A Vicious Circle and a Virtuous Circle.

Someone commented that using Bessler’s wheel to generate electricity was a medieval method and once the wheel’s concept was understood it could be applied for use with other forces such as gravity.  It made me think about other methods we use today which still relate to an origin first invented in years gone by.

Waterwheels have been used for at least 2500 years and although they are slowly going out of use their basic function to supply energy in some form or other is still being investigated in different ways, for instance tapping tidal energy.

Windmills too, are of ancient lineage, at least 2000 years of age, with similar uses, grinding corn etc. Again they’ve been adapted to produce giant electricity generators but with several disadvantages but they do provide electricity as long as the wind blows, and not too hard!

Steam engines are a relatively new invention, although  their first reference goes back 2000 years to Hero of Alexandria.  But we still use a derivative of the steam engine in our giant electricity generating turbines, most of which still depend on steam to power their mechanical rotation.

Finally there are the weight-driven clocks - not, of course, continuous motion in the way the earlier examples work, but similar in some ways.  The first examples at the beginning of this post all depend upon a supply of energy of some kind.  That energy reveals itself in action, moving water, pressurised steam from heated water,  or wind blowing over the sails of a windmill.

But is there an origin either in history or nature, as there is for the above examples, in Bessler’s wheel? Actually all of them rely on a constant supply of energy and despite what we have been taught so does Bessler’s wheel.  This is usually where we part company with mainstream ideology!

Remember that we are taught that perpetual motion machines were declared axiomatically impossible by Hermann von Helmholtz in 1847, because, he declared, no one had ever built one!  An axiom is a statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.  Only Helmholtz did not accept the validity of Bessler’s wheel otherwise the axiom would be demonstrably false.

Most of the above examples obtain their energy from something already in motion and simply draw their energy needs from it.  Wind and water; Bessler’s wheel drew its energy from something in motion too.....weights, falling weights responding to gravity.

I think that no PM machine has revealed itself, other than Bessler’s, because these other kinds of machine were available and more obviously capable of being designed to make use of whatever medium the builders had in mind.  Bessler said that the reason he was successful was that he devoted so much more time and effort in finding the correct principle than anyone else had ever been able do.

Helmholtz  declared that  Perpetual Motion machine’s were impossible because no one  had ever built one.  This is a perfect example of circuitous reasoning and perhaps a literary example of perpetual motion.

Question  - why has no one ever built a perpetual motion machine?

Answer- because Helmholtz says they’re impossible.

Question - why are they impossible?

Answer - because no one has ever built one.

Repeat ad infinitum!

The terms virtuous circle and vicious circle refer to complex chains of events that reinforce themselves through a feedback loop. A virtuous circle has favorable results, while a vicious circle has detrimental results. Bessler's wheel demonstrated a virtuous circle.

JC

Alternative Benefits from Bessler's Wheel?

If Bessler’s wheel should finally materialise and is shown to work due to the effect of gravity on some moveable weights, then we can make a provisional assumption that it might be possible to apply a similar configuration to other conservative forces.

Many here have expressed the opinion that once built Bessler’s wheel would be weak and of limited use.  In my opinion they are wrong and there will be many uses, particularly in third world countries for basic energy generation, irrigation, refrigeration etc.

There is also the potential to creat a reverse system based on the concept behind Bessler's wheel in which a drive is fitted to the reverse design to produce inertial thrust in a particular direction.  There is potential in such a scheme for boats and even space travel. etc.  But there is one more area of science which I think may hold even more potential.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology lead the field in nano energy research.  This complex subject is full of potential uses for nano engineering, but my knowledge is very limited. This quote from an acquaitence at my local university, “Nanotechnology involves the creation and/or manipulation of materials at the nanometre (nm) scale. One nanometre is 10-9 m or one millionth of a millimetre. Nanotechnology is essentially ‘engineering at a very small scale’, and this term can be applied to many areas of research and development – from medicine to manufacturing to computing, and even to textiles and cosmetics”.  Fortunately,  I was talking to someone who used to be a good friend of Mike Senior,  a couple of days ago about my work with Johann Bessler.  This guy is a Professor at Warwick university and it was his idea that if we could prove that Bessler’s wheel worked there were numerous potential applications within the field of nanotechnology.

You can get an idea of the ongoing research by looking at this page

http://www.understandingnano.com/nanotechnology-energy.html

The author lists a number of developments currently being researched and my contact at Warwick University suggested that nano-engineering could make use of the design concept used in Bessler’s wheel.

