I had a dream last night that inspired me greatly. I dreamed that I had finished the wheel and it worked! I posted a video on youtube showing the wheel with all the detail about how it worked clearly revealed, and when I awoke the next morning (still in my dream) and looked out the window, the road in which I live was filled with photographers, reporters and TV vans etc, all waiting for me to appear.
I was interviewed and said that this discovery would end the global recession and create growth and employment through out the globe, and would prove to be the greatest invention of the century.
Then I really woke up - what a disappointment to know it was only a dream! But I must have been thinking along those lines even if only subconsciously, and I think perhaps there is an element of truth in the dream - I think this machine could have a major impact on unemployment.
I looked up "global recession" on google and found this statement in the first link I looked at "The biggest threat to the global economy is the dearth of growth and jobs rather than the size of government budget deficits."
So I return to the hunt for a solution with new determination, and so should we all - and anyway, I don't want acres and acres of windmills and solar panels covering the English countryside and that could happen unless we can find the answer.
JC
Watch that you don’t get the "conspiracy theory" nightmare the next night, where you will be hunted by everyone who has an interest in oil and its continued production and consumption. The street will be filled with middle eastern gunmen, poisoners from the petrochem companies, assassins with their polonium from the nuclear industry, and the inevitable undertaker at the end of the street with his tape measure ready - It is Halloween after all!
ReplyDeleteGood point Great Bear - but it'll only be a dream. I don't pay much attention to the conspiracy theorists. Thanks anyway!
ReplyDeleteJC
PM would put a lot of people OUT OF WORK.
ReplyDeleteI don't know why you think that anon. Every single manufacturing facility anywhere in the world, no matter how small, would be busy making generating plants for every home in the world. The other uses for the wheel are so numerous it would be impossible here to even to begin to list. So, far from putting people out of work, it would provide work for years to come for vast numbers of people.
ReplyDeleteJC
A working PM - with sufficient power to do useful work, such as local, off-grid or gried-tied energy generation - would create a tremendous amount of jobs, especially in third-world countries, hungry for cheap energy. Especially if it would be easy to built, it would be used all over Asia and Africa. But also in more developed countries. Even if we suppose that it would be large, it could still be built into the space between a double wall, or in a cellar. It should be grid-tied, so that excess energy can be fed back to the grid, and the power companies pay the owner back.
ReplyDeleteThere will be people out of work too, I suppose, particularly in the oil industry, but it certainly will not wipe out that industry. We still need plastics, lubricants, and large power generation facilities for several large scale industrial processes that cannot be interrupted such as steel, glass, and many more. On the other hand I'm certain it will create lots of jobs too - such machines need to be built and serviced. Not to mention development and improvement.
Good times!
No matter how hard I try, I can't feel very sorry for middle eastern dictators and such...
Weren't they too weak to compete with steam engines?
ReplyDeleteHow would they compete now, assuming the impossible?
And we had this debate about the size compared to output - 12 feet for 25 watts is not good. To power a home, they would be about as big, or likely much bigger, than the home. It's not a practical way to (cough) generate (cough)energy (cough, cough). You'd be better off with a solar panel and rechargeable batteries.
If they're too weak then anon has nothing to fear. Personally I wouldn't dismiss their potency until we have one to test and develop.
ReplyDeleteJC
Here's what will most likely happen when Bessler's wheels are finally duplicated.
ReplyDeleteThere will be some mention made in the news about the problem of PM finally being solved. Most likely Popular Science will do a brief article on it for their online magazine. One or two tv shows dealing with the unusual will show a segment featuring a wheel in rotation.
Unfortunately, there will have been so many prior designs that were so "very close" to it that getting a patent will prove to be difficult / impossible. One or two corporations will express some interest but back out when they realize how miniscule its power output is. Like Bessler, the discoverer will, of course, claim that the power output problem can be overcome by simply scaling up the machine.
