Friday, 28 October 2011

Gravity can be used to power gravitywheels continuously because it is a conservative force.

Many people believe that Johann Bessler's claims were genuine, in which case an acceptable theory which fits in with modern science, has to be found which will allow a gravity-driven (or gravity-powered) wheel to work. There is strong scepticism against such a device for good reason. It appears to go against everything we have been taught. Putting on one side, for a moment, the statement which says you can't do it because gravity is a conservative force, there is the seeming impossibility of raising a weight again once it has fallen, causing a wheel to overbalance. That energy appears to be lost and therefore an additional energy source is sought which will bridge the gap or close the circle.

Various methods have been suggested such as using ambient temperature changes or static electricity or even a solenoid valve on a spring. The truth is that no one has come up with a viable additional energy source - except for me! We know Bessler said his weights worked in pairs; I have suggested that the secondary, 'shifter', weight fell and in doing so moved the primary or 'shifted' weight into a position which unbalanced the wheel. The additional energy source is therefore also gravity. There are two weights, one falls and has no effect on overbalancing the wheel but the second weight is moved by the action of the first weight and it is that one's position which overbalances the wheel.  There are two pieces of gravity used separately,

I have, in the past compared the force of gravity to the wind in an attempt to show that it may be a conservative force but that does not mean it cannot be used to drive a weighted wheel continuously. The wind is used to drive windmills, waterwheels and boats, why not gravity?

Because my argument rested on the theory that wind was a conservative force I sought support for the idea from the internet. Surely I would find either a definitive statement that wind was conservative or nonconservative. Imagine my surprise therefore to discover the extraordinary fact that I am unable to find a single web site which definitively states that wind is either conservative or nonconservative! Nobody discusses it - or nobody is able to say one way or the other.

I did find one fleeting reference which stated that "wind drag is friction and therefore non-conservative". The example referred to a racing car and the effect of wind drag which was therefore friction and so a nonconservative force. I agree in that context, but let us consider some simple definitions secured from the internet.

"The work done by a conservative force in moving a particle between two points is independent of the path taken." This also applies to the wind, we only measure the strength of the wind by seeing how far it moves something from A to B, the path is irrelevant.

I can lift a fallen rock against gravity and allow it to fall again. I can also catch a balloon blowing in the wind towards me and carry it back upwind and allow it to blow downwind again. There is a clue in the words "UPwind" and "DOWNwind".

"A conservative force can be thought of as a force that conserves mechanical energy. Suppose a particle starts at point A, and there is a constant force F acting on it. Then the particle is moved around by other forces, and eventually ends up at A again. Though the particle may still be moving, at that instant when it passes point A again, it has traveled a closed path. If the net work done by F at this point is 0, then F passes the closed path test. Any force that passes the closed path test for all possible closed paths is classified as a conservative force". When the wind causes a windmill to rotate, the blades travel a closed path so the wind is a conservative force.

"For non-conservative forces, the mechanical energy that is lost (not conserved) has to go somewhere else, by conservation of energy. Usually the energy is turned into heat, for example the heat generated by friction. In addition to heat, friction also often produces some sound energy. The water drag on a moving boat converts the boat's mechanical energy into not only heat and sound energy, but also wave energy at the edges of its wake. These and other energy losses are irreversible because of the second law of thermodynamics."  The windmills provide useful and usable energy - it is not 'lost' - which can grind flour and pump water etc. So wind is not a nonconservative force.

"Conservative Forces are reversible forces, meaning that the work done by a conservative force is recoverable, i.e. you can get out any work you put in or vise versa." Wind is a reversible force. Not only does the wind drive windmills but, for instance, you can electrically drive a windmill and produce wind. The wind is a reversible conservative force. use an electric fan and place a small windmill in the path of the wind. The windmill will begin to turn.

Saying that gravity cannot power a gravitywheel because it is a conservative force is incorrect. However this does not solve the problem of how to make it work for us but it does show that it is not impossible just because it is a conservative force.