I cannot confirm or deny the potential but I thought it worth mentioning.  There are people here with far more knowledge and greater intellectual abilities than I have, so I hope perhaps they might comment more knowledgeably than I could?

NB These additional links provided by arktod 1001.

https://imgur.com/a/9Jpin

http://vixra.org/pdf/1512.0276v1.pdf

http://vixra.org/pdf/1404.0097v1.pdf

JC

Simulate or Fabricate?

I moved house two years ago and took the opportunity to throw out most of my old bits and pieces of wheel experiments.  I had hoarded them thinking that I might want to go back at some point to revisit an earlier idea.  But then I realised that after almost 40 years of fabrication I had progressed to the point where I knew instinctively what would or wouldn’t be useful in a new design.  So I bought in new material and once I had my workshop up and running, earlier this year, I set to with renewed enthusiasm to build my latesy version of Bessler's wheel..

And that is my point; I have tinkered with simulations from time to time but have never had the same feedback that I get from actually handling the piecwes, and have dismissed them as a waste of time. Making parts, manipulating them, finding that sometimes they don’t work as you expected, or discovering new movements in the process, or  they inspire new thoughts and designs - you cannot beat actually building the wheels.  It generates enthusiasm for new designs - well it does for me.  BTW, I cannot imagine anyone who is not an incurable optimist ever solving this puzzle.  You need a 100 per cent positive attitude to find the answer.

The design I’m building has been more or less complete in my mind for a couple of years and I am sure that it would be difficult to build a simulation so an actual build is the best thing and anyway you would need to build it eventually just to prove you were right.  Maybe the simulation might indicate that it would not work because of some simple error in the input or the settings.

I’ve seen any number of comments about problems with a simulation and I simply don’t trust them. I’m sure that an expensive simulation software could predict the correct solution, but these off-the-shelf versions seem to me to be full of glitches and are not to be trusted.

Returning to my own build, I set out the design parameters and copied them onto the backboard (the wooden disc which will hold all the parts) and drilled the necessary holes in exactly the right places. I fitted the levers on their swivel posts.  The levers were precisely the correct length.....but when I manually rotated them, two of them touched two adjoining levers, interfering with their actions. Admittedly space was tight and I could have planned for them to have more room, but it is surprising how hard you try for extreme accuracy you can still overlook some small discrepancy in the position of for instance a swivel post.

In fact the accuracy of the positioning of the posts is not vital to success.  A millimetre in any direction would not affect the viability of the design.  So I drilled two new holes and corrected the problem.

It has been often stated that there is only one design that will work,  but is this true? I ask this for two reasons, firstly Bessler said he had several designs which would work, and secondly I am aware of at least one design which apparently works. I have seen the design on paper and I cannot say for sure if it will work, but it seems that a working model was made.  What I can say is that this design is different to mine and I do know that my design is the same as the one Bessler intended to pass on to us. This suggests that there is more than one way to use gravity as an enabler of continuous rotation.

I can see from my own design that it looks possible to create the same effect usng differenr mechanism designs.

So my preference is definitely for fabrication but I know many people swear by simulations and animations. 

JC

Challenging the Belief that it is Not Possible to Obtain Energy from Gravity

In my last post I commented that gravity might not be an energy source, just as we have been taught and continue to be so - but many years ago I came to the conclusion that this must be wrong.  My reasons for this are briefly discussed below.

If we believe (as I do) that Bessler told the truth then his implication that gravity provided the sole means of energy for his wheel means that gravity can be used as the ultimate source of energy for the wheel, even though we have been taught that this is impossible.  Please read on for my explanation.

The many tests and demonstrations the wheel underwent, all indicate that what Bessler said was true, and since he did not dare to cheat because being found cheating could lead to execution by the axeman, we have to accept his assurances.  In support of this we have the word of a knowledgeable man, Karl the Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel, known for his absolute integrity, that the machine was genuine because he had studied the interior.

Dismissing these points means that it is unlikely that anyone will ever find the solution to Bessler's wheel, despite the fact that we know it worked.

Apologies for briefly going back to basics.  In the case of a conservative force the total work done in moving a particle between two points is independent of the taken path. When an object moves from one location to another, the force changes the potential energy of the object by an amount that does not depend on the path taken.

