The Solution
The author experimented more or less regularly at his workbench for about 12 years in order to uncover Bessler's secret. The tabletop from a round table kit from the hardware store with a diameter of 70 cm was used for this purpose. It was untreated spruce wood with a thickness of 3 cm. New holes could be drilled, elements screwed on, etc. at any time. The back of the plate was connected to a ball-bearing suspension in the middle, so that the front was completely freely accessible for processing. An existing slight imbalance was eliminated by small weights on the back. In this way, the wheel could be turned easily without any friction loss and remained stable in any position after stopping.
The experiments were stopped in 2014 because, despite all efforts, no solution emerged. All materials were discarded. It was not until 2022 that the author dealt with Bessler again in a new time unit. The focus was on considerations of a drive in which the use of potential energy was excluded from the outset, taking into account the following physical laws.
Any mass that moves downward loses potential energy, also known as height or position energy. If you want to return this mass to its original position so that it can develop its effect again, the lost energy must inevitably be completely reintroduced to it. If the latter is to be obtained by the downward movement of another mass (of the same size), the height differences between the two masses (before/after) must also be the same, regardless of where they are currently located.
Because of the statement handed down by Bessler in his Apologia
Of many separate pieces of lead,
It's always two and two now.
If a thing takes its place externally,
So the other one goes to the shaft.
This one will soon be here and that one there,
And so it changes on and on.
...
This heavy one returns to the center,
and that one goes up.
the author now only concerned himself with masses acting in pairs, in which the balance of potential energy remained untouched. The following concepts emerged:
G1 and G2 are mechanically connected to each other such that G1, as it moves downwards, lifts G2 in the manner shown. The fact that h2 is therefore equal to h1 (neglecting friction) does not contradict classical mechanics. However, during this process, G1 and G2 (top right) extend their effective lever arm. Once they have reached the opposite side of the wheel, they return to their original position. This repeats itself as often as desired.
The concept is based on Bessler's description above. G1 and G2 work in pairs. The sketch shows an ideal situation. To overcome friction and initiate movement, G1 must be slightly heavier than G2. This is also described by Bessler above. The sketch illustrates the basic concept. If (as is presumably the case with Bessler) 16 weights are to be accommodated in the wheel, their size must be reduced accordingly. The only purpose here is that two weights are closer and the other two are further away from each other so that they do not collide with each other in the middle. If you arrange them in two levels one above the other, the distances can also be the same.
Since an optimal mechanical connection of the above two masses is not easy to achieve using simple means, a simplified variant follows. It employs a linkage. The concept of pairwise interaction between two masses is the same. It is crucial that the lever is lengthened before the 90° position and shortened before the 270° position.
The following sketches only contain two pairs each so that the viewer can understand the principle more easily. To complete it, 6 pairs of each must be added to create a wheel that is constantly out of balance.
It can be seen from the illustration that the achievable output is only low because the extended lever has a counterproductive effect after passing through the 180° position. This is improved if additional tension springs are used. In this case, G2 returns to the shaft earlier. However, G1 must be significantly heavier than G2.
It is easy to understand that the mass G2 hitting the edge on the right produced the noise that the witnesses thought was a falling weight. They repeatedly reported that during one revolution it was heard eight times on the side that the wheel was currently turning. That is an indication for 8 couples. On the opposite side, the receding weight G2 produced no noise.
Springs were part of the perception of contemporary witness Prof. Christian Wolff in Merseburg. He was near the wheel when Bessler was covertly handling it and heard the characteristic sound of a metal spring briefly vibrating. He concluded that Bessler acted on this spring when mounting one of the weights. Since they must have been tension springs, Bessler must have hooked them in and then let them go. It is obvious that this would have been the case with each of the weights and that there must therefore have been several springs in the wheel. This fact is significant because it conveys that the wheel would not have been able to run without springs. Even if Wolff only saw the bidirectional wheel in action, there is a high probability that the unidirectional wheel was also equipped with springs. This results from Bessler's statement that the gravitational drive of a wheel is only possible with a single operating principle. In the article "Speculation", the author states that the bidirectional wheel probably consisted of two unidirectional drives arranged one above the other, which could be set in motion as desired (in opposite directions). This is supported by the double thickness of the wheel and its comparatively short development time in Obergreisslau near Weissenfels.
The author has given up experimenting for reasons of age. He encourages people who are currently working with Bessler's ideas to investigate the functionality of the above concepts and to report to him about their experiences via the website: www.volkerkeller.de.