Breaking Down the Wall of Scepticism.

I have been immersed in Bessleriana for so long that I have become accustomed to the idea that it will only be a matter of time before we prove that Bessler was right and it is possible to extract energy from gravity.  Suddenly I realised I had got too used to the possibility and had forgotten what a bombshell that news would be should it come true!

The reminder came because I was rereading through Sir Isaac Newtons 'Quaestions' notebook the other day, and came across his brief comment about how perpetual motion might be possible if you could somehow shield half the wheel from the effects of gravity, when I sensed a subtext in his note. He wasn't suggesting that it was possible, what he was saying was that one way to achieve it would require the invention of a material which was utterly impossible.  In other words he was implying that it was impossible and you would have to invent an equally impossible method to achieve it. So even my attempt to vindicate my stance by suggesting that even Newton considered perpetual motion might be possible, was flawed!

But I do not accept that it is impossible, because I am completely persuaded otherwise by the huge amount of evidence in Bessler's work, but it does demonstrate very clearly the monumental task we have in trying to persuade anyone else of our conviction.  Newton has achieved an almost God-like status, and his work is taught world wide.  Other scientists of the era have also defined physical laws which still stand today, and every scientist, teacher and in fact anyone with even a little education knows that Bessler's wheel violates some law and is therefore inpossible, so how come we few are so convinced that we know better, that we are prepared to go against the tide and do all in our power to prove 99 percent of the world's population have got it wrong?

Call it instinct, intuition, a feeling, a hunch, a sixth sense, a gut feeling - whatever it is, it has been in the mind of man for thousands of years.  There was a magnetic wheel design in 8th Century Bavaria, and a design for another  perpetual motion machine by Indian mathematician–astronomer Bhaskara in 1159.  There are hints that they were being investigated as far back as the Sumerians, 5000 years ago. Somehow, we just know that it is possible to create a continuously turning wheel powered by weights, and therefore gravity.  In Bessler's day the possibility was discussed by the intellectuals but most of those who understood the argument were swayed by those who said it was in violation of certain physical laws which could not be argued with. The mere fact that it was so hotly debated suggests that the idea went against man's intuition.

The sceptic's argument was logical and those who espoused it were unable to find a concept which would allow such a device to work.  Phillipe de La Hire (1614-1718)  wrote that 'one would need to find a body that was both heavier and lighter at the same time', as equally daft an idea as Newton's gravity shield - and yet there is a certain truth in the statements.  La Hire's reflects Newton's idea too. Either the object changes weight or the effect of gravity on it varies; the end result is the same, the  amount of the perceived weight alters.

There is a scientific consensus that perpetual motion in an isolated system violates either the first law of thermodynamics, the second law of thermodynamics, or both.  The only question is this; is gravity an external force or not?  To me it is obviously external.  All physical bodies of mass are attracted to each other by the 'action at a distance' phenomenon hence the force must be external to the wheel - no question.  We can therefore dismiss the 'scientific consensus that perpetual motion in an isolated system violates either the first law of thermodynamics, the second law of thermodynamics, or both'. That consensus does not apply here, a gravity-powered wheel isn't an isolated system.

In the end, simulations, learned texts littered with illustrations, lectures - none of them will persuade the hard-liners; only a working model will convince them that after 300 years Johann Bessler's claims were justified.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’

Would Bessler's wheel be patentable?

This question seems to have surfaced again recently and despite reading a lot of patent advice I am uncertain if I can answer the question asked in the title of this blog. What follows is my take on the issue but it is quite possibly erroneous in some aspects, for which I apologise.

Let us assume for the sake of argument, that a means has been found to produce a continuously rotating wheel, driven only by the force of gravity.  This has nothing to do with Johann Bessler's work.  It seems safe to assume that this would be patentable, in the USA and many other countries.

However, suppose someone should come along and announce that the wheel in question is an exact copy of Bessler's wheel, and therefore it could not be patented.  This raises two questions, firstly so what? Bessler did not patent it so it's fair game for someone else to patent, and secondly how do we know it is an exact copy of Bessler's wheel; everyone knows that he did not reveal the secret of his wheel, so  we can never prove or disprove that as a fact.

