There seems to be a problem. Some people, myself included, believe that Bessler's wheel required the presence of gravity to work and have, somewhat confusingly suggested that it was a gravity-wheel. But the consensus is that gravity cannot be a energy source for the wheel. Bessler seemed to suggest that it was, so someone is wrong. Gravity is still not completely understood. We can describe what it does and how it effects us and from this we have, historically, deduced that it cannot be an energy source.
However, you can read what you like into Bessler's words but for me there is one clear message, gravity was an essential ingredient for the rotation of his wheel, or to put it another way, without it, he had nothing. He also stated, in my opinion, quite clearly that no other force was required to turn his wheel - other than an imbalance he generated with his moving weights. So how can we reconcile this with the belief that gravity cannot be an energy source?
I have often used an analogy which likens the wind to gravity and despite stressing that I was only applying the analogy to the actual interface between the wind and a windmill, and the force of gravity and some weights, many have pointed out the reason for the wind can be traced back to the sun's effect on earth. The energy source was not relevant to the analogy. The same reasoning applied to my analogy to a stream of water; again I only pointed to the actual interface between a stream of water and a propeller screw but again the source of the stream was offered to refute the analogy. Those who are aware of the late Eric Laithwaite (Gyroscopes and linear motor) will probably recall his employment of analogies in order to understand things in a more coherent way. I use them a lot to try to get to the heart of the problem. My point was that a force or stream or thrust was applied to rotatable surface when it was completely submerged within that force, stream or thrust and yet in all three cases the force was a conservative (or continuous) one and therefore apparently inaccessible as an energy source.
Curiously I realised belatedly, that the wind and gravity move in opposite directions. The wind moves because the air molecules of which it is composed tend to move from higher pressure areas to lower ones. One can conclude that the higher pressure areas contain more tightly packed molecules seeking a lower pressure where they can expand because they have become warmer. Gravity on the other hand, causes mass which is also composed of molecules, to be attracted to other larger and denser masses and the larger the mass the more powerful the attraction. One could assume that the larger the mass the more condensed the molecules might become and they respond to what Newton 'call action at a distance' and are driven to join the larger masses to add to their overall density. and to the strength of the attraction.
So wind molecules seek lower pressure and under gravity mass molecules seek higher pressure. But the mechanics that causes objects of mass to move towards each other, and towards larger ones, is invisible to us. Magnetism is only discerned with the naked eye with, for example, the iron filings demonstration. Gravity too cannot be seen but its actions are obvious. The moving molecules in the wind only react to pressure changes.. Pressure changes occur when there is warmer air present, due to the sun's heat. Warm air rises because it is less dense than colder air and since both are effected by gravity, the warmer air rises above the colder air where it can expand.
The actual substance (for want of a better word) which acts at a distance to attract objects of mass, is not the source of energy and I have never thought that it was. No, it is the action of the weights when moved by gravity which in my opinion can provide the energy to turn the wheel. Gravity is merely the enabler in the same way that the pressure variations in the air, which cannot of themselves provide energy, do cause the wind to blow and it is the resultant wind which provides the energy to turn the windmill.
JC
