We generally refer to Johann Bessler’s wheel as a Perpetual Motion machine or device, but such machines are consistently said to be impossible and therefore Bessler must have been a fraud. However the evidence that he was genuine is remarkably convincing so how do we explain this apparent paradox?
Maybe it depends on the definition of perpetual motion. I think we are familiar with these definitions but do they apply to Bessler’s wheel? The answer must be ‘no’ for two reasons. Firstly such devices are impossible and would violate the law of conservation of energy, therefor his machine was not a perpetual motion device. Secondly the definition of perpetual motion states that in such a hypothetical machine there is no external source of energy, and Bessler said his machine was dependant on the actions of a number of weights, this implies that the weights actually supplied the energy to rotate the wheel continuously. The only potential source of energy from outside the machine was gravity- or rather, the effect of gravity on the weights.
Even Bessler pointed out that his machine could not be described as ‘perpetual’ for reasons such wear and tear, old age, accidental damage etc. ‘Continuous motion ’ seems a better term to me, it removes the unreasonable word ‘Perpetual’ which implies that it will turn for ever regardless of how many thousands of years!
But gravity is not an energy source. This is true but it is a force and can enable a weight to fall in a special configuration which may seem as though gravity had provided the energy. The energy is a property of the mass and it’s interaction with our planet and for instance waterwheels are driven by falling water, enabled by gravity.
But so far no one has found a way to design a system which allows the fallen weights to return to their former position ready to fall again - no one except Johann Bessler.
We have been repeatedly told that there is no design which can accommodate such an action, but is this true? I assume that Bessler succeeded therefore there is a special arrangement which allows the fallen weights to return to their pre-fall position, ready to repeat and repeat.
The energy provided comes from the action of gravity on the weights, so there is no mystery where the energy comes from. For repeat falls to be possible there must be a particular inclusive action by a part of the mechanism. Repeat falls are also vital for continuous overbalancing.
Bessler described the action of the wheel in this way.
“ …these weights are themselves the PM device, the ‘essential constituent parts’ which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force (derived from the PM principle) indefinitely – so long as they keep away from the centre of gravity. To this end they are enclosed (page 21) in a structure or framework, and co-ordinated in such a way that not only are they prevented from attaining their desired equilibrium or ‘point of rest’, but they must for ever seek it, thereby developing an impressive velocity which is proportional to their mass and to the dimensions of their housing. This velocity is sufficient for the heaviness movingk and raising of loads applied to the axis of rotation.”
Bessler mentions this “PM principle” many times and it is this that provided the answer to the problem of returning the weights to their starting position. It is hard to see what else provided the energy when he states so clearly that the weights themselves “are the essential constituent parts…”, only gravity could provide the force which moved the weights.
The word gravity or gravitas used by Newton simply meant heaviness but he did not invent the word, but was the author of a crucial "shift of meaning": previously "gravity" denoted a quality, after Newton, a force. You could say that gravity formerly meant, the tendency of objects to fall toward the center of the earth but after Newton it meant the tendency of two objects to attract each other.
Given the successful tests, and the word of a highly respected man who inspected the interior of the machine - and Bessler’s own words, how can anyone doubt the veracity of his claims? But you have to put aside your prejudices and consider the facts. Was his machine a fake? Was the Landgrave of Hesse Kassel fooled, a man who had supervised the experiments by Denis Papin for ten years at the castle, before Bessler arrived, as well as being an honest broker during the 30 years war involving many European countries and their rulers? The answer must be a resounding no.
In the end, a perpetual motion (pm) machine is defined as needing no external source of energy, which is ridiculous, but means that Bessler’s wheel was definitely not a pm device. He ascribed the source of energy to moving weights, enabled by gravitational force. This is possible provided the fallen weights can be returned using the actions of the other weights.
Bessler found the solution and so can we.
JC