The decision on the first point may depend on the outcome of the second point.  If it was proved that the new wheel did in fact copy Bessler's wheel exactly, would that negate the possibility of patenting it?  Personally I don't think it would, even if it was proved that it was exactly the same design as Bessler's.  Look at a patent today; it covers every possible alternative reading of an invention.  It tries to cover all eventualities because the patent lawyer knows that the opposition will read everything in the patent to try to find a chink which he can use towards a new patent application.  Bessler's clues leave the field wide open for similar patent applications

The fact that Bessler left sufficient clues to allow someone to reconstruct his wheel exactly would not, in my opinion, be enough to make any future patent application invalid.  The clues, such as they are, are so obscure as to allow the formation of numerous designs which 999 times out of every thousand will undoubtedly fail due to the fact that he wrote them deliberately obscurely to keep them secret, and as I said recently, I think they were only there to allow him to point to them post the sale of his wheel, to show how devious and clever he had been.

I am aware of only two people who believe that they have solved most of the clues and are close to achieving success, and expect a working device soon, either simulated or an actual build - myself and Ken.  Having said that, in illustration of the difficulties in deciphering these clues, both Ken and I have arrived at our widely differing solutions via completely different sets of clues.

I should also mention that there are others who also feel that they are making progress in the right direction although I'm not aware of any soon-to-be announced working models.

This blog raises one more point.  It has been said many times, that even if somebody succeeds in making the continuously-turning wheel there will be no way of knowing if Bessler's wheel resembled it in any way.  I would reject that argument utterly, my own design has borrowed extensively from Bessler's work and while I am unwilling to share anything until I have finished it, I am confident of success, but does that mean that Ken's wheel will fail?  I have no idea, but I have made mine without any springs and that he will see as a major error.  LOL

Finally, should any of us succeed and knowingly base it on the information Bessler left in his clues, would it be morally wrong to patent it without acknowledging Bessler's part?

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’

How will you choose a verifier of high repute?

Recent discussions on the Besslerwheel Forum have revealed a minor conundrum.  One member has assured us that his wheel works and as proof he will take a video of it running, albeit with covers over the sides to prevent us from seeing how it works.  As proof that the video is genuine he says that he will include other devices running at the same time. Leaving aside the question of trust, it seems to me that such a demonstration would prove pointless anyway.  If no one can see how the wheel works, how are they to judge it?  All that will be visible will be the speed and regularity (or not) of the spinning device. No matter how you try to prove the wheel is the genuine article there is no way to establish its validity unless someone can see it, understand how it works and vouch for it.

The question then arises, who might be the most suitable person to provide his assurance that the wheel is genuine?  It is critical that an independent examination is carried out by someone who has no personal interest in the demonstration and is seen to be impartial.  This rules out family connections, employment relations, patrons, friends, others with an interest in the device, potential buyers, financially interested people and the majority of members of the forum, including myself.  Obviously he would require expertise in the subject.

Johann Bessler had exactly the same problem.  He tried to prove the wheel did work as he claimed by demonstrating a number of tests that he and Gottfried Leibniz thought were compelling at least if not irrefutable.  He also sought the most reliable and trusted person possible, to validate his machine, a man of unblemished reputation and one held in the highest respect by other rulers and their subjects. Despite this, the modern world seeks to tarnish Karl the Landgrave of Hessen Kassel's reputation by casting doubt on his honour, trying, it seems to me, to find a chink in the armour of good solid, but circumstantial evidence in favour of Bessler's wheel.

At that time the most sensible suggestion was that another ruler hold a sum of money equal to the price Bessler demanded for his secret, in escrow pending the verification of the wheel.  An escrow is a deposit of funds, a deed or other instrument by one party for the delivery to another party upon completion of a particular condition or event.  That the suggestion failed was partly down to the chosen escrow holder taking offence at a related matter and partly down to the fact that Bessler did not trust anyone.

Even if the escrow arrangement had been accomplished, a reputable person would then have to be found who could verify or not the wheel's behaviour and then inform the escrow holder so that the money could have been handed over.  But one person of unimpeachable reputation had already given the wheel his seal of approval, Karl who insisted that he must verify Bessler's claims before agreeing to provide his patronage in the form of employment, room and board for Bessler and his family.

It seems to me that trying to do the same thing today would be just as fraught with difficulties as Bessler discovered. There will always be a feeling that some agreement has compromised the reliability of the verification.  There are however, some excellent forum members who I would trust absolutely, but perhaps like me, they would prefer not be involves in such an important role.

I should point out here, that I am completely against patenting the device because I think it's a waste of time and money.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Do we know, or are we Guessing, Speculating or do we have a Hunch about how Bessler's Wheels worked?

