Just a quick blog while I prepare to share my next clue.
How many miles of text has been written on or about Johann Bessler, aka Orffyreus? This is my 515th post on this blog, plus I have posted 2254 times on the Besslerwheel forum ... but not all of these other ones were by me, 252639 posts on 6530 topics. I arrived there 5th November 2003 and here we are 14 years later and no nearer in real terms than we were back then! I can’t even guess how much has been written on other forums. Good job I'm an incurable optimist!
How many miles of text has been written on or about Johann Bessler, aka Orffyreus? This is my 515th post on this blog, plus I have posted 2254 times on the Besslerwheel forum ... but not all of these other ones were by me, 252639 posts on 6530 topics. I arrived there 5th November 2003 and here we are 14 years later and no nearer in real terms than we were back then! I can’t even guess how much has been written on other forums. Good job I'm an incurable optimist!
Too much hot
air, too much bandwidth, too much repetition, too much speculation, too much
expectation, too much prevarication and too much procrastination..... did I
miss anything? So much energy expended
for what...infinite speculation? Yes I'm
among the worst I admit, and yet without it we cannot progress.
Even though I
must have been told why, a thousand times, I still disagree that gravity did not provide the energy for Bessler’s Wheel. I see weights fall and I know that gravity
made them fall, but I’m frequently corrected because I should say that gravity
enabled the weight to fall. To me this
is merely sophistry. (Sophistry is reasoning that seems plausible on a
superficial level but is actually unsound, or reasoning that is used to
deceive)
I’m not suggesting that anyone intended to deceive but it looks like a way to explain something which otherwise would go against the prevailing opinion; I should probably say that it “goes against the laws of physics”, but they are no more than suggestions anyway, and you can’t be fined or sent to prison for breaking the laws of physics.
As I see it - Johann Bessler insisted that gravity alone provided the energy for his wheel. And many people believe that he was genuine because the evidence is so convincing. If gravity is even to be considered as the energy provider we should pick apart the reasons why.
I’m not suggesting that anyone intended to deceive but it looks like a way to explain something which otherwise would go against the prevailing opinion; I should probably say that it “goes against the laws of physics”, but they are no more than suggestions anyway, and you can’t be fined or sent to prison for breaking the laws of physics.
As I see it - Johann Bessler insisted that gravity alone provided the energy for his wheel. And many people believe that he was genuine because the evidence is so convincing. If gravity is even to be considered as the energy provider we should pick apart the reasons why.
We've been here before, and more than once, but I still firmly believe that there is a way to use gravity to drive Besser's wheel. This is what we know ...and a little speculation! So 'F' for fact and 'S' for speculation
F. Gravity is described as a force.
F. It exerts its influence on objects of mass, such as a weight and can cause it to fall.
F. It acts on an object without physically coming into contact with it and is called a non-contact force.
F. A contact force is a force applied to a body by another body that is in contact with it.
F. The origin of all contact forces can be traced to non-contact forces.
F. The energy exerted does not have to result in motion - Holding a rope taut is using force. Pulling something along with rope is using energy ...and it could be just. my energy.
F. If there is no movement as a result of the exertion by the force such as occurs in the rope analogy above then the energy is potential energy, and it could be my potential energy. See next point.
F. There are two sources of energy available to me for the above analogy; firstly there is gravity in the form of my weight and its potential to fall backwards and pull the rope; or secondly I could hold on to something attached to a wall and just pull using my muscular energy and there is no requirement for gravity's help.
F. The rope does not care where the energy is coming from, but the result is the same. The rope remains taught and my energy can be described as potential. If the object to which the rope is attached moves, then in both cases the potential energy is released and becomes kinetic energy..
F. There is a "conservation of energy" law. But there is no "conservation of force" law. Why? Because the force is continuous, and therefore does not need to be conserved but the very fact that it is continuous is exactly why it will power a perpetual motion machine. The force is perpetual.
F. The law of conservation of energy simply means that the amount or package of energy being used, is not replaced, but because it can't be destroyed it does change its form into, for instance heat. In which case it cannot be used to drive a perpetual motion machine, so let me repeat :-
S. Because the force is continuous, and therefore does not need to be conserved, is exactly why it will power a perpetual motion machine. The force is perpetual.
So I think that
gravity is the source of energy for Bessler’s wheel and no other source is
needed and it can’t and won’t be found.
Yes I know that gravity is a force and it can’t be tapped directly for energy and the energy has to be obtained via an agent, in this case weights, but to me that is like saying petrol driven cars don’t obtain their energy from petrol, but from the heat produced from the combustion produced by igniting the petrol in a series of controlled explosions and they are therefore not petrol driven! So they are internal combustion engines.
You could describe Bessler's wheel as a system of weights enabled by the force of gravity to cause a wheel to rotate continuously, but I prefer gravity-wheel and petrol or diesel engine.
Just my speculation!
JC