Really? If the 12 ft diameter Merseburg wheel had eight 4 lb weights in motion to crank out a constant 21.4 watts, one can quickly calculate that to output the amount of power needed by a small house, say 15,000 watts, would require:
8 weights x (4 lb / weight) x (15,000 watt / 21.4 watt) = 22430 lbs = 11.2 TONS
Part II:
ReplyDeleteYep, I can just imagine the reaction of a homeowner being told that he can finally be independent of his local utility company and all it will take will be having 11.2 TONS of lead maintained in constant rotation in another building on his property! And, of course, if anything goes wrong with his "free" energy power plant, then HE will be responsible for its repair and maintenance.
I think if given a choice between covering his roof with maintenance free solar panels or the above gravity activated power system, about 999 out of 1,000 peole will opt for the solar panels. Yes, they don't produce power at night, but some of their daytime power output can be routed to lithium ion batteries to be stored for use at night or at night the home can just run off of the outside power grid.
We should be looking for a solution to Bessler's wheels strictly to solve a longstanding mystery and nothing more.
So, my recommendation would be to stop wasting time with dream schemes and "rags to riches" fantasies and focus exclusively on doing the hard work of finding out what Bessler's "Connectedness Principle" was. That single principle, once obtained, will allow a variety of working OB wheels to become feasible and MIGHT then open the door to more powerful forms of "free" energy in the future.
If these devices come true, the majority would be made in the cheap labor countries due to the greed of the company heads, and competition.
ReplyDeleteThis would only help increase the wealth of those countries,and the company heads, while the western world goes backwards.
Countries like the USA will not remain a superpower.
The majority of western countries will eventually end up being the same as the developing countries, it's slowly happening.
China, india most likely will be the new large economic superpowers,
unknowingly sponsored by the greed of corporations not concerned about their own countries future.
We do know their are ways to stop this occurring.
hope it doesn't come to that.
In my opinion, "so called free energy won't be free, governments will meter the devices, transport or home e.t.c.
the only difference is that it would be a green source of energy.
probably due to being labeled green, the pathetic puppet governments controlled by corporations will place a higher KW unit price on this type of power generation.
Placing a new tax would be unfair as everyone uses different amounts".
The only people that will profit from this device are those who patent it.
hopefully they are not selfish individuals, though this changes when the company gets publicly listed.
The only time this will be energy without a price for usage is at the beginning when few are in use, once popular, it will either be illegal to run a power generator on ones own property, or they will be metered.
Most likely the power industry would place pressure on governments, to only allow the power stations to be replaced with this device.
Perhaps the extra work involved in maintaining and setting up the systems would cover the jobs lost in other areas.
new jobs still need to be created, that could come out of using free energy, these would be possible if they are exempt or are charged at a low rate for power usage,
e.g. large desalination plants, hydrogen production plants.
there would be an increase in mining the resources needed.
This could balance out, in the same way that people were afraid that computers would take over their jobs, the technology created new jobs.
As far as global recession is concerned, my believe is that it's the beginning of a role reversal, and the west will be in much more poverty.
Countries can't stay in their same economic position if greedy corporations allow their products to be manufactured in the developing countries.
They corporate heads don't care, as they have enough wealth to live comfortable happy lives, no matter which country they live in.
eventually, china's goods will be manufactured in the western countries due to the cheaper labor costs.
All good points, Anon 04:18!
ReplyDeleteCurrently the USA is still the world's leading economic power, but China and India are coming up fast on us and China could overtake us in only five short years!
The problem? Wages in the US (and most of the West) are so high that we can not manufacture anything that can begin to compete in the global marketplace with products from China. Everyday more and more jobs are being lost here and more and more people are turning to taxpayer subsidized benefits to get by. Right now about 1 in 6 US citizens is dependent on food stamps to assist with food purchases. Being unemployed is one thing, but being unemployed AND hungry can really get ugly!
