The basic requirements for building a successful gravity-enabled wheel can be quite simply described, although obviously not as easily achieved!
The scepticism that we face includes the well-established “fact” that according to the laws of physics we cannot design and build a perpetual motion machine. Well, this is true if you make it completely isolated from any form of energy; an isolated system. This is not my definition, but it’s what we are taught and yet what kind of fool would even imagine that it might be possible? No external energy source! But I have never believed in that, nor wanted to do so. No, it has always been my belief that gravity holds the key; a force of nature which could enable a perpetual motion machine, or a gravity-enabled machine to run continuously. Which of course means it can’t be a closed system.
Yes I know gravity is not a source of energy! But to my mind it is! Ok it’s not a energy source in the accepted sense, but it causes things to fall, and that means there is the potential to harness the energy of the fall.
Yes I know gravity is not a source of energy! But to my mind it is! Ok it’s not a energy source in the accepted sense, but it causes things to fall, and that means there is the potential to harness the energy of the fall.
You cannot get more energy out of a machine than you put into it, and when friction is added there is no spare energy to even complete a single rotation. I only want to use the same energy from the machine that I put into it, not more - but I also want it to do work as well as run itself....so I need to put more energy into the machine just to complete at least one rotation. If several weights could be designed to fall resulting in one complete rotation, and then repeat the action, we wouldn't have a problem.
How to put extra energy into the machine so that there is enough for it to overbalance and complete a rotation? Find a way to enable gravity to start the rotation and also take more energy from gravity to continue the rotation, by designing a system that resets the weight after each fall, before it gets to the point where it needs to fall again. Continuous rotation will cause it to accelerate up to a certain speed.
But when it's stationary, is it in a state of permanent imbalance? It depends; if the first bit of rotation requires a fall before it begins to rotate a little, then without the fall no rotation can take place. But if the wheel had been stopped after the fall had ocurred then the wheel will turn a little. In my opinion, the fall takes place at the same time that the preceeding weight resets. So the effect is for the wheel to be permanently out of balance, which is why Bessler applied a brake to keep it stationary.
To add more energy than the wheel needs to complete one rotation, it is not sufficient to increase the number of mechanisms or over-balancing weights, because each one has to be reset in order to fall again at the right place. There has to be a resetting mechanism.
One more thing here. Bessler made certain claims that were fully backed up by demonstrations and eye witness's accounts, many of whom were out to prove him a liar. So why, if we accept his claims and almost everything else, do some people maintain that the wheel could not have been permanently out of balance. Some have suggested that the wheel was stopped in a certain position so that it would begin to spin as soon as the brake was released. Bessler stated more than once that the wheel started to spin spontaneously as soon as the brake was released. This fact was reiterated several times by witnesses. Why accept most of the evidence and reject some of the rest? Why would Bessler lie about such a thing, so trivial when considered against a backdrop of everything else?
In a few weeks I will know if my wheel works or not, but I do know that I have deciphered a large amount of clues which I hope will astound and amaze you!
JC
www.helpamy.co.uk/