JC

52 comments:

  1. Not again!

    http://windeis.anl.gov/guide/basics/index.cfm

    Wind isn't a force. It's a form of solar energy. It's a false analogy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi John,..You are right,..in that the gravity wheel is a conservative force machine because it turns using the inert force of gravity within itself.
    On the other hand wind is not,for two reasons.Firstly natural wind is the result of the suns heat in the atmosphere and can be used without consequence.Once it turns that windmill,it is finnished with.
    Gravity has a consequence in that once you use the force of gravity via a descendind mass,it now has to be restored.That act of restoring it external to the wheel makes it a non- conservative system.
    This brings me to my wheel which I am about to launch.I see nothing in it that really represents the number five.I can say though that the restoring of the weights is done entirely within the wheel itself by using gravity/velocity/and enertia.
    Why it should be possible,I don't know,but it is.
    Maybe the Boffs can work that one out when they see it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Lets not lose ourselves in semantics, Doug. In the context of the example, the origins of wind are academic.

    We know that wind develops as a result of spatial differences in atmospheric pressure. These differences occur because of uneven absorption of, yes, solar radiation at the Earth's surface. Pressure change over a unit distance is referred to as the pressure gradient force, and the greater this force the faster the winds will blow. However, there are several other force factors that influence the formation, speed and direction of wind, which are absolutely not related to solar output.

    So what? There are FORCES that cause and influence moving air masses we call wind. The resulting wind produces a tangible, observable and measurable pressure differential on our turbine blades and makes it rotate.

    So purely technically speaking maybe wind in itself is not a force, but it's absolutely caused by, the result of, several forces. Maybe we should say wind is a indirect conservative force. Whatever, since we can use it, it's a perfect analogy.

    Otherwise we might as well say that gravity is not a force, just because we are not 100% sure what forces or factors cause it. After all, gravitational waves or particles have not been found yet. So if gravity is not a force, then what is it?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Wind is the result of several forces?

    No, mostly solar energy and earth's rotation. The earth rotates because there's nothing to slow it down. It originally began to rotate because when it formed under the force of gravity, the asymmetry of the dust, gas, elements and rocks it's composed of resulted in its angular momentum.

    You can use this same faulty logic again, but it won't change the facts.
    The same for the other example, waterwheels, they are a form of solar energy as well.
    Did Bessler use the sun, ultimately, to turn his wheels?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well wind and gravity may look like similar but what moves the turbine blades is the air. In the case of gravity it is like having virtually unlimited number of dropping weights :) But don't worry I am all with you John, there must be a way, Bessler found that way, well I hope one day we will find that way.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yes, several forces: pressure gradient force, coriolis force (varies with the velocity and latitude), centripetal force, frictional drag (deceleration), geostrophic winds (where pressure gradient force and Coriolis force come into balance), and gradient winds (consists of the pressure gradient force and centripetal force acting toward the center of rotation). That's quite a few.

    The Earth rotation varies, it is not a constant. It's slowing down at the moment. In fact, all planets in our solar system have been shown to be affected by (for now, unknown) forces. For example, even giant planets like Saturn and Neptune have seen colossal changes in angular momentum, completely stunning astronomers. It is, for now, hypothesized that scalar (hyper-dimensional, or quantum-effect) forces of unknown origin may be at work. This is the reason that dramatic solar-system wide climatic changes have been observed on ALL planets in our solar system. Which is another nail, by the way, in the anthropogenic climate change coffin. But that's another story. Clearly, there are other, extremely powerful forces at work here, and it's definitely not gravity as we understand it. Which has, by the way, has been shown not to be a constant, another thing that baffled quite a few scientists.

    So the Earth is not just floating along and rotating because there's nothing to slow it down. To the contrary.

    ReplyDelete
  7. There would be no planetary orbits without gravity.In fact there wwould be no fusion without gravity and thus no evolution to heavier elements.
    Think about it,without temperature everything would at absolute zero unable to orbit and space would become one great big black hole.
    For goodness sake stop in depth theorising and get back to basics!!
    Bessler would not have known what on earth you are talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @ JC

    Nice to see you blogging more frequently so we won't have anymore 150 comment entries!

    It sounds to me like you don't believe that the "pairs" Bessler refers to are diametrically opposed, but, rather next to each other around a wheel's rim!