In other words, in the case of gravity, if something is dropped it loses the potential energy it had at a higher point.  But we can restore it by lifting the object dropped, back up to its higher point

In the case of a non-conservative force the energy that it removes from the system is no longer available to the system for kinetic energy.

So our problem lies in finding a way to lift the fallen weight back up without using any additional forces other than gravity.

This is said to be impossible because the energy expended in dropping the weight has to be found in order to lift it back up again, but the energy has already been spent so there is no way to use gravity to lift it back up again - even though gravity is a continuous force, and a non-conservaive force could not drive a wheel of continuous rotation. Therefore it has to be a conservative force driving Bessler's wheel.

I have suggested the following argument countless times and people still don't get it.  The interface between gravity and Bessler's wheel is the weights.  Gravity makes the weights fall, and the weights make the wheel turn.

Interfaces play a major part in all types of motion. Wind and sails, steam and piston, flowing water and waterwheels, etc.  In each case an energy source provides the impetus and the interfaces react to provide motion.  So it is with gravity, it provides the force and the weights react to it.

Returning to my point about Bessler's wheel and not looking for an additional source of energy, everyone has been looking for this mysterious energy source that has been  suggested, for many years.  They have been unsuccessful because no such other source exists and neither is it necessary.  Steam, ambient temperature changes, bellows, live animals have all been suggested but nothing has been able demonstrate a similar power output which Bessler's wheel did relying purely on gravity

Therefore we must assume  that there was no other force used, and that leads us to the only possioble conclusion, Bessler found a way to use gravity alone to drive his machine, and that leads us to the final conclusion and it is this;

There is a way to configure the weights so that they respond to the effect of gravity by creating an permanent excess weight on the downwards side of the axle.  In confirmation of this, even when the wheel is stopped the overbalancing effect is still in operation and only the brake prevents the wheel from turning.  This overbalancing is produced automatically as soon as either a weight falls, or a weight has already fallen.  No other scenario can explain this feature of the wheel.

We can calculate the work done by gravity in making a weight fall by multiplying the mass of the weight times the distance it falls vertically, so at least we are allowed to assume gravity does do work!  The assumption that we cannot use gravity as an energy source relies totally on empiricism, a definition of which is, 'by means of observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic,'   In other words the conclusion that gravity cannot be an energy source relies not so much on theory and logic as by observation.  In other words no one has even been able to configure the weights to make wheel rotate continuously therefore it must be impossible.

If you are still reluctant to accept the premise that gravity is a source of energy consider the following. British clockmaker William Clement produced the first longcase clocks around 1680. It could run for a week without having the weights raised to restart the clock.  That's a week of gravity power.  But now consider this.

The Clock of the Long Now, also called the 10,000-year clock, is a mechanical clock under construction, that is designed to keep time for 10,000 years. The project to build it is part of the Long Now Foundation.

https://www.wired.com/2011/06/10000-year-clock/ 

The project was conceived by Danny Hillis in 1986. The first prototype of the clock began working on December 31, 1999, just in time to display the transition to the year 2000. At midnight on New Year's Eve, the date indicator changed from 01999 to 02000, and the chime struck twice. The two-meter prototype is on display at the Science Museum in London.

As of June 2018 , two more recent prototypes are on display at The Long Now Museum & Store at Fort Mason Center in San Francisco.

The manufacture and site construction of the first full-scale prototype clock is being funded by Jeff Bezos' Bezos Expeditions, founder of Amazon, with $42 million, and is on land which Bezos owns in Texas.

A clock designed to run for 10,000 years purely on the force of gravity.  Do you still think gravity is not a source of energy?

JC

Are There Any More Doubting Lions Roaring Around?

I borrowed the title of today's blog from Bessler's own words challenging those who disbelieved him to come and sit by his machine as it revolved.

I note that the the old familiar doubt about the truth of Bessler's claims has reared its ugly head again, on the Bessler wheel forum.

I published my book about Johann Bessler in 1996, and I thought I did a pretty good job of providing as much evidence as possible about Bessler and his machine and the tests, and the witness reports, and the letters about him, to him and by him.  I wrote and published the book because I was convinced of his sincerity about his machine.  Not only was the evidence convincing but you could feel the sncerity in the pain and anguish he suffered and emoted in detail in Apologia Poetica.  In my opinion no scam artist could write with such evident sincerity about his feelings about the rejection of his machine.