The solution? Assuming that bombing Chinese and Indian industrial centers is "off the table" (and I certainly hope it is!), the solution will be a massive deflationary type depression during which time wages and prices in the West will plummet. I'm predicting that after the dust settles the average wage in the USA will only be about $2 USD per hour! That will bring the prices of anything manufactured here way down so they can effectively compete with Chinese products globally. Our citizens will be able to live on that $2 per hour because the prices they pay for food and shelter will also drop dramatically. I also predict that there will be less and less tolerance for the very rich as the West slowly turns toward socialism and a Chinese form of state controlled capitalism. There will still be wealthy people, but "wealthy" might be defined as someone making maybe $50,000 USD per year instead of the current millions of USD.
We in the West are in for a "rough ride" in the coming years as we adjust to a "new normal", but, somehow, we'll manage to "keep a stiff upper lip" and muddle through it all.
The Kassel wheel was designed to turn either way and only achieved 26 rpm but the Merseberg wheel achieved upto 50 rpm and also turned either way, but it was only two thirds the depth of the Kassel wheel. The eight weights heard landing is an aproximation (about) and may involve two sets. The two-way wheels generally turned at a slower speed than the one-way ones.
ReplyDeleteI think that we assume too much and come to a very negative view, also that we dismiss this device at our peril.
If it were I to whom the solution came I have no intention of trying to patent it, so its would be there for all to see and make and improve.
Don't be so pessimistic you guys, this is a potential solution to the energy/pollution crisis.
JC
You all forget that the mechanism of the wheel can be utilized in a magnetic field so you can obtain much much more power with a smaller wheel. Such wheel would also be orientation independent which makes it portable.
ReplyDeleteInteresting thought, yellowson. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteJC
15,000 Watts To run a normal house!!!
ReplyDeleteWhoever quoted that needs to have their medication checked!
For 15,000 watts, one could run an electric shower constantly, have the electric cooker working almost constantly, have all the lights on all of the time…
I have a small wind turbine, so I monitor my power usage daily. I find I use 10.9KWH a day (measured and averaged over exactly 4 years). Average this over the a typical 24 hour day and you get a power demand of 454.17 Watts per hour. In the summer, I've even watched my electricity meter going backwards!
Now there are things that a Bessler wheel might not be able to power, for instance a 10Kw electric shower, or the cooker with oven and all rings blazing for the Christmas dinner. Most of the time, most power needs are down to just a few items, like say the TV, evening lighting, and fridges/freezers running intermittently in the background.
Don't forget, when cooking sometimes there's a need to use 3 or more stove elements.
ReplyDeleteAt max they use 2400 watts.
Air cons or heaters, during cooking could max out the usage to a 15000 watt peak.
That's right, PEAK is PEAK, and that’s why the electricity board will always be needed.
ReplyDeleteThe point is that quiescent or background power required for normal life is quite small. In my case, it's often less than 100 watts. But when averaged over the whole day, my consumption is well under 500 watts. Doubtless there will be always someone who has a workshop kiln that runs 18Kw for hours at a time and they'll never be rid of the national grid.
However, we're talking averages here. If you add up what's working in your home at present, you'll probably find it's very little. A few lights, the computer, the TV, the fridge etc., careful when you start adding things like cookers and heaters though, because they're intermittent.
A Bessler wheel producing a mere 250 watts would halve my electricity bills.
From http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=97&t=3
ReplyDeleteHow much electricity does an American home use?
In 2009, the average annual electricity consumption for a U.S. residential utility customer was 10,896 kWh, an average of 908 kilowatthours (kWh) per month. Louisiana had the highest annual consumption at 15,276 kWh and Maine the lowest at 6,252 kWh.
908 kWh / 30.416 = 29.8 kWh per day, divided by 24 = ~ 1240 Watts per hour.
Maine has the lowest even though it's one of the coldest states. I bet they use a lot of heating oil.
Whichever way you look at it, it's a big departure from 15,000 watts.
ReplyDeleteI'm also curious about the quoted figure of the wheel producing only 21.4 watts of power. I did a rough calculation of this a while ago and I'm quite sure it was nearer 50 watts.
Assumptions were:
* Assume a wheel of 12 feet, approx. 4m diameter.