    I have seen many such two weight, "Shifter / Drive" weight setups in the past and none ever worked. The problem was that while the shifted drive weight went in one direction, the shifting weight always went in the opposite direction which was not good for maintaining an imbalance.

    I agree that both gravity and wind force are "conservative". But, after that the analogy quickly breaks down. The net force that wind produces on an object's surfaces is due to incoming air particles bouncing off of these surfaces. By angling an appropriately shaped object's surface to the incoming wind it is possible to produce a force on an object (like a windmill blade) that will be almost perpendicular to the incoming wind. The way gravity creates force on an object is far more complex and involves an interaction between the gravity fields of both objects. The gravitational force on an the object is always along a line pointing to the
    other object's CoM (such as the center of a planet). Unfortunately, there is no orientation of the object that will change the direction of the gravitational force acting on it so it can be used to rotate an object.

    However, I have no problem with accepting that a PM gravity wheel can be made to run even though it is located in a "conservative" gravity field. If the CoM of its weights can be truly kept on s wheel's descending side, then that side will always have more weight than the ascending side. As a consequence, weights falling on the descending side will release more kinetic energy (and mass!) than is recovered by weights rising on the ascending side. The net difference in these energies can then be used to accelerate the wheel or perform "outside" work.

    From studying Bessler's writings, it is obvious to me that he believed that there was only ONE real way to achieve a working PM gravity wheel which was the one he eventually found. I tend to agree.

    The bottom line of this is that one either has the same design Bessler found or he does not. Therefore, one's wheel will either run or it will not. So far, no one has Bessler's design. (Sometimes one can not resist the urge to restate the obvious! LOL!)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Justsomeone said: It takes the same amount of energy to lift a weight as was gained from the weight falling. I am more than willing to work under those parameters and still say a gravity powered wheel is possible!

    ReplyDelete
  10. @Trevor, you are right of course, but sometimes one has to.. ;-)

    @Techno, indeed, it would be good if we could agree on some kind of design. But that's are with all these unknowns and many variables. I too think that Bessler felt that there was only one way - which is probably right, but only for his "secret ingredient". I think that once built, there will be different embodiments possible. But always requiring that "secret ingredient". For the sake of history and vindicating the man and his invention, it's good that we're trying to re-invent his wheel. OTOH, in my view, we should "cheat" first and use modern electromechanics, electronics, and such. And then, when we have a working model, reconstruct the original. I feel this would speed up the process.

    Anyway, today IS quite likely a significant day for energy generation, maybe even one that will make the history books.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Apologies... "that's are" should be "that's hard".

    ReplyDelete
  12. Is there anyone on these posts who are actually attempting to build a working wheel.
    I don't know why the sceptics and theorists bother to post here.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Trevor, I have been attempting to actually build a working wheel since 1974, and I have no plans to give up.

    I suppose 37 years of failures should tell me something about my belief, but each failure teaches me a bit more about the subject and I go away and think about it and come back with a different design and/or concept.

    Yse I thought that too, justsomeone.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  14. Trevor, I think several are or have been. I am convinced there are many very capable individuals here. I'm not one of them, also because I am a cheater for I am *not* trying to come up with a purely mechanical solution. But I do applaud and truly admire the efforts of those that are trying.

    Skepticism is fine; it's excellent even as it keeps us on our toes. The nature of science ("the seekers of truth" the old Greeks used to say) however also dictates that we should always be skeptical, also of "well-established laws". And let's not forget: there is a difference between healthy skepticism and cynicism. Cynicism (especially in science) is not good. We don't know all there is to know (as is often more or less assumed, based on "well established laws").

    Finally, we have to keep in mind that cynicism is a slow poison :-)

    ReplyDelete
  15. Ok, back to basics, as you said, Trevor. The energy budget, that's what it all comes down to, IMHO. The things we have to work with:

    1. Brief energy input (by human means)
    2. Energy input by gravity (conservative or not)
    3. Resonance effects
    4. Leverage
    5. Spin

    Those are the things we have to work with. Perhaps Bessler stumbled upon the latter three: resonance, leverage and gyroscopic effects? He should have been familiar with the first two: resonance from his experience as a organ builder, leverage was well-known. The last one, gyroscopic effects, were probably completely novel in his days.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hi John,..Nice to hear some like minded people!
    Yes I have had many failures but each one brings me closer the ultimate truth.
    I have discovered several amazing hidden principles about the wheel and pendulums.
    It's hard to think which one Bessler was refering to.
    Suffice to say I am very close now.

