[Kryptid]

@Kryptid, I can only say that I consider Leibniz to be a credible source. Historical records shows
that he supported Bessler.

Even if that was so, that doesn't put him beyond the ability to be fooled. Noether's theorem is a mathematical proof. If someone's claims are at odds with a mathematical proof, I'd side with the proof.

[JLindgaard (OP)]

 And I am building. I think revision is allowed when proof merits such consideration.

[Kartazion]

AFAIK the proofs are not the province of science. But rather evidence. Perpetual motion is utopian but theoretically studied in a vacuum by conservation of energy without friction (quantum particles do not know friction). Matter is radiative in its emission (between Potential Energy (gravity) and Kinetic Energy (opposite to gravity)) and non-rotating.

[The Spoon]

And both Dr. Jaski and Dr. Poschl know that my Father from Norway lived under the 3rd Reich. Today things are different, right? Politics is still politics. And a working wheel might offer some relief as far as energy is considered.

What does the political regime your father lived under, no matter how awful, have to do with the credibility of your outlandish claims?
Even if you could eliminate all friction (hint - you cannot) and create create a wheel that works, how would this generate electricity? To do so would require the wheel to output more energy than you are putting in. In other words, it will not solve any energy crisis.

[alancalverd]

@alancalverd, this cannot be patented

.......because it is a perpetual motion machine. But my investors are prepared to retain trade secrets or just be first in the market. No excuses - just bring me one that works, and don't tell anyone else how to do it.

[Bored chemist]

AFAIK the proofs are not the province of science.

Then you don't know enough.
The proof, in this case, is here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem

[paul cotter]

In the realm of science, hypotheses and theories can be falsified but not proven. In mathematics a proof is possible and I think only in mathematics can a proof be possible. Emmy Noether's work is a mathematical argument and hence open to proof-qed.

[evan_au]

Emmy Noether's work is a mathematical argument and hence open to proof-qed.

In my primitive understanding, Noether's Theorem is of the form: "If symmetry X holds, then conservation law Y also holds".
- There are several pairs of X & Y
- Most physicists think that the premise X holds (but this hasn't been proven beyond all doubt)
- So most physicists believe that Y also holds (but you can't be totally sure until you prove X)

One form of Y is "Conservation of Energy"

[Bored chemist]

One form of Y is "Conservation of Energy"

And the corresponding symmetry is time.
Essentially, as I understand it, if the laws of physics are the same yesterday as they are today then energy is conserved.
So, is there a credible mechanism by which some planks and string could alter the temporal symmetry of the laws of physics, or is the OP wrong?

[Kryptid]

I think revision is allowed when proof merits such consideration.

That would require mathematics itself to be revised. Not exactly likely.

[alancalverd]

Revision is not merely allowed but essential always and only when experiment contradicts hypothesis.

[paul cotter]

Surely this bessler wheel stuff has already argued to death on another thread(possibly closed?). Or maybe i'm going gaga?

[Colin2B]

Surely this bessler wheel stuff has already argued to death on another thread(possibly closed?).

and on other forums, we sites etc.
The op appears to think they are all stalking him and it has to do with his nationality or some such

[Bored chemist]

Surely this bessler wheel stuff has already argued to death

Starting in the 17th century and carrying on until Noether ended it.
There is no longer an argument.
1:11

[alancalverd]

I think this is probably the tenth time in this forum that I have offered unlimited riches for anyone who can bring me a working model of an "overunity" machine, and my backers and manufacturing team are beginning to wonder if there might just be some flaw in the underlying hypotheses.

Meanwhile we plod on making a living with stuff that obeys the known laws of physics: boring but profitable. 

[Bored chemist]

 @Bored chemist, watch the last 5 seconds of the video. What you showed is when I used axle grease. The last 5 seconds shows where I lubricated everything with brake fluid. Brake fluid might actually have more viscosity than 5 wt motor oil.

It's your job to justify your claim and I can't be bothered doing your job for you.
So, if you think you can, you should take "start" and "finish" pictures like I did.
And then do the height measurements.

[Kartazion]

@JLindgaard Unlike the gravitational oscillator, the "bessler wheel" can never be a perpetual motion. This is not working.

For the radiative and not of rotational work of the particle mentioned above, you must be able to use gravity in its vector sense through its total potential energy. Opposite it you have its kinetic energy. Without it you can't demonstrate anything to interpret viable perpetual motion. Moreover, this experiment must be done in a vacuum. Then the wheel as perpetual motion is for the naives.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Kartazion#/media/File:Gravitational_Oscillator_&_law_of_Conservation_of_Energy_between_Kinetic_Energy_&_Potential_Energy.gif

[JLindgaard (OP)]

 And if it works then I'll have to thanks scientists for convincing everyone it wasn't possible. The actual
reason scientists have given is that gravity does not have energy so conservation of energy is not possible.
 Scientists say that gravity is a force that attracts 2 bodies to each other. And what is between those 2 bodies
is empty space.
 I did show 2BCollin a research paper where scientists said
Ayers et al. [1997] proposed a second reaction channel directly producing CH2O and showed
that a 40% yield of this branch is sufficient to resolve the discrepancy between model and measurement.

 In over 20+ years they haven't found it yet. With what I am building, it uses an external force to change the
movement of a body in motion. Newton said that changes things. While people have difficulty understand the
trick of motion, as the wheel rotates, the disc increases the distance between the fulcrum and its bob (weight).
 That is why the path of the weight moves closer to the axle as the wheel rotates.

[Bored chemist]

And if it works then I'll have to thanks scientists for convincing everyone it wasn't possible. The actual
reason scientists have given is that gravity does not have energy so conservation of energy is not possible.
 Scientists say that gravity is a force that attracts 2 bodies to each other. And what is between those 2 bodies
is empty space.
 I did show 2BCollin a research paper where scientists said
Ayers et al. [1997] proposed a second reaction channel directly producing CH2O and showed
that a 40% yield of this branch is sufficient to resolve the discrepancy between model and measurement.

 In over 20+ years they haven't found it yet. With what I am building, it uses an external force to change the
movement of a body in motion. Newton said that changes things. While people have difficulty understand the
trick of motion, as the wheel rotates, the disc increases the distance between the fulcrum and its bob (weight).
 That is why the path of the weight moves closer to the axle as the wheel rotates.

@Bored chemist, watch the last 5 seconds of the video. What you showed is when I used axle grease. The last 5 seconds shows where I lubricated everything with brake fluid. Brake fluid might actually have more viscosity than 5 wt motor oil.

It's your job to justify your claim and I can't be bothered doing your job for you.
So, if you think you can, you should take "start" and "finish" pictures like I did.
And then do the height measurements.

[Kryptid]

And if it works

It seems that talking this out isn't going to end this, so what else do you need to do to finish building the machine?

I am tempted to try to do an in-depth mathematical analysis of a Bessler wheel in order to show why it can't work...