* This raises boxes of weight of around 70 pounds or 31.7Kg
* Axle size is approx 6 inches or 0.1524m
* Assume wheel speed under load dropped to just 20RPM, i.e. 1 rev every 3 seconds.
Then distance weight lifted is 0.1524*PI*31.7*g (in 3 secs)
Then energy needed is 148.89 Joules (in 3 seconds)
Energy expended per second is then 148.89/3 = 49.63W
Obviously if the wheel turned faster then this figure gets higher, e.g. if the wheel speed was 26RPM, then the power produced would be 64.5 Watts
great bear,
ReplyDeleteI think techno was saying 15k was a daily usage, which turns out is a low figure if the average is 29.8k per day.
And the Meresburg wheel(6 inch axle) didn't have a 20-26 rpm. That was the Kassel; the Meresburg was 40 rpm; 50 according to Wagner. And Wolff said it was slow because the "pulley had to be reduced more than 4 times". So if it used a block and tackle the wattage was around 21 watts.
And techno and Anon, with due respect to your economic analysis, I'm fairly certain the solution isn't going to be in the form of massive depressions and the US becoming a third world country.
ReplyDeleteAnd great bear, I noticed your daily power usage was 10.9 kWh a day, averaged over 4 years. That's not that far off from 15k.
@ GB
ReplyDeleteMy 15,000 watt figure might seem high, but it's nice to have extra peak capacity if you need it. Right now I'm probably using about half that maximum at times like while using central air conditioning in the summer and also cooking in an all electric kitchen. (In the future I may convert to an all electric home heating system and would need a maximum of about 150,000 BTU's. I haven't yet calculated the current drain that will cause!).
Even if we halve my 15,000 watt figure to 7500 watts peak current, that would still require a Bessler gravity activated generator to keep 5.6 TONS of lead in constant motion.
My power estimate for the Merseburg wheel was made by simply multiplying the estimated power output of the Weissenstein wheel, 25 watts, by the ratio of the two stated load masses that these wheels lifted or:
Pmerseburg = Pweissenstein x (60 lb / 70 lb)
Pmerseburg = 25 watts x 0.857
Pnerseburg = 21.4 watts
This is only a rough estimate (and assumes they would lift the masses at the same rate with the same block and tackle arrangement), but the Merseburg wheel would not have been more powerful than the Weissenstein wheel.
Assuming the operating principle of Bessler's wheels is discovered, I think the two most important questions to be asked and answered about it are:
ReplyDelete1. What, if any, limitations does it place on the rotational speed of the wheel?
2. Assuming that it works by being immersed in the Earth's (natural, gravitational) acceleration field, can it be adapted also to operate in a (much higher) artificial acceleration field, such as a centrifuge could produce?
The higher a wheel's rotational speed, the higher will be its power output for the same torque (Power = Torque x Rotational speed).
As I see it, a possible best-case scenario would be a wheel whose power output would be limited only by materials-strength issues.
But first, of course, we have to find the operating principle!
Wise words, Arktos, I agree. Besides, gravity-assisted machinery that does not have to rotate (and is slow-moving) can be tremendously powerful too. The US-company in Ohio I was talking about earlier, using a 15,000 lbs pendulum, is expecting a 50% reduction of energy consumption generating 1Mw of electricity. That's no trivial amount of power.
ReplyDeleteThis is another reason why I "cheat" with my designs: I feel that design limitations of (purely mechanical) devices are also caused by slow-moving/reacting parts. Those limitations can be largely overcome by using electromechanical mechanisms - they react nearly instantly and thus allow for much higher speeds.
Arktos wrote:
ReplyDelete"The higher a wheel's rotational speed, the higher will be its power output for the same torque (Power = Torque x Rotational speed)."
True, but Bessler's wheels seem to have produced LESS torque as they sped up. They apparently produced their maximum torque when just starting to turn and this torque then dropped off rapidly as they approached a terminal rotation rate.
