Here's the rub that continually raises its ugly head for me.
Many off us started out looking for Gravity Only scenario's for Bessler's wheel, with zero success. Physics just doesn't allow it.
A few of us decided that Motion Wheels were the way forward and looked to inertia for an answer.
BUT .. John Collins was always adamant that JB's wheels were Gravity Only. He has never wavered.
Then along came Oystein (one of the demonstrably smarter ones here) after abandoning his personal search who put his energy and intellect into deciphering Bessler's codes as did JC. He also said that it was a Gravity Only solution.
I went back and pulled these quotes from him on JC's blog. [Bolding mine]
So the dichotomy of thought is still there, all with impeachable and generally reliable sources.Oystein wrote:
Øystein 6 September 2015 at 16:19
I understand what you say. I believe the math is the hardest part. Because you are in unknown territory. I have tried to identify the "loophole" by math. I have an idea, but no finished formula yet. I have spent many years calculating mechanical forces, and even Relativity for a while. I have found only 1 single possible loophole through these years! So far it seems like this kind of mechanism could be used to exploit such a loophole. The possible loophole for a gravity-driven vertical machine has to do with the following:
For a system to have any chance of OU, the masses have to fall from a greater height than it is being lifted by the wheel (the wheels torque). Something else other than the wheels counter-torque has to lift them. And it has to do this without springs or stationary objects. It can`t exploit springs, CF nor "swing". So we are left with very few alternatives. The remaining alternatives are in great detail discussed in Machinen Tractate. Where Bessler shows how he tries to make the weights fall from a higher place. This means that it isn`t really the distance from the center that is the goal, but the falling height vs. lifted height. Thus Bessler’s comments about this distance from center. But when I say that a weight has to fall from a greater height than it is being lifted, you can`t accept it as a practical possibility.
It is not that I am confident in what I have found. It is exceptional, solid and true. But, the deeper you get into the matter, his methods and papers you can see that the question of one additional joint appears at the end of the lever-system; this will double or triple the "controlling" force. Think of a scissor jack, but you don`t know if it has 2 or 3 joints. So we have to experiment with the end of the mechanisms. One or two joints? Then, the length/placement/adjustment of the "interconnecting principle" is also unspecified, still it is repeatedly described what it does and what it is. So I am 100% sure of the basics that appears, and why. It uses a method, and a proven system but how to be sure that there isn't one more level, or one more drawing/page that shows one more addition to the system. I have worked on it for several years, and it is hard to say that TODAY I am all finished. That is why I keep working still. I want to be sure that I have investigated down to the last bit.
Øystein 7 September 2015 at 15:01
Sorry that I don`t share your belief. I trust in my investigation into the matter. I found that springs only fool you to believe that you can raise the weights cheaper, while collecting energy in the springs. Though if you add the weight + spring energy it turns out you are even. I believe Bessler’s principle had a root in an overlooked but provable mechanical principle, where both falling, rising and "resting" weights are constantly affecting each other. Not a tiny variable in some refined adjustment. Bessler said that he used principles that can be scientifically proven as PM principles, in the 1700s. To me it tells me that the principle was not of the kind that doesn't work if you use wrong materials or adjust a spring just a tiny amount. It should use principles that can be proven by analyzing it mathematically and "visually", by simple drawings on paper. I don`t say springs could not be used, but not in that way, not as THE reason. This is just my opinion.
I favour the line that it was a motion wheel that had an appearance to an observer of being a series of interconnected mechs that had the outward appearance of being a Gravity Only Wheel but in fact was driven by something else, that likely being inertia leveraging in one way or another.
Pity my mechanical aptitude and experience isn't as good as some here !