    ReplyDelete
  17. trevor, definitely building designs.

    Andre,
    What do you mean by the statement?
    "Anyway, today IS quite likely a significant day for energy generation, maybe even one that will make the history books".

    P47

    ReplyDelete
  18. John:
    just finished reading your post.
    Unfortunately, i don't have a high understanding of Physics.
    your post seems to be a much better description of the opposing force system posted in besslerwheel.

    http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5014

    ReplyDelete
  19. @ Andre

    I think that the real secret Bessler discovered was his "Connectedness Principle". He hints in several places that it could convert a "standard" lever wheel into a runner whether the wheel had 8, 12, or even 24 levers! Thus, there is no ONE design that will work, but, rather, there is a PRINCIPLE that will work regardless of the number of levers involved. There is some evidence that it will also work with a wheel having only 6 levers! Find the Connectedness Principle and you will have the secret of a working PM gravity wheel.

    Well, if we were going to "cheat" with solenoids and electrical power, then there is not a single design in MT that could not be made to run! That might look impressive, but it would still tell us nothing about the all important Connectedness Principle.


    @ JC

    I, of course, wish you the best of luck with your latest design, but I've been told that it uses isolated two weight units which are not in any way mechanically connected to other units around the wheel's rim. Thus, it has no Connectedness Principle built into it. Needless to say, this does not make me optimistic that it will work when you finally get around to testing it.

    I can sympathize with your 37 year quest to find Bessler's secret. That's alot of time to devote to any subject. However, I have known "seekers after PM", myself included, who have spent longer than that with absolutely nothing to show for their efforts. This field definitely needs a true breakthrough to encourage those that pursue it. It would really be nice if it could arrive in time for the 300th anniversary of Bessler's public demonstrations of his first wheel at Gera which will be, IIRC, next year in June.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anon, 10:45
    I believe the the system posted on besslerwheel
    http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5014

    has merit, try the simple simulation described at the bottom of the thread.

    ReplyDelete
  21. @Anon 09:55: What i meant is that several breakthroughs in terms of LENR energy generation technologies have recently validated, the first one beginning of this October with proof of reverse thermal entropy (another one of these "impossibilities") and yesterday a massive 470 Kw closed-loop demonstration, without power input whatsoever. It's about to break mainstream - watch AP news in the coming days.

    @Trevor: Can you share some of it?

    @Techno: I agree on your assessment of the connectedness principle. Personally, I think it was some kind of clutch and/or combined ratchet/clutch mechanism, a bit like MT 55, but that's purely subjective of course.

    You are, of course, right that my cheating won't solve the connectedness principle, but it will prove the validity of the concept. In fact I did that to my own satisfaction last December with a couple of electromechanical designs, and also later with a 2-stage parametric oscillator. I did cheat there too, however, with a moving pendulum pivot. But it sure works, and IS very powerful indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Andre

    had a gut feeling that it would be possible just using electronics.
    Dam.
    Any sites with information on the 470 KW device?

    P47.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Andre,
    never mind, found the video,
    Assumed incorrectly, it,s cold fusion.

    P47

    ReplyDelete
  24. Anon, just curious here... the P47 sign at the end of your posts, does that refer to Bessler or perhaps the powerful WWII P47 Thunderbolt fighter?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Andre.

    Had posted the answer in an earlier thread,
    it,s euclids proposition 47,
    from his 13 books of elements.
    who knows !"perhaps it,s a clue"

    P47.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anon, that's the Pythagorean theorem, right? I find that interesting, but way over my head, to be honest, how that should apply to (the geometry of?) Besslers wheel. Can you elaborate a bit on it?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Andre,
    not working on a gravity driven wheel.
    prefer a motor gen, combination, saves time when redesigning or improving the system.