I sometimes wonder if Bessler had any qualms about publishing his Apologia Poetica and his Das Triumphans books.  Did he fear that he had provided clues that were too easy to decipher?  I know I am reluctant to give any hints about my current thinking for fear of giving anything away and I suspect most of us are of a similar mind.

However, I think he must have been pretty confident that the clues were too difficult to decipher otherwise he would never have published them.  But that raises the question are they too difficult for us too?  He must have thought that at some point people would work on his books in an effort to extract the original meaning he intended us to grasp; but that this should begin to happen three hundred years after his death was probably not something that occurred to him.

He published the books when he was at the height of his fame and confident that his wheel would be sold, in which case the books were just there to allow him to reveal that the clues had been there all along and only his own cleverness had kept them invisible.

I have been criticised in the past for publishing speculation without labelling it as such, thereby giving the impression that my speculations were factual. I hope I corrected that impression but I think there is a thin wall between what we think is fact, speculation, following a hunch and guessing.

Speculation is the consideration of some subject which leads to a conclusion or opinion reached by such contemplation. Often such speculations are impossible to verify, and one can say that it is the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.

Besides speculating, I have followed many hunches over the years most of which ended in a firm conviction that my hunch was wrong. Other hunches I chased have led me to believe they were correct or true, even though I did not have any proof.  Like all hunches these were based on a feeling or guess, based on intuition rather than fact.

Guessing combines elements of  hunches and speculation but is broader based.  For example you can guess the next roll of a dice but you can't speculate what it would be.  It won't be accurate at all because the dice has no memory of previous rolls, but you can speculate what the dice roll will be, based on, for example, looking at the statistical distribution of past rolls and so forth. But it just won't be very accurate.

So I think that speculation is an informed guess.   But a hunch is something extra; some unconscious conclusion about the way to the solution.  I often awaken in the night having had a sudden revelation about something I had been thinking about during the previous day or week.  Often it it proves unfounded in the cold light of dawn, on the other hand I have made some major discoveries which I was able to verify subsequently.

But some of the most interesting revelations have come to me as I was writing descriptions of my various discoveries. These have confirmed what I considered was hardly more than speculation at the time  and thus became facts.

So revelations can materialise out of the blue and I'm sure they stem from unconscious activity in a part of the brain which appears to be able to work unsupervised, independently and in a focussed way.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

The High Power Potential in Bessler's Wheel.

There seems to be a body of opinion among Bessler researchers that even when someone does eventually build a successful version of Bessler's wheel - a working wheel - that it will prove little more than a novelty item that will be of no practical use in today's world.

I have written of this before but I thought I'd try again to convince others that this opinion is not supported by the facts relating to the original wheels.

We know, for instance that three of the wheels rotated at speeds of up to 50 revolutions a minute.  We also know that the third wheel, as well as rotating at 40 rpm, also turned in either direction.  Added to that the fourth wheel turned at 26 rpm also in either direction.  Bessler also said that he could make the wheels turn slowly or quickly, lifting the same heavy weights.

So we have the knowledge that the wheels could be designed to run fast or slow, in one or both directions without loss of power or speed and yet all could lift at least the same weights, regardless of their outer dimensions.  This suggests that today we could design a wheel which ran faster than 50 rpm, in a larger scale and probably do so while coping with a much heavier load.

Electricity generators need to be able  to run at a certain speed and be able to deal with occasional heavy loads.   50 rpm does not seem fast enough but with appropriate gearing the right speed could be obtained.  Take wind turbines for example they turn at speeds of between 6 and 22 rpm. Their blade lengths vary - from 102 feet to 208 feet!  They produce between 1.3 MW of electricity to 3 MW and one produces 7.6 MW. and that's the biggest one. That one has its hub 443 feet above the ground! Even the smallest one's hub is 197 feet above the ground.

A megawatt (MW) is one million watts and a kilowatt (kW) is one thousand watts. Both terms are commonly used in the power business when describing generation or load consumption. For instance, a 100 MW rated wind farm is capable of producing 100 MW during peak winds, but will produce much less than its rated amount when winds are light. As a result of these varying wind speeds, over the course of a year a wind farm may only average 30 MW of power production. Similarly, a 1,000 MW coal plant may average 750 MW of production over the course of a year because the plant will shut down for maintenance from time-to-time and the plant operates at less than its rated capability when other power plants can produce power less expensively.