When just starting to turn, the CoM of a one directional wheel's eight weights would have had maximum horizontal displacement from the wheel's axle and been producing maximum torque (thus the need to tie a one directional wheel down to keep it from turning). Then, as a freely turning wheel began to accelerate, its torque would continuously DECREASE as the CoM of its weights eventually swung down to a point ALMOST directly beneath its axle (the so-called "punctum quietus" position). At that point, the greatly reduced wheel torque produced by the slightly offset CoM of the weights would just equal the small counter torque produced on the drum by air resistance and bearing drag and there would be no net torque left over to further accelerate the wheel..
However, when a load was suddenly connected to the axle of a wheel turning at its terminal rotation rate, the wheel would, after using up its accumulated angular momentum, finally slow down as its weight's CoM again swung back toward the maximum horizontal displacement of its starting position. As this happened, the wheel's torque would then INCREASE to match the increased counter torque of the load connected to it. Obviously, if the counter torque imposed by an external load happened to exceed the maximum startup torque of a wheel, then the wheel would just stop rotating after it had expended all of its terminal rotation rate angular momentum while moving the excessive load.
This bizarre effect was, I think, a result of the interference in the shifting of a wheel's weights that took place due to the increasing centrifugal force that they would experience with increasing wheel rotation rate. Every wheel would have a maximum terminal rotation rate (achievable only if the wheel ran in a vacuum with frictionless bearings) at which point it would produce zero torque because all of its weights would have been pinned against their stops on the outer rim by centrifugal force and their CoM would be located exactly at the center of the wheel's axle.
@Andre, I had a look at the website of that US company with the large pendulum (Feltenberger). They have some well-made technology, but I must admit I can't see how they obtain any net energy from it.
ReplyDelete@technoguy, I agree Bessler's wheels seemed to have some natural, quite low rotational speed. This could well have been determined by weights swinging, either by pendulum action, or by mass-spring resonant oscillation, also influenced as you suggest by centrifugal force. So there probably is some fixed upper limit for rotational speed, even for a wheel developed to modern standards.
I strongly dispute the figures given for average electricity consumption. The internet provides a whole range of figures depending on where ones bias lies and the size of the house one lives in. The DTI (Dept. Of Trade and Industry) provide the average overall figure of 3000KWH, which is assumed by many to be a yearly figure though I can't find where this is explicitly stated.
ReplyDeleteMy figures are for a three bedroom detached house, and they are accurate, measured and recorded daily. I don't consider myself particularly frugal, with many lights and appliances left switched on needlessly. There are some, and indeed I've known some who have left air conditioners and coolers running at the same time in opposition to each other, but I think I'll stick with the averaged figure of <500w per hour or 11KW per day (10.9kw), because I can verify these. As such, an upgraded Bessler wheel would be ideal for supplying electricity for most of my household needs; but I can't see myself being entirely free of the national grid.
On this point, there is a solution, but an expensive one. This is to have a power storage system like either batteries and inverters, or a flywheel storage system (some are capable of storing up to 300Kw!).
For those who find the need to expend between 15,276 kWh 29.8 kWh per day as quoted earlier, they may be forever in the grips of their energy companies.
We are living in 21st century. Yes, the mechanism would be the same as Bessler's but of course we wouldn't use materials and methods used in 18th century. Today's wheel would be much much better than the Bessler's wheel in terms of energy output. Therefore I think it is pointless to talk about the energy output of a 300 years old machinery. And additionally who said it must power a house, we are talking about a wheel turning itself?! The wheel would be an enabling technology and would create a paradigm shift in science. The results would be beyond our imagination. I don't want to be rude but using such an exceptional machinery for just powering a house is just a good example of naive thinking, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteLet's not get carried away, yellowson. No one has any idea what could be improved, or what could be scaled up.
ReplyDeleteBased on the evidence, the power output of the biggest wheel was enough to keep a 25 watt light bulb going. That's a dim light. That's not going to be able to compete with current technology. If it was a "mechanism" that was at the heart of the power output (not in my opinion), how do you know 21st century materials and methods are going to be able squeeze more power from it, once you realize the limited rotational speed is directly related to the power output?