    Prop 47 is way over my head as well, all i can say is that it is my belief, it relates to an aspect of the wheels design, from something i come across in besslers drawings, from memory its also relates to masons master jewel, or "pendant".
    seems to be too much of a coincidence for it not to be important.
    At some point in the future i will release the information discovered, that bessler left hidden, and how bessler pointed to it through his text, there will be no doubt that it is beslers bi-directional wheel.
    can not make this public knowledge as there is a important linkage setup, now used on a motor gen combo.
    depending on the outcome, the information will be posted, or perhaps shared with a few, including JC, as i am not interested in a low power design.
    though it would make a great artistic novelty toy, no offense to bessler.

    P47.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Anon, thanks for your explanation. I am guessing right that you are working on a rotoverter? I heard about it but never did any experimentation with that. Sounds interesting, though. Thanks for sharing.

    ReplyDelete
  29. A few basics:
    Energy is defined as the ability to do work. Work is defined as a force acting through a distance.

    In circular motion, centripetal force does no work. Why? Cp force is radially directed, perpendicular to the direction of the object. Only force PARALLEL to the direction does work on the object.

    In circular motion, this force must be perpendicular to the centripetal force to do work on the object.

    If no work is done on the object, its kinetic energy doesn't change. No energy (or mass, for techno) has been transformed in the system.

    The fictitious centrifugal force that is erroneously referred to is also in a perpendicular direction to the object if you had any thoughts it could contribute energy or mass techno, to the system.

    Gravity, acting on an object in circular motion, does positive work on that object in exactly half of the cycle. In the other half, it does negative work because it is doing that work in the opposite direction of the object's path. The positive work is exactly balanced by the negative work gravity does. THIS is what is meant by saying gravity is a conservative force. Gravity doesn't change anything in the system. The system's kinetic energy, or mass techno, is unchanged by gravity.

    Wind does change the kinetic energy or mass techno of a windmill system. No explanation necessary (I hope).

    Andre, we don't have those things to work with in the energy budget, for the reasons above, and others not mentioned, so my comment doesn't get too long and hard to follow.

    ReplyDelete
  30. @ Doug

    I agree with what you said up to a point. Those who seek a working OB wheel want to create a situation wherein there is slightly more mass on the wheel's descending side than on its ascending side and, of course, to have this situation prolonged indefinitely.

    If this can be achieved, then the wheel's descending side weights should continuously lose MORE energy during wheel rotation than is required for the rise of the wheel's ascending side weights.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Those who seek a working OB wheel can't create that situation with gravity, for the reason given.
    So the descending weights won't continuously lose more energy than is required for the rise of the ascending weights, whatever that means.

    ReplyDelete
  32. @ Doug

    Okay, you obviously don't think its possible to produce a design that will continously maintain the imbalance of a wheel's CoM without an input of "outside" energy. I, of course, disagree. Either Bessler did find such a design or he was a "montebank without peer" as Frank Edwards referred to him. Since I (and practically everyone else here!) believes Bessler was honest, I am forced to also believe that it IS possible to produce such a design.

    Imagine the Merseburg wheel containing eight 4 lb weights whose imbalanced CoM provided the torque that accelerated it and also could perform outside work (since it was a two direction wheel, it actually would then have contained 16 such weights, but half of them would not have been shifting around when they were forced to undergo "retrograde" motion). That's a total of 8 x 4 lb = 32 lbs used for the wheel's one direction motion.

    If this giant wheel always, say, kept 17 lbs on its descending side and only 15 lbs on its ascending side (total 32 lbs), then it would have more kinetic energy (and its mass equivalent!) added to the wheel's various structures during each complete rotation by its descending side than would have been taken from the wheel's structures by its ascending side. And, most importantly, this simple process would have been taking place in a "conservative" gravity field DESPITE the fact that the weights within the wheel's drum would be falling and rising through the SAME vertical distance during each wheel rotation!

    ReplyDelete
  33. This giant wheel couldn't keep the weights off balance by itself. Gravity assures it.
    If the definition of conservative doesn't convince you, thousands of years of failed attempts should.

    ReplyDelete
  34. @ Doug

    I can't be concerned with "thousands of years" of failures. I am, however, VERY concerned with the ONE shining succcess story. If it is genuine (and it certainly seems to be), then it proves it's possible to make a wheel that will keep itself imbalanced without the input of external energy. Sort of like one winning lottery ticket proving that not ALL lottery tickets have losing number combinations printed on them!