The amount of electricity consumed by a typical residential household varies dramatically by region of the country.  I found that in the USA, monthly consumption of electricity in residential homes varies on average from 610 kWh to 1151 kW each month, which takes account of areas using air-conditioning and others needing heating.  Roughly speaking, I'm told that one megawatt can power one thousand homes.

A large generator sufficient to supply all of the average home's need might need an out put of about 10,000 - 15,000 watts, at the most.  High fuel consumption would rule it out but not if the fuel was free as in gravity.  If 1 MW equals one million watts and the average residence requires one thousand watts per month we need a Besslerwheel generating one hundredth of the amount the smallest wind turbine can provide - and that is a theoretical figure as we saw above wind turbines only produce 30 percent of the potential power because of fluctuating wind speeds.

So given the enormous structures being built for the generation of electricity it seems to me to be perfectly possible to generate the same levels of power with Bessler's wheel with the latest technology but of far more compact proportions and with a considerably more appealing aspect and able to operate almost anywhere, unlike the wind turbines.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Bessler Wheel update, March 2015

On the besslerwheel forum, the enthusiasm, drive and ingenuity of the search for the solution to Bessler's wheel seems to have faded to a marked degree.  65 pages of thread titles and 5814 topics, 1663 users - and yet the most active topic is....'A working wheel is only days away!' with 2753 replies and not one millimetre of advance in almost two years of hot air, bluster and bragging.

The number of posts per month have dropped by at least 30 percent, from a peak in 2010. The same fall is reflected in the number of topics, down a similar amount over the same period.  The number of new users is way down too.  To what can we attribute this sad demise of a once fascinating and exciting field of research?  Well it isn't truly a new topic is it?  It seems to have occupied the mind of man, and not at all of woman, for at least three thousand years, and in all that time just one example of apparent success.

I say 'apparent' but it would be hard to ignore the overwhelming evidence that Johann Bessler succeeded...if only it wasn't for the fact that what he did is supposed to be impossible.  I think the birth of the internet spread the word about the legend of Bessler's wheel and attracted the attention of all sorts of people from all over the world, but that initial spurt of excitement and enthusiasm has kind of petered out, like an auto running out of gas.     The gas was the sudden spread of information about Bessler but that information is still out there and yet the car is about to stop.  There is some other factor having a braking effect and I think it is the result of too many people crying wolf, I don't exclude myself from this allegation and I understand all too well how it happens.

To succeed would be such an extraordinary achievement that each of us dreams of the esteem and approbation due to the inventor, and every so often a sudden revelation strikes one so hard with such conviction that it is almost impossible to restrain one's enthusiasm enough not to publicly announce success, even before a single mechanism has been put together.  In the course of our research most of us learn to restrain our enthusiastic urge to shout the news from the rooftops.

The other reason for the drop in new people coming to this subject is probably a result of the publicity it has garnered over the last few years and which has also inspired an even greater number of sceptics to air their own views to the detriment of the potential newcomer's intentions.  There is nothing like being the subject of scorn, derision, sarcasm and pity to put people off investing time in the subject.

I have to admit my own shortcomings at this point.  Although I have helped to spread the information about Bessler which I have gathered over many years, I'm aware that I have not revealed much of the designs I have worked on.  But I have endeavoured to put out as much information as I have been able to with regard to the encoded material Bessler left behind, but of course seeing the codes and even working out what some of them say, does not seem to advance us one tiny bit on our path to success.  So I promise that later this year I will publish all that I have found including the principle I discovered, even if my own wheel fails to materialise.  This will happen because of certain constraints upon my own situation which forces me to present my findings as soon as possible, with or without a working wheel.  It's nothing bad but I just need to get on with my research and present my findings while I am still (relatively) young!

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Bessler's Wheel and Inertial Propulsion Drive

Ever since I stumbled on the secret to Bessler's wheel, more than two years ago now, I have been trying turn it to my advantage, but knowing the basic concept and finding ways of using it are two different things.  Gradually, through trial and error and through occasional sudden revelations in connection with Bessler's clues, I think I am on the brink of success.  I noted down a brief description of the principle I discovered and jumbled up the letters and it has appeared under almost every blog since then.

I know there are many, probably 90 per cent, who think I'm suffering from premature perpetuation, (don't you just love that phrase!  I owe that one to Stewart of Besslerwheel forum fame.) but I am sure that when you know the principle you will share my enthusiasm.  The reason for this blog, is that I often get asked for more information on what I have discovered and I am hard put to reveal any of it in case I let slip too much information.  However there is a clue I can give albeit a vague one.

