EC1, you are a Johnny come lately. Your concept of 'surprise!' has been discussed extensively previously on the forum by myself and others. It is nothing new. We 'old timers' are very well aware of such a concept that all devices reduce to either a body rotating about a hinge or an inclined plane. You keep making these stupid assumptions that we are ignorant of these facts. Some of the newbies might be unaware of such things, but I assure you that forum members that have been here since near the inception of the Bessler Wheel forum are very aware of such things. We are not the ignorant boobs that you keep assuming.
See this link from about nine years ago.
As far as a lever being the
only mechanism, such a statement is only partly true. It depend upon your concept of a lever. A lever would be any means whereby motion of one mass causes motion of a second mass. And this fits Bessler's description whereby as one weight moves outward another weight moves inward. Then they swap. This of course requires a leveraging mechanisms of some sort.
But you mention the 'prime mover' lifting weights out of balance. Why do you insist upon lifting weights? You involve gravity when you insist upon lifting of weights. I keep explaining that gravity is not a factor. But then you seem to forget and soon you write about my design 'lifting weights'. There is no lifting of weights in my design. Yes weight go round and round and thus some weight rises as other weight falls. But the wheel is balanced and thus the rising negates the falling. So you can forget about the rising and falling of weights. It's as if there is just a single wheel mass.
Bessler's last two wheels were balanced when stationary and they were balanced when rotated slowly. Only when rotated a little faster so that weights were heard to begin moving within the wheel would the weights then 'gain force' from their motions and provide force to rotate the wheel.
Obviously this increased force must come from some source. And I've explained the source of the extra energy on a number of occasions. Maybe you missed those posts? Maybe you didn't understand? The extra energy comes by way of 'usable energy'. I know this concept is foreign to most people. James Clerk Maxwell wrote about such a concept way back in 1867. Except that his version involved the motions of individual molecules. His concept was that the gas molecules are all in motion and thus they contained kinetic energy. But their average banging against the walls of a vessel produced an average gas pressure. Maxwell conceived of an entity that became known a Maxwell's Demon, which entity sorted the gas molecules according to their speed, and thus the molecules were sorted into two groups, one containing warmer faster moving molecules, and another group containing colder slower moving molecules. The total heat of the two groups isn't changed by the sorting. But the usable energy is increased because any simple heat engine could then use the temperature difference to produce mechanical motion, and thus output energy perpetually, as long as the friction heat of the work done is recycled back to the colder gas.
Now my PM wheel works upon a similar principle except that it is weight motion that is sorted and transferred quite naturally from slower less energetic weights to faster more energetic weights. This is like having heat transfer spontaneously from a cold object to a warm object. Such a transferring of heat energy is against thermodynamic laws. But the transferring of mechanical motion from slower objects to faster objects does not go against thermodynamic laws. This is because it is not a transfer of heat. Such a transferring of motion is very rare and not common. It requires a rotating environment. But believe me, it is not an impossible task, such as trying to get heat to move from cold to warmer objects.
My fluid wheel version eliminates any levers. Fluid pushes fluid. Thus the motion of one portion of fluid moves another portion of fluid. So this arrangement does act like a very simple leveraging machine.
So you, eccentrically1, keep trolling. Keep assuming that the forum members here are idiots. But many of us have already been where you're just now starting to tread.
Yes, the concept of motion causing more motion is unusual and hard to understand. But a working perpetual motion must involve some principle that is unusual and not common, else if it were just the common rising and falling of leveraged weights, it would have already have been found long ago.
Just my opinions.
