Gravitywheel - Catch 22?

I note recent comments suggesting that all designs should be shared, so others can study them and build and experiment with them.  I have promised to share mine if the wheel works or fails, but in my experience designs are dismissed by the majority and maintaining that you are right only leads to calls for a proof of principle wheel - is that a catch 22 situation?  Design is ignored without a PoP model but you can't build a PoP model unless you have the correct design.

The definition of catch 22 in the book of that name (Joseph McLennan) is "a situation in which a person is frustrated by a paradoxical rule or set of circumstances that preclude any attempt to escape from them".  

Now that has a familiar ring to it.  Our situation requires us to build a wheel which uses the force of gravity to move a number of weights causing a wheel to rotate continuously.  Unfortunately we are frustrated by the paradoxical rules which say that what we wish to achieve is impossible, even though it has been done before.

"Begging the question" is a type of logical fallacy in which a proposition is made that uses its own premise as proof of the proposition. In other words, it is a statement that refers to its own assertion to prove the assertion.  I think it was Helmholtz who said that perpetual motion machines must be impossible because  no-one had ever succeeded in building one that worked. Therefore, such machines must be impossible. If they are impossible it must be by reason of some natural law preventing their construction. This law, he said, could only be the law of Conservation of Energy.  That is also, ironically, a circular argument.

JC

'I found the solution where every other intelligent person looked.'

The Third clue expanded upon.

Bessler said in Apologia Poetica, "These foolish ravings of my enemies will be held up to total ridicule by all intelligent people, who, with true understanding, have sought the Mobile in a place no different from that in which I eventually found it."

I would paraphrase the above and reduce it, as 'the words of my enemies will be ridiculed by all clever people who have already looked for the solution where I found it.'  Or to put it another way, 'I found the solution where every other intelligent person looked.'

I described this a clue, but it seems almost no clue at all, it is so innocuously presented.  Bessler must have had a piece of information in mind when he wrote the sentence, so what would he have found useful for his wheel in the previous designs which had never worked?  What possible feature might he have been able to take advantage of?  The most obvious fact is that the wheels did not rotate. Regardless of how the weights were arranged and could move, the wheels remained stationary.  How might he have found the answer with that knowledge?

JC 

Gravity, gravity - all you need is gravity!

This isn't really a clue, it's just common sense.

If you are one of those who, like myself, believe that Bessler told the truth then you will know that what follows is demonstrably true.  Whether you include two, three, four or five weights or more, on your overbalancing wheel you will have discovered that it still ends up with the wheel in perfect balance, stationary.  When the wheel comes to rest it will have either a single weight at six o’clock, or a pair of weights on either side of six o’clock.  That is a fact.

The problem lies in the design.  If it requires that gravity makes the weight move from the inner orbit to the outer orbit, thus inducing overbalancing and limited rotation, the wheel will come to a stop after a brief rotation.  If you want to make an overbalancing wheel spin continuously, then yes, you must  arrange for the weight to fall into an outer orbit on one side of the wheel... then you have to find a way to lift each weight back up to its original position at least once during each rotation so that it can fall again.  You don't have a choice. It simply won’t work if you design it so that the weights only move outwards, under the influence of gravity, as the wheel turns.  It is not enough to think that the fallen weight will be raised as the wheel turns and somehow fall inwards again at some point. You need an additional force to lift the weight, or move it back inwards again - Bessler didn't exactly say so, but he implied that that additional force was also gravity too - but a separate packet of it.

JC

One bit of work done by gravity, is one packet of energy used.

I have been asked to clarify what I mean by the phrase, 'a packet of energy' used on my website at http://www.besslerswheel.com/html/conservative_force.html

If I drop a book on the floor I say that its fall has consumed one packet of  gravitational energy.  If I drop two books on the floor at the same time there will still be only one packet of energy used, but if the two books drop one after the other then two packets of energy have been used.  If a very heavy dictionary and small pocket diary fall at the same time only one packet of energy has been used.  So the number of packets of energy used depends purely on whether they happened to fall  together or separately.

If I drop a bag of billiard balls on the floor, I can calculate how much energy was used by weighing the bag of balls and measuring how far they fell -  weight times vertical fall gives us a figure indicating the work done by gravity.  I could also weigh the bag and each ball separately and work out how much work was done for each item.  If I then added those figures together the resulting total would be the same as for the bag of balls. So it doesn’t matter how far they fell or how heavy they were - all we are interested in knowing is whether they fell together or separately and that is why I call the amount of work done by gravity, a packet of energy consumed.

The reason I use this phrase is to try to explain how one half of a pair of weights can move the other half without coming into conflict with the conservative nature of gravity. Their falls do not happen at the same time and therefore their new positions can be used advantageously to rotate the wheel.!

I realize of course that this phrase is normally used in connection with photons or gravitons but in this instance there is no direct connection with that concept.

JC