I am sure that this same principle will be available for another mechanical enigma which has entertained and puzzled us for many years.  I refer to the inertial thrust or propulsion engine, also known as reactionless drive.  I believe I'm right in saying that to date, no reactionless drive has ever been validated under properly controlled conditions.

The name derives from Newton's third law, which is usually expressed as, "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." The Gyroscopic Inertial Thruster amongst other proposed sensible concepts have been researched but so far without success.

Without giving too much away I am convinced that the principle I have found will also be a significant inclusion in the configuration of any successful inertial thruster.  This means that there may be a reactionless space drive for the future and of course there is potential for ground a sea transport too.

When you consider it, if Bessler's wheel worked as we all believe it did, then what ever mechanical arrangement inside it must be transferable to an Inertial Drive Engine because in order for it to work Bessler's wheel must have overcome Newton's third law:- "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Did Bessler use invisible ink?

Someone emailed me the other day suggesting that Johann Bessler might have used invisible ink either under his portrait, in Maschinen Tractate or even in Das Triumphirende or one of his other publications.  My first reaction was instant dismissal of the idea, but later I thought it might be interesting to investigate what was known about such things at that time just to see if it was even a possibility.

Surprisingly there is plenty of evidence that the subject was widely understood and used in particular by those in high office.  No lesser person than Mary Queen of Scots while in prison plotted to over throw Queen Elizabeth I and used invisible ink in her letters to her co-conspirators to convey her wishes.

The history of invisible ink goes back more than 2,000 years and was used by the ancient Greeks and Romans. The first record of it comes from Pliny the Elder in the first century AD, who mentioned using the milk of the tithymalus plant as an invisible ink in his Natural History. Invisible ink continued to be used during the Renaissance; statesmen used it in their letters, and Ovid references the practice in his Art of Love. Giovanni Battista della Porta, an Italian polymath, developed a formula for invisible ink.  Many others, including Roger Bacon and John Dee, were familiar with its use.

For our purposes one of the most interesting facts is that Prague was a hot bed of ciphers and codes and the constant ethnic tensions between the Jesuits and the Jews who lived there resulted in the need for secure communications between those on opposing sides who still wished to consult each other and invisible ink was a common method used.

Remember Bessler's account of his time in Prague when he conversed with the Jesuit priest:-

"You seem to be a clever, skilful and strong young fellow, and if you're interested we could join forces together with God, in the hope that He would let us make this discovery. Now as it happens, I know a wise man who, on proper reflection, could well help us, and it would be a good idea if you were to go to see him frequently, as it is no longer really fitting for me to do so, because I've been seen too often recently going into the Hebrew quarter, creeping to see some Rabbi or other. It doesn't take our Brothers long to sniff such a thing out! Since you and I seem to be at one in these matters I think you will be a perfectly satisfactory substitute for me on these journeys - we'll keep the whole thing a secret, shall we?"

It has always seemed to me that the two priests used Bessler for their own purposes besides helping him with his search for the secret of perpetual motion.  Later he wrote of the Rabbi:-

"He also taught me hieroglyphics, the language of Nature and the writings of the Angels."

Interestingly, in 1705 a mysterious female German alchemist seems to have been the first person to identify bismuth-cobalt as a valuable substance from which to make invisible ink. This alchemist was also the anonymous author of three books, including one with the alluring title 'On the Key to the Cabinet of the Secret Treasure Room of Nature', which included a discussion of the changing bismuth-cobalt colours.  That book title seems to ring closely with Bessler's 'language of nature', and given his extremely open and curious mind I am certain that Bessler was taught, or taught himself, the art of making and using invisible ink.

Given his obvious interest and extensive use of several different kinds of codes and his self-evident determination to provide many clues, some of which I know refer exclusively to the design of his wheel, it seems perfectly possible, after all, that he might have used invisible ink somewhere.

So it's not impossible that he might have written on some pages in invisible ink.  Unfortunately I no longer own an original manuscript by Bessler so any research into the possibility will have to be done by another.  I'm undecided about its use by Bessler, but I decided to fly a kite, to see if anyone thinks there might be something in this idea.

(To fly a kite, is a term used in politics in certain English-speaking countries to describe a tactic, whereby a politician, usually through the media and often by way of an intentional leak, raises an idea to gauge the general and public reaction to it.)