I think Techno guy is right in this, the only thing that would come from solving the bessler riddle is the answer to the mystery, not a paradigm shift in science.
Doug I know I sound like a dreamer but why are you soo pessimistic? Just encourage the people here. For example I am thinking of a MEMS equivalent of the wheel. Thousands of that MEMS wheel would be much more efficient than a giant wheel. Ok, whatever that's me, I don't know if it would end the recession, but it would certainly change some things :)
ReplyDeleteMEMS, Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems, Yellowson?
ReplyDelete@Andre yeap!
ReplyDeleteI'm just being realistic.
ReplyDeleteA mems equivalent sounds like a nice dream to have. Wouldn't most people be happy to see any progress at all, much less a miniature version?
Realistically, energy can't be gained from gravity with cyclic motion. The best encouragement I can give people is to look for a different answer.
@ Arktos
ReplyDeleteYou touched upon an interesting point which I'd like to expand upon.
There is no law that states a Bessler mechanism will only work with gravity. In fact, it should be workable with ANY type of unidirectional force.
For example, instead of using ponderous weights that the Earth's gravity field will constantly pull downward, why not simply replace them with SPRINGS?! These springs could be tightened (via hydraulic mechanisms) until they produced a constant downward force of tons on the ends of a wheel's unweighted levers. With something like this, it might even be possible to give me my 15,000 watts of power (which I inadvertently referred to as current in an earlier comment...my mistake) that I'd like to have available in my home and do so with a machine far smaller than the huge garage sized drum that would be needed when using the Earth's comparitively weak gravity field to pull on lead weights.
If such a device could be made, say, the size of a stove and could power a home, then it also becomes possible to talk about it being used to power an automobile!
Where would its outputted energy come from since it would use no falling / rising weights? Again, 20th century physics provides an answer. The outputted energy would come from the slow loss of energy / mass by the springs themselves in the device!
Springs on the wheel's descending side would contract as levers there returned to their extended positions against the rim. These contractions would cause those springs to LOSE picogram amounts of energy / mass. Meanwhile, the springs on the wheel's ascending side would stretch as the levers they are attached to also eventually rose toward the wheel's rim as they approach the wheel's zenith. The stretching of the ascending side springs would require an INPUT of energy / mass that must come from all of the wheel's moving structures.
However, as in the case of using weights to produce a constant downward force on the ends of a wheel's levers, slightly MORE energy / mass will be lost by the springs on the wheel's descending side than will be regained by the springs on the ascending side. The result will be a net amount of energy / mass LOST by the springs with each wheel rotation that will be available to perform outside work.
I can even imagine a "spring activated Bessler motor" that would be about the size of small portable television set. Pressing down on a handle projecting from on of its sides would tension its internal springs and immediately cause a shaft projecting from the other end to begin spinning with considerable speed and torque. Pressing the lever down further would make the shaft spin even faster with greater torque!
Best of all, these types of devices would suffer far less from the limitations that centrifugal forces imposed on Bessler's wheels since their shifting levers could be made much less massive. Like Bessler's wheels, such motors could run for billions of years assuming no part failures. And, most importantly, they could run in ANY orientation.
.
Well, these are all very tantalizing possibilities for the future of "free-energy" devices. First, however, let us figure out how Bessler's WEIGHT driven wheels worked!
Isn't energy that's "lost" according to 20th century physics, forever lost, in the form of friction or heat? You can't lose energy this way and then recapture it on the other side of the wheel. It's lost for good, whether in the form of heat, sound, etc., or in your theory, fractions of a picogram of actual matter contained in the mass of the weights.
ReplyDeleteThe spring analogy you've made is a hoot.
@ Doug
ReplyDeleteOne must remember that all of the weights within one of Bessler's wheels were actually physically connected to each other at all times through a system of interconnecting cords and the structural framework of the drum. Any energy / mass lost by a particular shifting weighted lever would immediately be available to all other parts of the wheel if they needed it for their motion. Yes, some energy / mass would be irretrievably 'lost" to the surrounding air, but his wheels could "liberate" far more than this from their weights during wheel rotation.
