circle,
 one of Bessler's clues states that his rim is not a normal rim.
 One of his drawings shows/explains why.

    Jim

..finally found a moment to go and get the missing page
if one can judge by the image view count numbers, there are very few people checking on this thread on a regular basis
i am just posting the book here because it seems to be a decent place to post it for people who will never bother looking on a library site that is not in their native language
seems to be no point to continue to make the claim but the facts stand
the only slight issues i would have in making a successful build might come down to spring strength and a few minor details in angle of alignment.. very subtle issues of contact of surfaces as the device is in motion
the concept itself is clear
there is no other possible method that he could have been using given the historical evidence
many people here have mentioned mechanical engineering.. i have yet to see a single post here speaking of knot theory (is there one i am not aware of?)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knot_theory
if you can not see how complex cyclical loops operate how can you even imagine you will find this solution? most of you have posted nothing that indicates to me that you have any idea what the objective is or the obstacles to it.. instead several who post here have done the opposite
most of you taking a direct linear path are approaching this as if you will be driving and removing screws with a hammer; you are approaching the matter with the wrong conceptual tools

A simple question: Why not link directly to the Göttinger Digitalisierungszentrum in order to view this book in full resolution?

because it would deprive me the opportunity to respond to posts like your own and deminish the number of views considerably as my post fades away from the top of the list..

And now a not so simple question:

»Finally, Herr Orffyreus supposedly gets to the root of the matter when he asserts that children in the lane play with his perpetual motion or so-called superior force.«

This is the English translation from Wagner's Second Critique, so far I couldn't find the text passage in German, but I assume it is correct.

would you go to war with 'something that looks like gunpowder' or would you make sure it is the real thing?
the rest of your dialogue and your post is a battle plan for facing the enemy with god-knows-what in your musket..

Hence what could it be this alleged »superior force« that children in the lane play with in the 18th century?

The only thing that could make any sense (IMHO) would be the centrifugal force of a spinning Whip-Top (image below). And strangely a search on YouTube for »Gyroscope« brings up some interesting results especially when the term »Gyroscope« is combined with the term »Anti Gravity«.

And in effect »Anti Gravity« is exactly that what we are looking for in respect of the Bessler Wheel (although it sounds somewhat ridiculous) because otherwise a replica of the Bessler Wheel can and will never work.

conclusion jumps and conjecture here..
can you honestly imagine what matterials he could have been using that would have endured such forces?

There is no chance a weight can fall and can thereby pull a second weight to the height it was so that this second weight can fall and pull the first weight to the height it was. This will not work with two weights and it will not work with n weights and not with levers or cords of any kind if driven just by straight gravity.

you start with a conclusion and then presume to support it with your present understanding of what is occuring
the solution was confusingly simple to the Landsgrave because he did not understand what he was seeing
grasp the basics and the rest becomes clear
your comment about 'straight gravity' is a curious choice of words
i realize that there is the english usage of 'straight' to mean 'only' but its other usage would make your statement more pertinant
not to say that the device bends gravity.. but it does not allow the effects of gravity to press 'down' upon the two weights in any manner that prevents them from completing the cycle
i would ask anyone who is considering this matter to face a few glaringly obvious facts
if you are honest with yourself about the historical account it is clear that something unusual was displayed; there are no materials that could have performed without breaking from wear to acheive a hoax
the amount of work done by the device could not have been transfered through a hidden cord
so as you start on this puzzle.. just go ahead and find it in your heart to tolerate it as posible; that he did in fact build this and no hoax was commited
with that as a 'given' you can quickly throw away any idea that does not support the reality
i see not a single mention of any gyro effect in the historical evidence.. so consider what you are doing here.. you have allowed yourself to give time to a concept that you are introducing to the historical data
if you are going to muddy the historical fact, at what point will you turn and look again to the true record? how can you be on track to solution when you move the foundation it is built upon as pleases your sensitivities of the moment
 
i say all this with no intention of getting too specific
but i am not misleading; either by my many partial yet incomplete explainations, or by my claim that i know how he did it
 
still.. people should be able to solve this
if i say 'start from what you know.. and work your way up' i am presuming that you have as much conceptual geometircal spatial relationship data throughly comprehended as i do
and i know that this is improbable..
if i walk you through it you will feel it is so simple that i have done nothing of significance
i have often told people the detail and they dont realize how big a deal it is
the physicist i mentioned it to did..

 I believe the slide you are showing is from Professor Eric Laithwaite’s YouTube video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHlAJ7vySC8
 
In that video, the professor used a high-speed drill to spin the weight to 2500 RPM before attempting the lift.  It would be interesting to see how slow the weight could actually be spun and still be lifted.  Maybe he used the higher speed because of friction and he wanted the longest time interval possible to perform the overhead movement.   Or maybe anything slower and the weight was just too heavy to lift.  This would be a key fact to uncover if you want to use this principle in a wheel.  I believe I have some information on spin versus weight but I will need to find it, and will post later.
 
Bessler’s one-directional wheels would self-start and his bi-directional wheels needed only a small push to get started.  Both gained full speed only after a few revolutions.  It would be hard to imagine that his wheels that turned at roughly 50 RPM would spin up internal weights to anything near 2500 RPM, but who really knows what was going on inside the wheel.

The principle is definitely worth exploring.


 

I haven't had time to find the article yet but it is along the lines you are thinking.  The gist of the theory (if I remember correctly) is a spinning weight will rise with less force and fall with more force.  The axis of rotation would have to move along the rim of wheel.  All the weights would spin in the same direction.  It would be like putting bottle rockets along the rim of the wheel all firing to move the wheel in the same direction.  Since the weights would all spin in the same direction, I would think it would be easier to engineer this.

I will get back to you as soon as I find the article.  The early NASA moon mission rockets kept going to high and they realized it was due to the spinning of the stages of the rockets.

This could be significant since Bessler’s wheel may have contained a large pendulum.

Much too complicated.

The above mentioned website states:

»The rotating ball given the same thrust, went to a higher point in its trajectory, fell faster, and hit the bottom of its trajectory before the non-rotating ball bearing.«

Hence the cylindrical shaped weights of the Bessler Wheel accelerated to fast rotation would do what? Go up more easily and come down faster (than non-rotating weights)?

Stupid question: Could it be that the Bessler Wheel was in essence nothing more than a big roll-bearing of some kind?

Unfortunately I haven't the means to do extensive mechanical workings, but perhaps someone could find out.

...
besslers solution is a geometrical configuration in which the asscending side has less of the weight suspended from itself as does the decending side
it is a tangible matterial structure subject to clear description and explaination
this is not asserted as a matter of mindless rambling
its interior parts are no more complex than the inner workings of a modern cucoo clock
there is is nothing 'future tech' about it..

@Zeitmaschine
 
between your most recent diagram and my most recent post i dont see you taking the steps toward solution that are available
you so clearly understand the problem and then procede to apply the same methodology that has evidenced its self unable to solve the matter
the same methodology taught in schools to insure that it is not the norm to observe how this is done
but it was done by bessler
and its not really that hard to do