NB The mysterious female alchemist was thought to be Dorothea Juliana Walchin.  Her findings were supported by George Ernst Stahl (1659-1734) a well-known German chemist and physician.  I mention this because there was a lot of research being carried out at that time into the use of dies for writing, printing and painting - and invisible ink.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Bessler a Fraud? Prove it.

When our old friend Herman Helmholtz presented the original formulation of what is now known as the First Law of Thermodynamics, beginning with the axiomatic statement that a Perpetual Motion Machine is impossible, he was referring to the idea that a machine that had no external source of energy would run out fuel very quickly and stop.  Such a concept was and is obviously impossible. We, on the other hand, often, mistakenly in my opinion, use the words Perpetual Motion when referring to Bessler's machine, despite the very strong evidence that it acquired sufficient energy to run continuously as long as it was operating within a gravitational field - an external energy source and therefore not a Perpetual Motion machine as such as was discussed by Helmholtz.  He was describing a closed system.

This habit of calling Bessler's machine a perpetual motion machine is like putting our collective heads into the lion's mouth.  We are asking for our ideas to be shot down in flames, because as Helmholtz said, no one had ever invented such a machine therefore they must be impossible.  (Sorry about the mixed metaphors!)

That idea, that Perpetual Motion machines are against the laws of physics, has stayed with us, and it is a seemingly insurmountable wall that has included the Bessler type of machine.  For the purposes of this blog I shall refer to Helmholtz's Perpetual Motion as PM and Bessler's  as PM+G. In other words 'Perpetual Motion with the aid of Gravity'.  I came to this conclusion while trying to understand why everyone else on the planet knew with utter certainty that Bessler was a fraud.

Since Bessler's day people from all over the world have strived to duplicate his wheel, so far without success; and yet there are still only two reasons given why the claims must be false; one is that such machines break the laws of physics, and secondly, that if such a device were possible someone would have invented it.  To put it another way, PM machines must be impossible otherwise someone would have invented one already. Both points originated from Herman Helmholtz, almost 200 years ago. This reasoning is irrelevant if you accept that Bessler did indeed invent a PM+G machine.  That one fact destroys the second point, but only if you are talking about Helmholtz's PM machine.  The fact that Bessler succeeded obviously means that his machine did not break any physical laws.

Space prevents me from rehearsing the reasons why many people now believe that Bessler's claims were genuine and that he did invent a machine which ran continuously with no obvious external supply of energy. If people wish I can briefly go through them in a future blog, but all the information is out there especially on the besslerwheel forum, which you can find at http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/index.php There is more than enough evidence to show that he discovered a way of using falling weights in his wheel, therefore he used the force of gravity to drive his machine.

We are all aware of the many experiment carried out over the last 300 years to try to find the source of energy he used, on the assumption that there must have been some external energy supply, and yet not one single source has been found which would supply enough energy to duplicate the output of his machines.  It is quite clear that it was gravity and not one of the other more unconvincing sources suggested.  In which case if we assume that Bessler was honest it must be possible to make use of gravity without breaking the laws of physics.

There is no good reason why gravity may not be so used, and the idea - the premise - that gravity cannot be so used is wrong,  It is said that 'if the premise is true, then the conclusion must be true', but the reverse is also true, if the premise is wrong then the conclusion must be wrong.  When Helmholtz stated that PM machines were impossible, he was right, but he was not suggesting gravity driven machines were impossible, he wasn't even discussing them. 

The whole house of cards was started, even before Bessler's time, because no-one understood the force of gravity, and any and everything which suggested that something was a perpetual motion machine was lumped together with the PM+G machines as well as the more obvious PM machines whose secret of construction were still being sought despite the obvious fallacy in their design concept.  Despite my many attempts to reprogram people's thinking, the impossibility of PM+G is still lumped to together with PM and, as Mike Wech wrote,'Some things in life become ingrained in your psyche. You can't shake them no matter how hard you try. They're tattooed inside your skull, lying dormant, 'til the moment you need to draw from them.'

Knowing this I am absolutely certain that the sceptics will not accept this possibility until someone produces a working model demonstrating the use of gravity as a fuel and probably not even then.

However I don't see why we should do nothing about their demands - we are doing our best to prove Bessler's claim - so I say, if they are so sure that Bessler was a fraud, why don't they duplicate his wheels and the tests they underwent, but using only the materials and technology that was available then? They cannot use gravity because they say its impossible, but surely someone could have managed to build a fraudulent version in the last 300 years, if his was a fake - and if it was possible? 

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.