When I first heard a physics teacher tell me that when a spring is compressed that it actually GAINS a microscopic amount of mass along with the energy put into it, I also thought it was a "hoot".
Eventually, however, I came to accept this foundational principle of 20th century physics. I do not like it, but I've learned to live with it and use it.
Can you find this phenomenon anywhere on the internet and post it here?
ReplyDelete@ Doug
ReplyDeleteThis problem is occasionally discussed on various physics forums and science type sites.
See, for example, this site:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&gbv=2&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=377l5903l0l6163l30l28l0l24l4l1l533l992l4-1.1l2l0&q=cache:iKe5h1qumkAJ:http://debunkeymonkey.blogspot.com/2009/08/does-compressed-spring-weigh-more-than.html+increase+in+mass+of+a+compressed+spring&ct=clnk
Ok, good. Now, why do you think the spring gains that tiny bit of mass? This is what I'm trying to convey.
ReplyDelete@ Doug
ReplyDeleteThe spring gains the tiny amount of mass when energy is put into it because, as Einstein found in 1905, energy and mass are the SAME thing! Previously, physicists though energy and mass were two unrelated things. They were wrong.
Whenever an object or system gains or loses energy, it MUST also simultaneously gain or lose the mass equivalent of that energy. Coversely, whenever an object or system gains or loses mass, it MUST also simultaneously gain or lose the energy equivalent of that mass. Mass and energy can never be separated from each other. They are like the two sides of a coin and "travel" together at all times.
When Bessler's wheels were outputting energy to outside devices, his wheels were LOSING energy AND mass while the outside devices were gaining energy and mass (which they eventualy passed on to surrounding atmospheric atoms and molecules).
Unfortunately, it is alot easier for us to measure changes in energy than for us to measure the minute changes in mass that ALWAYS occur simultaneously with those changes in energy. BUT, those changes in mass are always also taking place.
Once one realizes (and accepts) these concepts, one realizes that the weights inside of Bessler's wheels contained enough energy to, literally, keep them rotating for BILLIONS of years (assuming no part failures)!
They gain mass from the acceleration of their atoms under deformation.
ReplyDeleteWeights in a wheel don't undergo acceleration at that microscopic level, only on a macroscopic level. The weight accelerates in a gravitational field as a whole piece, one unit, and no energy, OR MASS, is transformed.
How did Einstein explain it? His theory was gravity behaves, manifests itself, as a fictitious force.
This is a good problem for the ambitious reader.
@ Doug
ReplyDeleteAre we discussing springs or weights?!
If springs, then. as a helical spring is either stretched or compressed, its metal atoms are forced slightly farther apart from each other. Since they are held together by electrostatic forces, energy is put into every bond between an atom and the ones surrounding it. That energy increase is simultaneously accompanied by a VERY slight increase in the mass of ALL of the subatomic particles contained within the spring.
As the spring returns to its orignal shape, its atoms come closer together again and the bonds lose the energy AND mass they formerly gained.
In the case of the weights within Bessler's wheels. they lose energy and mass while dropping and regain them while rising (at varying rates). They do NOT need to undergo any sort of deformations to do this. In a sense, each weight is analogous to a metal atom within a spring and the Earth's gravity field is analogous to the bonding force between metal atoms in a spring.
Your spring analogy is a hoot because the size of the springs ,levers and supporting structure to withstand tons of hydraulic force to deform the springs would be unimaginably huge, and dangerous. There's also the little problem of where to hook the other end of the spring. Back to the drawing board!
ReplyDelete@ Doug
ReplyDeleteI estimated that for a Bessler type weight driven wheel to output 15,000 watts continuously, it would have to contain 11.2 tons of lead or 22,400 lbs.