    Yet, I have also wondered why all of those tens of thousands of pre- and post Bessler mobilists were not able to find success while Bessler did.

    I guess he was just a very highly motivated and, most importantly, VERY lucky individual. It's just too bad that his secret died with him. I hope it will be rediscovered soon. Even if it does not prove to be a useful solution to our so-called energy problems, it would be nice to finally have some workable answers to this centuries old mystery.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I think someone could replicate besslers demonstrations, but it won't be someone with a design that relies on a conservative force for energy.

    The meresburg wheel
    That wheel had a mechanical advantage of 24. It was measured to lift 60 lbs by Wolff. With that MA, it only took 60/24 = 2.5 lbs of force just to balance that weight. I'm not including the controversial "more than 4x pulley reduction", but if I did the advantage would be even greater. Because of the small diameter iron axle pins the wheel turned in, axle friction added an ounce or two of force necessary to begin to lift the weight.

    For the sake of my argument, suppose the wheel was balanced, i.e., it didn't rely on gravity for imbalance. The center of gravity doesn't change. It's a wheel-and-axle in the classic fashion, as a simple lever.

    How much more force do we need to lift the weight ?
    It's not going to be very much, a few pounds. Once the wheel begins to turn on those small iron axles, it's not going to want to stop because of its own inertia. It would lift 60 lbs easily because of the sheer weight of the structure (estimates vary). This is one reason I think the lifting demonstrations don't prove gravity can do net positive work.

    The duration demo for the kassel wheel, as it was in a locked and sealed room, wasn't really a demonstration. How unfortunate.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Be careful Doug,..Don't let years of failures and disapointment turn you into a sceptic.
    You don't want to have egg on your face when the working wheel apears.
    Be patient,just a little more time.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Skepticism is good. Cynicism takes us nowhere.

    A company in Akron, Ohio uses a 15,000 lbs pendulum to use the always present force of gravity to assist with work. Its mechanical advantage allows the use of gravity assisted power.

    Impossible, some would say. Yet, it works.

    In Haiti, people use gravity-assisted pendulum-driven pumps to make fresh water through high-pressure filtration systems. One man produces, without fatigue, 3785 liters of clean water per hour per pump. Where does the extra energy come from? Gravity.

    Impossible, some would say. Yet, it works.

    NASA uses the always present force of gravity to assist with work, sling-shooting spacecraft into new orbits and increasing their energy.

    Impossible, some would say. Yet, it works.

    Because of the hallowed laws of thermodynamics, reverse thermal entropy in exothermic reactions was considered impossible without external energy input.

    Yet, it works.

    When I observe a fully loaded 350-ton 747 thunder into the blue yonder, I am always reminded of the impossibility of heavier-than-air flight.

    Yet, it works.

    We don't know what innovative concepts and mechanisms Bessler used. Maybe he used aerodynamic, or resonance principles to raise his weights. Or whatever.

    Gravity is called a conservative force, yes.

    Yet, if I built a simple mechanical parametric oscillator, something almost so embarrassingly simple that even a all-thumbs hamfisted individual like me can construct it, and I use only a few watts DC input to move my pendulum pivot, I get more watts (loaded) DC output than I use as the input. That's a coefficient greater than 1. Just like the pumps.

    Overunity? No. Then where did the "extra" energy come from? *Gravity* of course. The trick is resonance, maximizing and maintaining the gyrations with minimal external energy input.

    Unless my instruments are all misleading me (and trust me, I have access to well-calibrated quality instruments) this, and the other examples, to me conclusively prove that gravity *can* be used to our advantage, conservative force or not.

    Innovation and progress comes from doing things differently, in unexpected ways. Questioning all and every "truth". Not from reciting hallowed laws.

    ReplyDelete
  38. @ Doug

    Your calculation of the ME for the Merseburg wheel (which I assume you got by dividing wheel radius by axle radius or 72 in / 3 in = 24) does not take into consideration that a block and tackle had to be used to lift that 60 lb test load. That means the actual ME of the wheel was only
    about 24 / 5 = 4.8 (I use the divisor 5 since the b&t had to have its pulley "reduced by more than 4 times").

