Trial and Error
When it comes to inventing new technical devices, the old German saying that it's "better to experiment than to study" is appropriate. For hundreds of years, not only inventors but also serious scientists have repeatedly surprised their contemporaries with designs for new machines, which, however, often had the disadvantage of only working on paper.
Paper is known not to blush. With a pencil, almost any idea can be translated into drawings, and it can also be filled with “life” through arguments. Today's possibilities for computer-aided animation are fascinating for inventors, but moving images are an illusory world and only suggest what their creator wants to see.
With the Internet, it has become fashionable to exchange ideas in forums about, among other things, alternative drives, free energy, etc., while presenting your own ideas and discussing them passionately. Some people do this over long periods of time with increasing zeal and occasionally get into arguments when the other forum participants simply do not want to accept their own concepts and therefore do not get the admiration that the creator had secretly hoped for. They could have used their time much better if they had carried out an experimental test of their ideas instead of long theoretical discussions. Because as it says in Faust: “Gray, dear friend, all theory is.” Instead, in individual cases, experimentation is nothing more than a question to nature as to whether the concept created in their imagination can be transferred to physical reality or not.
“The scholars” represent another group of people. They do not even get involved in discussions, but rather lecture on their respective point of view with an unshakable conviction that does not allow for doubt and therefore makes experimental evidence superfluous from their point of view. They only reluctantly seek their arguments from the established sciences, but otherwise provide calculations and sketches that are intended to convey the utmost analytical seriousness. The readers react differently. Some are impressed, others tend to be skeptical and still others clearly show their rejection. The common denominator is the fact that things take place exclusively in a mental universe, from where they are simply projected into the real world. Nature is often only given a fictitious say, which regularly leads to a sudden awakening when, as an exception, proof is supposed to be provided for claims made in the physical universe. Ever since Hegel, it has also been true for philosophers: “Hic Rhodus, hic salta!”
The books that deal with “free energy” and offer construction drawings, proposals, ideas, etc. on how energy could be generated unconventionally or otherwise made usable are now hardly manageable. One occasionally has the impression that one person is copying the other and that many concepts have never been tested in practice. The interested reader is therefore usually overwhelmed by the need to be able to assess in advance which matter could perhaps be dealt with more intensively and which of the suggestions is simply nonsense. What they all have in common is that the “big hit” apparently hasn’t been there yet. Otherwise, a broader public would have known about it long ago. The fact that wind and solar energy are being used to an ever greater extent shows that people are no longer relying solely on fossil fuels or nuclear power and that people are willing to look for alternatives. If there were new ways in which the benefits were in an acceptable ratio to the costs, people who were keen to innovate would test them and, if necessary, use them.
Back to the inventors. In principle, it is possible to calculate in advance whether a new machine actually does what it is supposed to do, but not all of the relevant factors are often taken into account. If it was the case that in Bessler's gravitational drive, 8 or 16 weights were moved in such a way that there was a constant imbalance, the mathematical relationships due to the dynamics of the rotating wheel would probably be so complex that even an experienced engineer would break into a sweat. If everything could be calculated in a simple way beforehand, the automotive industry, for example, would not need test tracks for its new developments.
Ultimately, nature decides. She shows us the proverbial and often sobering difference between theory and practice. Since her laws are not always fully considered or are even are unknown in individual cases, a serious inventor cannot avoid experimenting practically in addition to his theoretical and creative work. However, some people believe that they don't need to do this, or they feel a strong aversion to dealing with the low-level aspects of manual work. For example, Leonardo da Vinci published drawings of Perpetua Mobilia that he had never checked in practice. Later replicas showed that they did not work. However, because da Vinci was an exceptionally talented person, this did not harm his reputation.
People who want to invent a perpetual motion machine are occasionally infected by a kind of virus. Their intentions and their activities, which are characterized by enthusiasm, are perceived as public-spirited, despite the occasional shaking of heads of their contemporaries, because humanity would benefit greatly from them if they were successful.
A slightly more differentiated view is given to those who fail to provide proof for their assertion that they have already implemented their idea in practice and that their invention works perfectly. They are very anxious for recognition and send glossy photos, which, however, do not prove the workability and do not dispel existing doubts. If you want to see their machine live in action, they turn a deaf ear. If you ask for a video, they deliver something that either doesn't allow for judgment because of its brevity, or in which an external energy input has been cleverly disguised. The number of these people is small, and some even give the impression that they believe what they say, at least for a time. They may suffer from a greater loss of touch with reality and do not want to admit their failure. There are even said to have been people who committed suicide because they could not confront their failure to invent a perpetual motion machine.
Someone who wants to reinvent Bessler's wheel is particularly subject to the constraints of experimentation, since according to the prevailing opinion, Bessler's invention couldn't work at all. Physicists therefore regard dealing with this matter as an activity for madmen. Anyone who wants to be taken seriously by society cannot avoid providing experimental evidence of the functionality of their invention. Even then, he might find himself ignored by those in authority. After all, they don't like being made wrong. The inventor might therefore feel compelled to force his recognition through a good media campaign. Of course, the media would only take notice of him if he could show a working device. Preferably one whose principle everyone understands.
So it doesn't work without relevant experimentation. However, a selection process takes place very quickly among the inventors. Many extremely talented theorists have “two left hands” for practical activities. Not every creative spirit is born with the ability to masterfully use a hammer or saw. And because that is the case, many good ideas have probably never been realized to date. But even inventors with strong practical talents sometimes fail due to a lack of materials, a lack of equipment or simply a lack of time. Such a particular detail of the invention may be drawn in a few minutes, but it takes days or weeks to produce it in reality.
Occasionally something cannot be manufactured at all, or it requires special skills in welding, turning, milling, etc. that a normal do-it-yourselfer does not have. And the inventor often lacks the money to have the thing professionally manufactured as a prototype. When hiring professionals, there is also the risk that the invention could fall into the wrong hands before it is protected by patent law.
The vast majority of inventions today are limited to the research results of industrial or university institutions, which are not only equipped very differently in terms of material and personnel, but also have the financial opportunity to make inventions ready for mass production. However, since no scientist or engineer wants to make themselves the laughing stock of their colleagues, the Bessler wheel is taboo as a research object for universities and industry alike. And that is probably the main reason why there has been virtually no movement regarding Bessler for a period of over 300 years.
So if anyone manages to uncover Bessler's secret, it will probably be a layperson. This may be unfortunate because there is no way of knowing when this will happen. But at the same time it is an encouragement for every hobby inventor to get involved with it, because he still has every chance of at least reaping the fame if he is successful. In any case, as the circle of people who deal with Bessler grows, the likelihood that the principle of his wheel will be rediscovered increases. So let us promote this at every opportunity.