If a Bessler type SPRING driven wheel contained 8 levers with, say, two springs attached to each lever (total 16 springs), then each spring would have to be stretched until it produced a pull of:
22,400 lbs / 16 springs = 1400 lbs. / spring
Springs that will stretch a short distance until they produce a contractive force of 1400 lbs each is not the problem. The problem is stretching them all the first time until the wheel is running. That will require a modest amount of energy be initially inputted into the device.
Assuming each spring stretches two feet with an average tension of 700 lbs during the stretch., alll 16 springs will then require a total initial input of energy, E, of:
E = 16 springs x 700 lbs / spring x 2 feet
E = 22,400 lb-ft
Let's say we want to complete the stretching process in t = 5 minutes and wish to know how powerful, P, the motor would need to be to do this:
P = E/t = 22,400 lb-ft / 5 min
P = 4,480 lb-ft/min
P = 6074 watts = 8.145 horsepower
So, this type of advanced spring driven Bessler wheel could have its springs stretched to the required tensions in five minutes by a small gasoline engine that put out less than 10 horsepower which is about three times as powerful as the average lawnmower engine. Really quite modest when one thinks about it and that energy stored in the springs could be recovered for later reuse if the springs had to be relaxed in order to perform maintenance or repairs on the device.
I agree that such a device would have to be very well made to withstand the internal stresses its parts would experience. But, so would a barn sized, weight driven Bessler wheel for that matter. The big advantage of such a spring driven device is that it does the same thing the barn sized Bessler wheel does, but with a unit only about the size of a stove or refrigerator!
Dangerous? ANYTHNG we use to produce energy is potentially dangerous. This device could be placed into a small room with Kevlar reinforced walls so that, should something snap and a part "take flight", it would be safely contained.
One end of the spring is attached to the lever and the other end is attached to ?
ReplyDelete@ Doug
ReplyDeleteIt's a "challenge" to describe the device I am envisioning without posting images, however, I'll do my best.
In order for it to work, the spring driven Bessler wheel can not have (nor does it really need) a conventional horizontal axle. Instead, the wheel is actually a large ring gear that is held by ball bearings inside of an open frame and can rotate freely within it. A section of the outer teeth of the ring gear are accessible through an opening in the frame and can then drive a shaft that is connected to an outside electrical generator.
Each of the 8 levers within the wheel has a metal rod attached perpendicularly to its end so that half of each rod projects out onto one side of the wheel's plane. There would then be 8 rod ends projecting out on EACH side of the plane of the wheel.
8 springs on EACH side of the wheel would then be attached to the rod ends there and their other ends would be attached to a metal disc that was seperated from the wheel by several inches and would have its center of rotation offset from that of the frame held ring gear. The springs would be attached to the ends of the rods and at 45° increments around the perimeters of each of the two discs via small, but very strong universal joints.
The two side discs would themselves be attached to HALF axles so that they could freely rotate yet there would be nothing in the gap between a disc and the frame held ring gear except the springs. If the ring gear rotated, the two parallel discs would also rotate along with it since each is physically connected to the ring gear through 8 springs.
To activate this spring driven type Bessler wheel, the two side discs' half axles (which are coaxial) are both simultaneously pulled away from the frame containing the ring gear wheel by a mechanical or hydraulic system which, as noted above, would require the input of energy via an electric or fuel powered motor. As this happened the springs' tensions would rise and, since the "center of tension" of the springs would always be eccentric with respect to the center of the frame held ring gear, the ring gear would begin to spin. It would continue to spin until there was a critical part failure (perhaps one or more springs failing due to metal fatigue) or, billions of years later, the springs had become massless!
Yes, it certainly sounds "do-able" to me. But, as I've previously said, FIRST we need to figure out how Bessler's WEIGHT driven wheels worked.
Hi There,
ReplyDeleteThe only less expensive way to obtain energy for the future is through gravity. I expect that when a newest mechanism becomes available to extract usefull energy from gravity potential, all people evolved in this discussions, topics and comments, help with is own best efforts to spread the technology announcement.
Until now primary results are positive.
Next step is build a new mechanism without corrections.
Next year I hope to be ready for presentation.
Make patent is not my target.
Best for all
FMconceptz