    Thus, a weight of 4.8 lbs would have been sufficient (when the block and tackle was employed) to cause the 60 lb test load to RISE. Use of weights that were "about 4 lbs" would probably have just balanced the test load and this mass is consistent with what witnesses reported when allowed to heft one of its hankerchief concealed weights in their hands.

    Could Bessler's wheel have been "duplicated" using conventional mechanism?

    Not really. Wagner actually went to the trouble of building a large one directional wheel which he managed to impress people with. It used a spring wound clockwork type movement suspended from the interior portion of its drum's axle to maintain the motion of the wheel and could, IIRC, run for several hours after being wound up.

    The problem was that it would not have had anywhere near the CONSTANT power output of Bessler's wheels and it certainly would not have been able to output 25 watts CONTINUOUSLY for nearly two MONTHS!

    ReplyDelete
  39. I have learn a few good stuff here. Certainly worth bookmarking for revisiting.
    I surprise how a lot effort you place to make this sort of great informative
    website.

    My web site - see more

    ReplyDelete
  40. What's up, its good piece of writing regarding media print, we all be familiar with media is a impressive source of information.

    Feel free to surf to my web page: Hot Pictures Of Milfs

    ReplyDelete
  41. Why viewers still use to read news papers when
    in this technological globe all is presented on net?


    Feel free to visit my web-site - into Vintage Videos

    ReplyDelete
  42. Wow, incredible weblog format! How lengthy have you been blogging for?
    you made running a blog glance easy. The overall glance of
    your web site is fantastic, as smartly as the
    content!

    Also visit my weblog: Similar Web-site

    ReplyDelete
  43. I am genuinely thankful to the owner of this website who has shared
    this wonderful piece of writing at at this time.

    Feel free to surf to my homepage http://Coedgangbangs.net/

    ReplyDelete
  44. Hi, I do think this is a great website. I
    stumbledupon it ;) I may come back yet again
    since I saved as a favorite it. Money and freedom is the greatest
    way to change, may you be rich and continue to help others.


    Stop by my blog post: visit

    ReplyDelete
  45. What's Taking place i'm new to this, I stumbled upon this I have discovered It absolutely helpful and it has helped me out loads.
    I am hoping to contribute & help different users like
    its helped me. Good job.

    Review my web-site: photo

    ReplyDelete
  46. What's up, just wanted to mention, I loved this article. It was helpful. Keep on posting!

    Here is my site ... raspberry benefits

    ReplyDelete
  47. This is the perfect webpage for anyone who wants to find out about
    this topic. You know a whole lot its almost hard to argue with you (not that I personally would want to…HaHa).
    You certainly put a new spin on a topic that's been written about for years. Great stuff, just wonderful!

    My web blog: the grants

    ReplyDelete
  48. Wow, thіs aгtіcle is nice, my yοunger
    ѕister is analyzing these kinds of thіngs, therefore I am going to сonνey hеr.



    my wеbѕite :: vitamin shoppe coupons

    ReplyDelete
  49. Great post. I was checking constantly this blog and I'm inspired! Extremely helpful information specifically the remaining phase :) I take care of such information much. I used to be looking for this certain info for a very long time. Thanks and good luck.

    Feel free to visit my site :: the porn

    ReplyDelete
  50. Hi there, just became aware of your blog through Google, and found that it's really informative. I am gonna watch out for brussels. I'll be
    grateful if you continue this in future. Many people will be benefited from your
    writing. Cheers!

    my weblog: her explanation

    ReplyDelete
  51. Yes! Finally something about baseball stats.

    Here is my web page :: 1

    ReplyDelete
  52. Hmm it looks like your site ate my first comment (it was
    extremely long) so I guess I'll just sum it up what I had written and say, I'm
    thoroughly enjoying your blog. I too am an aspiring blog blogger but I'm still new to everything. Do you have any suggestions for newbie blog writers? I'd certainly appreciate it.


    Also visit my blog post :: redirected here

    ReplyDelete

Was Johann Bessler an Undiscovered Genius?

A recent casual comment about Johann Bessler got me thinking; was Bessler a genius?  My first thought was to dismiss the idea because there...