So when I read that someone who is relatively new to the forum keeps repeating the mantra, "if Bessler was telling the truth," or "perhaps Bessler lied,"  and often misquotes incorrectly passages from the book and all manner of untruths and half truths, I'm tempted to stop trying to persuade people of Bessler's ingenious machine and how much benefit it could bring to the planet earth in these difficult times. Why can't people only their write their ideas once they are in possession of the correct facts?

But in fairness to all those who aren't as familiar with the legend of Bessler's wheel as I am, I admit that over 300 years of schools and universities hammering the facts that perpetual motion machines are impossible and gravity cannot be used as Bessler seems to imply, is a paradigm that is going to take more than an ancient retired engineer (me!) berating them from a small insignificant blog, to persuade them that they are wrong.

There does seem to be the perennial question over the role of gravity in Bessler's wheel. Over the years I have come to accept that gravity itself cannot be regarded as a source of energy and the nuances of the connection between gravity itself and the force that drove Bessler's wheel are subtle and hard to explain, but this is my opinion.

Bessler implied that gravity was the source of energy but he did not say so explicitly.  He simply said that it was the excess weight, or extra heaviness on one side of the wheel that caused the wheel to overbalance, but we and thousands like us have been working on that theory for hundreds, perhaps thousands of years.  He did not use the word 'gravity' because that word was coined almost accidentally by Sir Isaac Newton when he used it in his famous book, Principia' and in Besslers day that was largely unread by anyone other than the top philosophers of the day.  Newton's book was written in Latin, the universal language of learning, and he used the word 'gravity' as the Latin for 'heaviness' to describe this force we all call ‘gravity’ now.  But in Bessler's day they use words such as preponderance which can  mean superiority in weight or significance. This meaning relates to the word's Latin roots in the word praeponderare, which means "outweigh."  So looking for the word ‘gravity’ in Bessler’s papers will result in none being found.

Why have our teachers told us it is impossible?    Because gravity is a conservative force and the energy expended in causing a weight to fall exactly equals that  available to raise it again, and only then if you omit the energy used to overcome friction.

A weight can fall through any path, straight down or around in a curve, all that matters is the straight line vertical distance traveled.  These two factors mean a weight would have to fall in a closed loop, zero energy would be used, which would be impossible.  The assumption is that this rules out any chance of a weight driven wheel. working.

But they deny that it is possible to configure the movement of the weights to create a variation which would break open the closed loop making an asymmetrical loop.  If you study the argument if depends upon the motion of one weight around a circle, but we have always attempted to find a way to include various movements of each weight during its path around the circle in an attempt to create a variation on the closed loop which would achieve continuous rotation.  BTW note my preference of the phrase 'continuous motion' or 'continuous rotation' rather than 'perpetual motion', I just think its more accurate and less inflammatory.

NB I forgot to say that even though gravity is a conservative force and isn't a source of energy, the transfer of energy from the force of gravity to the weights is undeniable because it is this transference which enables the weights to fall.

My own wheel has been designed with a break in its closed loop which provides for a variable between each side of the centre of rotation and I am confident will lead to continuous rotation, but I didn't think of it myself, but was only able to work it out with Bessler's help!

Anyway whatever the result, work continues albeit slowly to the grand or not so grand finale.

JC 

My Hopes and Intentions for the Summer of 2018.

I have been planning to publish a video of a working Bessler wheel for a couple of years, (I haven’t got a working one yet!) ever since I found what I believe to be the true design or concept which formed the basis of the device.  I also intended to publish an explanation and demonstration of the details of the extensive range of clues which I uncovered.  These plans have been largely on hold for most of the last two years, firstly due to our decision to move house to a smaller property, which unfortunately lacked a workshop, and latterly to a string of random but serious illnesses within our family that required our presence almost daily.

Our circumstances are improving and I have managed to create a small working area in a somewhat reduced garage space and begun construction of the machine which I hope to have finished within a few weeks.  If in the end, the machine I have built does not work, as I freely admit, is a possibility, I shall immediately publish details of the discoveries I’ve made including the design of my wheel.

My hope is that someone will take my information forward and succeed where I failed, but of course I don’t think I will fail!

Once this machine is up and running no one will be able to deny that gravity may be the cause of the rotation if not the source of energy driving it.  I shall look forward to seeing the numerous red faces among those many people who scorned my determination to prove Bessler’s claims were genuine and who dismissed my suggestions; one called me a snake oil salesman (had to look that one up!) and  others just regarded me as a fool.  One thing in this field of research, you do acquire a thick skin!

