrong.
In the beginning I began by drawing numerous sketches of how I thought Bessler's wheel might have worked. I assumed, rightly in my opinion, that gravity was the provider of energy. I accept that most people deny that possibility because they assume, rightly in their opinion, that gravity cannot provide the energy for the wheel's continuous rotation. That is an assumption based on what we have been taught, but I intend to prove it to be a false one.
Having eventually ruled out most of my sketches, I began building models of parts of the various designs to see if they did indeed react as expected, or assumed. Usually they did respond in the expected way but sometimes they didn't or they could be made to alter the response by subtly varying the angles and lengths of the various levers I employed in my designs. So my original assumptions were again sometimes wrong. And of course even when they reacted as expected they were no good for purpose!
Clearly, if we believe in Bessler's claims then there is at least one false assumption causing our failure to replicate what Bessler did. After the model-building had failed to elicit the correct response by my many mechanical configurations, I slowly came to the conclusion that something we ought to know about this subject was missing or had been overlooked.
Eventually I worked out what had been overlooked and immediately found corroboration in one of Bessler's clues. A short while later I found another clue supporting the same conclusion. Since then I have found more clues in support of my conclusion. This is the principle I have encoded at the foot of each blog for some considerable time.
Making the mechanism which takes advantage of the principle has proved very much more difficult than I expected, but I think I have it right now, and I'm going to finish it. I feel a little like the guy who has stated that his wheel will work within days, for at least the last two years! I found that I had made an error in reading one of Bessler's clues, not the one concerning the principle, but one that led me up the wrong path in small way. Correcting this error has produced the results I wanted so I'm completing the model.
The point of this blog is to say, "beware of assuming something, anything, it may not necessarily always be the whole truth".
Bessler was worried that people would think his wheel was too simple and therefore not worth the price. I guess he was thinking of the principle that allows it to work with gravity. I, too, am amazed that no one appears to have discovered this simple fact. But although the principle may be simple to understand, the mechanical configuration it requires to operate it, is not so simple, although once seen it will be easy to understand how it works,. But I still remain convinced that even studying the wheel in action will not necessarily lead to an understand of the principle itself.
One last thought; someone asked me if my so-called Bessler/Collins principle would be automatically detected by simulation software and included in its response and my answer is yes, there is no reason why it shouldn't be. As long as the required parameters are included it will respond according to the principle. It's more of an observation than a principle, I just don't know what else to call it.
One last thought; someone asked me if my so-called Bessler/Collins principle would be automatically detected by simulation software and included in its response and my answer is yes, there is no reason why it shouldn't be. As long as the required parameters are included it will respond according to the principle. It's more of an observation than a principle, I just don't know what else to call it.
JC
10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.
