Apparently church didn't happen for my neighbor today. I can't use my router or jigsaw when she's home for obvious reasons.
Rain changing to snow is forecast for next Saturday. Things go better when I can work in my small shop. I have 2 designs I can
be working on (design drawings like the one I posted). One is the next generation of my current build and another concept
completely different. And this will also give me time to continue working on translations. The most difficult part is learning the
Old German alphabet and how they'll use consonants in a way not used in English.
 At the bottom of the picture is an example of how the pulleys are mounted. With the pulleys, how they work together is the
outside pulley guides the line above the inside pulley in the clockwise direction. This is how the pendulum is shifted by the
radius of the retraction disc (drum). And with this being a prototype, It will allow me to better design the next build. This is
because I'll have an actual model to base the design on. And then this allows for putting the frame on a diet which consumes
energy as expressed by f = ma. this is the flywheel aspect which helps to determine its moment of inertia.

 p.s., realized I need to move the location of the inside pulley mounts. That will be something I can do this week This is all a
part of developing a design. And with this modification, I might need only 1 mount with 2 hole locations in it. This then
simplifies the design. The original placement was to allow for space between both pulleys which might not be needed. It will
give a unique appearance which will mislead the observer as to what they're actually seeing. Why I will not explain why.
 I do think this design can work. And if it takes a better build, then that will go more quickly. This is because all of the
developmental work will have been done for this size/dimension build. And if I do go that route then I'll also have some better
equipment/tools to work with. And then this would be an example for anyone who wants to do a build like this.
 

Do you still think that possible self-running using only one field of conservative forces, gravitational?
Work in a closed cycle in the field of conservative forces is zero.
I suppose in the device should be part of the system ,such as using the other form of energy, electrical, thermal, chemical, and so on.
Otherwise, we do not win symmetry.

  If you watch this video closely https://youtu.be/RZcu-8J0Lqk, as the wheel rotates the weight wheel assembly moves closer to the axle.
There are 2 pulleys. One guides the line to the weight wheel assembly. The other pulley guides the line from the top right of the retraction
disc to the other pulley. As this second pulley moves further from the top right of the disc, the distance between the weight wheel
assembly and its pulley decreases. At the same time the overall length of the line remains the same.
 At the moment I am thinking I will need to add more weight.  The resistance of the axle bearings is IMO why in the video the wheel did not
rotate better. With the testing that I am getting ready to do, it will have 4 weight wheel assemblies. Then I'll be able to add dummy weights.
 And this is where I'll be testing it in steps. I should be able to determine if it can work as designed. If so then I'll be able to finish the
building knowing what I'll need to do. And to paraphrase Bessler, his wheel sought a balance it could never find. And with this design, the way
the weights will be retracted allows for that possibility.
 

Use ratched wheel

  With the 2nd link in the previous post (from previous post https://youtu.be/935Ktoxw1fM), the disc is 1/4 of a disc or drum.
If it rotated to lift the weight wheel assembly then it would be performing work which is work = mass x distance. But when
the arm can be seen accelerating and the weight wheel assembly moving inward, no work is being performed.
 And yet it is obvious that the weight wheel is moving closer to the axle as it swings upward. With work = mass x distance,
the overall length of the line will need to change. And when the weight wheel is moving closer to the axle, the arm it is on
is moving away from the fulcrum. This work is caused by the overbalance on the other side of the wheel. This allows for
resistance to continuously change the balance of the wheel as it rotates. And this is why the line from the weight wheel
assembly runs straight up the arm towards the axle. And the other pulley always maintains a right angle to the disc. With
something like this it helps if you like playing around with math like trigonometry and analytical trigonometry. And I have
spent a lot of time doing the math.
 With the drawing, someone is swinging. Why showing a water wheel?

I don't know, but it really looks like it.

  The person swinging and that's how Bessler said his weights got their force. It's possible that
it's a pictograph. Swinging weights allows his wheel to work like a water wheel. This image shows
bellows. The only way they could create an overbalance is if filled with water like the buckets on
a water wheel. The mechanics that I am developing might work for this drawing as well.

I myself, am no Albert Einstein, but I try to follow his good example. 
When Einstein published his book on relativity, I think perhaps two thirds
of that book is comprehensible to we the layman masses.  That's pretty
damn good, when one considers the novelty, depth and profundity of the
subject matter.

Einstein was an excellent communicator.  I think probably this was because he
worked hard at making sure that he was. 

But also, I find that when someone really understands a subject, they are most
often, capable of  communicating it in common language as did Einstein. 

Mathematics is a language.

I can speak it to some small degree but am by no means fluent in it,
                                    as for example
mathematicians are so fluent. I don't speak Cantonese at all.  Get my drift here ?

 @All, With this example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBM4i3xfQRA if the hoist is the disc on Bessler's wheel
or is the pole a tether ball wraps around https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4zMhLDIFJ4
 With the hoist, work is being performed to rotate it. With the disc on Bessler's wheel just as with the pole for tether ball,
the weight wheel and the ball are being rotated by another force.
 With the tether ball, a person is hitting it. With Bessler's wheel, a weight is swinging downward. It does take time to
become familiar with a new concept. And even with a working wheel some people still might say fraud.

 And what gets old is someone saying, why do you make it so complicated for? After all, I consider that conserving the Earth's
gravitational heat content as mechanical energy is an accurate description. The issues with that is that gravity has no energy
so ergo, it has no heat content. No one has ever proven perpetual motion is possible. So why would someone assume it's
that simple? Still, with the tether ball, neither the pole or the line is doing any work. And yet people will say that's wrong as well.
 And it doesn't get much simpler than a child's game. That might be why Bessler mentioned a spinning top for. That is a possibility.

  I'm not going to post in here anymore. As Floor said, you guys aren't Einstein. Was Bessler? Newton and Leibniz started on calculus
about the time Bessler was born so Bessler probably would've known trigonometry. Today that's 8th or 9th grade math. And to suggest
that there is nothing about a working wheel that takes time to understand is insulting me because of the time that I've spent learning
about Bessler's work.
 And yet once again both AB Hammer and rlortie put everything in layman's terms. Perpetual motion isn't possible because a weight
can't lift itself. That's just not possible. And with converting energy from one form to another, there are no rules as long as it works.
 Examples of free energy devices;
 1; a solar panel
 2; a wind turbine
 3; a hydroelectric dam/water wheel
 4; the Atmos clock

 None of those 4 things produce their own energy but conserve energy from another source. And with the water wheel, is it perpetual as long
as water keeps flowing over it? The Colorado River has flowed for over 60 million years. ie., perpetual motion isn't possible but free energy is.

 With math, there are trig tables and calculators online. If someone cannot understand the force that a weight has relative to its position
around an axis, use a trig calculator. And if that's too complicated then I'm being kept from enjoying my hobby. And I should be allowed to
enjoy the time and effort that I've been putting into something.
 And if a person doesn't have time for something like that, then there is no simple explanation.

As Floor said, you guys aren't Einstein.

Not what I said, especially in the context as you have used it.

But...
  as you also said...

I'm not going to post in here anymore.

Cool, have a nice trip