So many ‘experts’ derided the subject of my book about Bessler, dismissing all the evidence as either contrived, misread or blatantly exaggerated.  Any discussions about the book began with the basic premise that such a machine as Bessler described is axiomatically impossible and therefore Bessler must have been lying. 

This has been the whole problem right from when Bessler himself tried to convince the authorities that his wheel was a perpetual motion machine as it was known then.  Yet here we are 306 years later and the position is exactly the same; prove it by revealing the workings or shut up and go away!  Fortunately I decided many years ago not to take the patent route for several reasons, so I shall be happy to reveal how it works......when it does (or doesn't!)

JC

Bessler the man versus his achievements.

When I began to publish information about Johann Bessler, I stuck strictly to the facts as I knew them then, so I included Bessler’s own comments about his life and feelings and emotions.  I also described the reactions of other people, not just their reactions to his claims, but as well, their impressions of Bessler the man.  These were important details to include, but to me, the most important facts were those relating to his wheels; the descriptions of them and the tests they were required to undergo; were the tests exhaustive, sufficient and carried out as well as possible given the times they lived in?

I believe they were as good as could be expected, given that Bessler did not wish to divulge the design concept.  He also had the benefit of Gottfried Leibniz's advice on the kind of tests he should arrange.  The tests do, in my opinion, provide the strongest evidence that Bessler’s claims to have discovered the secret of a machine which showed continuous rotation enabled by gravity.  They were absolutely genuine.

It does seem to me that some people on the forum are only now studying the mind of the man, rather than his works, to find fault with everything about him.  They suggest thst he was a showman, a conman, he told lies etc.  Those things are true but do not negate the other evidence.  We have no conception of how people survived in those days, there were no state handouts, no where to go for help and a man had to live on his wits just to find food and accommodation.  Once he had successfully completed the first part of his burning mission in life; to find the solution to perpetual motion; Bessler set about finding a way to publicise it.  His previous actions however morally dubious, do not necessarily mean that everything about him was unprincipled - he did what he had to do to survive.

So when discussions are taking place about the mind of the Bessler please make allowances for the times he lived in, his limited education and Leibniz’s opinion of him.  Leibniz was one of the cleverest and most accomplished men of the time and he called Bessler his friend and asked for people to make allowances for his manners as he had not been brought up to accomodate the correct etiquette of those far off days.

History  is full of accomplished scientists, inventors, authors and painters, whose works are widely admired, but most of whom had the usual human weaknesses.  Many showed personality disorders such as paranoia, dramatic, overly emotional or unpredictable thinking or behavior and manipulative, exploitative interactions with others.  But they were still admired for their accomplishments and Johann Bessler too, will be admires for his determination to find the solution to Perpetual Motion, once his machine has been proven.

JC

Precautions Against Loss of Information

Recently someone asked me if I had made provision for the publication of my discoveries about Bessler’s wheel, in the event of my early demise.  I gave the question some thought and began to appreciate the difficulties in making such an arrangement.  Creating the document is the easy part.  Publishing it is easy to, if you have somewhere in mind; I considered BWF and this blog.

The difficult bit is asking someone to publish it according to the instructions with the document, at a time when they care least about such a trivial matter, and probably wouldn’t have an idea about how to go about it.  One could of course consign the completed document to a trusted friend and ask him to publish it, but how would he know you had passed away?

It seems obvious that news of my death might percolate around this little community eventually but my recent experience says no.  Mike Senior, my friend who translated every word of Grundlicher Bericht, Apologia Poetica, Das Triumphirende and Maschinen Tractate; not mention the hundreds of letters to German libraries, museum, record centres etc, translating my words into German and their’s back into English for me to read, died  eighteen months ago and I didn’t find out for six months.  I only found out when I did a search of the death notices in the local newspaper.  I thought he was in and out of hospital for hip replacement so at his request did not visit him.

Yesterday I heard news of another friend who was about to make me famous or infamous!  Nick Turnbull died a year ago from cancer. Nick was a firmer TV producer for a Granada Television.  He was also a director, author publisher and TV pundit.  He had interviewed me at length twice and was in the process of putting a pilot of the propose film forward at an international film festival.  The film was provisionally called "Believing in Bessler"; he warned me that competition was stiff and not expect too much, but when I didn’t hear from him for several months I tried to contact him several times, but no luck.  It was a chance meeting with a mutual friend that led to my discovery of his death.

So you see my point?  There are legal ways of having the process arranged but I can’t be bothered going that route, but doubtless I shall think of something.  These deaths do make one aware of the transitory nature of our existence.  I’m 73 and feeling in pretty good health, but you never know what’s around the corner.  It makes me realise that I’d better stop procrastinating and get on and finish my wheel!

Bessler found a way to publish after his death; unfortunately he made it too difficult to interpret his information.  I think I'm there but until that blasted wheel materialises its still just empty words.

JC

Karl, the Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel, Found Bessler’s Wheel was Easy to Understand.

When I began my biography about Johann Bessler, I had already completed several years research into his life, acquiring many documents, as well as much additional information from historic records, and I decided to publish everything I had found, concentrating on evidence provided by Bessler himself, and as much as possible from witnesses.  I hoped to provide enough of an incentive to persuade others to seek Bessler's solution.

I believe that Bessler fully intended to sell his machine if at all possible, but he seemed right from the beginning, to think that he might have to accept post humous acceptance, which is why he left as an alternative enough clues so that some one later, after his death, could still discover his secret.  To that end I was certain that Bessler would not have included any lies about his machine although he definitely wrote ambiguously at times.  Lies could be challenged by a purchaser of the wheel, after the event, and Bessler sought acceptance to higher social circles, through the sale of his machine. Lies, would not help either in the sale nor its aftermath.

As for the evidence of the eye witnesses, obviously they could not see inside the machine but they did their best to provide descriptions as accurately as possible.

It has therefore puzzled me from time to time to see many valiant, determined efforts to replicate Bessler's wheel, while undoubtedly making erroneous assumptions or just discounting some evidence that we can assume was accurate, in order to complete their designs as they saw them, or according to their pet theories.

I refer, for instance, to the frequent declaration that Bessler's wheel had eight weighs.  Where did this figure come from?  There is the letter to Sir Isaac Newton in which Fischer von Erlach describes the "sound of about eight weights landing on the side towards which the wheel turned". But this refers to the Kassel wheel, capable of turning in either direction and requiring a gentle push in either direction to start rotating, and which gradulally accelerated to full speed.  Fischer spent at least two hours with the wheel and could only say that there were about eight weights.  We can only speculate about the examination, but I'm sure Fischer attempted to define exact;y how many weight he could hear landing, and yet he couldn't be precise, which suggests that there was a lot of distracting noises occurring at the same time.

Let me explain why this eight weight assumption is wrong; let us return to Bessler's first two wheels which were only able to turn in one direction.  They were able to begin rotation as soon as the brake was released.  Not only does Besssler tell us that these two could begin to rotate spontaneously as soon as the brake was released, but we also know that many spectatorres were encouraged to screw a bolt in and out to slow or bring the wheel to a halt, by simply making the end of the bolt rub against the side of the wheel, and unscrewing it to release it to allow it to regain full speed.  The wheel did not require a push to start, it started spontaneously.  But why did Bessler invent a wheel which could turn in either direction?  To answer the accusations from some people that the wheel must have been wound up.  Bessler believed that the two directional wheels would answer that criticism.

He set out to design this two way wheel and it has always seemed to me that the first and most obvious solution might be to set two wheels, linked together on the same axle, to see what would happen, but with one set to drive the wheel in the opposite direction to the first one.  Obviously this would remove the spontaneous start, but perhaps a push might set them of spinning, and depending on which direction the push was given might provide accelerating rotation.in that direction.

But here is another assumption which Occam's Razor would appear to rule out. Suppose there exist two explanations for an occurrence. In this case the simpler one is usually better. Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation is. So when I see people ignoring the simplest explanation for the design of the two way wheels, by suggesting some clever mechanism which would allow both directions from one set of weights I'm extremely sceptical.  Why complicate what may be a simple solution to the two way wheels?

The eight weights applies to the two-way Kassel wheel; some weights may have been padded to remove or reduce the sound of their impact; this means there may have been one more for eac direction; this could add up to five weights for each direction, not four.  Bessler even admits to adding felt on his earlier wheels to deaden the sound they made. For someone today to be designing a one-wheel with eight weights is therefore illogical; designing a two-way wheel before you've designed a successful one way wheel is also illogical.

In my opinion the one-way wheels required five mechanisms.  The two-way wheels require five mechanisms for each direction.  This is something I have established to my own satisfaction, but that is not to say that some other configuration requiring more weights is not possible, but for me its a case of Occam's razor again.

JC