Sorry to bang on about this but it is important in my opinin. There's been some discussions on the forum about how much power Bessler's wheel could generate and it has been argued that Bessler's wheel will never be of any practical use. I quoted some of Bessler's words and one particular sentence that struck me afresh was, "If I were to place, next to a 12-Ell wheel, one of 6-Ells, then, if I wanted to, I could cause the smaller one to revolve with more force and useful power than the large one. I can, in fact, make 2, or 3, or even more, wheels all revolving on the same axis."
I know there are many, both here and on the forum, who are sceptical about the amount of power which would be available from a modern gravity wheel. I have a sanguine disregard for this scepticism and ask you to consider this.
There are two conclusions to be drawn from the above quote; firstly that the inventor could make his wheels more or less powerful, regardless of the apparent external dimensions; and secondly by placing more wheels on the same axle he could increase the power output.
The Kassel wheel was able to lift a chest of stones weighting 70 pounds on the end of a rope, but I have argued that it was designed to turn more slowly to increase its chances of surviving the longevity test. Now picture two or more Kassel wheels, both mounted on the same axle. Together, they should be able to lift 140 pounds or more, depending how many are added. Applying the first conclusion from the above quote means that the 140 pounds lifted could be increased - elsewhere he claims a fourfold increase. So possibly, the 140 pounds lifted could be increased to 560 pounds, or a quarter of a ton. Given due consideration, I am sure that there is enough potential to run a home electricity generator, and overcome the maximum possible load, as long as there are enough wheels of the optimum configuration on each axle.
By 'optimum configuration', I mean a wheel which can only turn one way. Two-way wheels were balanced and needed a push to start them, therefore I do not subscribe to the idea that the mechanisms could turn the wheel in either direction. My idea of mirror image mechanisms is more logical to my mind, in which case removing the reverse-turning mechanisms would reduce an unnecessary additional load imposed on them, and remove their extra weight. This configuration would be less complicated, less likely to suffer problems and probably have more power available.
So I am confident that when it is finally built, Bessler's wheel will provide electrcity for every house - everywhere.
JC
I agree that a unidirectional wheel would likely be more powerful, for the same reasons you mentioned - less complexity, weight, and thus a better power-to-weight ratio. It depends on how it was constructed, of course.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I think the mechanism we discussed (and I will send the drawings to you with some explanatory text shortly) does have the capability to go in either direction without any changes required. It's simple, crude even, but for that reason just might do the trick. As you've seen there are 2 embodiments possible for the weights - one that is suitable only for "high-speed" operation (won't work well at low speeds) and a second form that works from a slight push.
All assuming I'm not completely bonkers, of course :-)
I think it does have merit.
I have to disagree; we had this debate about how much power it took to keep a modern home running, and it was considerably more than the most powerful wheel, even if you use the most optimistic estimate for the wheel. If bessler could have made the smaller wheels more powerful, it would have made more sense to do that than to build them larger and larger. Since that isn't what he did, it raises doubt whether his claims were true.
ReplyDeleteThis academic debate about power forgets one major detail: no one has figured out how to get a wheel to even turn itself, much less power external things.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDon't forget we're talking about power consumption (electrical power is not "consumed", I should say "dissipation") at peaks; if there's little consumption such a wheel (whatever its output in Watts) could simply charge a bank of accumulators or batteries, just like solar panels or a wind turbine would do (assuming daylight/sun and wind is available). Inverters would draw as needed from the storage. Several wheels would no doubt yield more generation capacity.
ReplyDeleteJustsomeone said: I agree totally John but I forsee large gravity wheels powering communities vs. each home having one. Here are a few more quotes I like:
ReplyDelete"since the motive force of the device, which at the moment is only that of a small working model, can be multiplied to an almost infinite degree through combination. Further advantage can be obtained by working the device in conjunction with ordinary machines, and altogether there is no load or burden too great for the machine to face if the working arrangements are properly set up." - pg 208
"now present for all to see, the principle of Perpetual Motion. For no burden or resistance is so great that, other things being equal, the P.M. principle cannot overcome it, since it is capable of having its effect multiplied indefinitely." - pg 210
Take care.
Andre, I'm not an enemy. I think John realizes that.
ReplyDeleteSome inventors have taken skepticism and used it as motivation, or inspiration. Some discoveries have been made by those who were originally skeptical. Bessler had setbacks and skepticism to deal with. You and I have different theories how his wheels produced power, that's all. I don't think gravity is the answer, you and the others do. Maybe something I contribute here could lead to an answer, whatever it may be.
Check out this guy's website; he has an interesting unified field theory, especially the part about the role of "gravity":
http://www.awitness.org/unified/index.html
It's written in an accessible fashion; sometimes he gets redundant; but don't we all.
Doug, John doesn't see you as an enemy and neither do I. I see no reason for that. I don't think anybody does for that matter. I always maintained that skepticism is healthy, and you certainly know what you are talking about. We're not always in agreement, but that's something else and it certainly doesn't make you my (or anybodies) enemy. Fear not.
ReplyDeleteBTW, I agree (!) on your statements in your post. Thanks for the link, I'll certainly will check it out.
Doug, nice link. Very interesting, I put it in my favorites and will certainly read it all over time. From what I have read so far, there's much what I believe too - that indeed gravity may be a electromagnetic effect. There's indeed quite some evidence accruing for that; Dr. Evgeny Podkletnov and his rotating superconductors comes to mind, and there's plenty more. I referred to this phenomenon also in the excepts of the remarkable Boeing research study I posted a few weeks back.
ReplyDeleteAndre , read the page about the test of his theory here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.awitness.org/unified/pages/page3/simple_test.html
It's a bold statement; i don't know if it would show up in the ocean like he says but it would be cool to try.
I insist if bessler could have made the wheels more powerful without increasing their size, and thus their wear and tear on bearings and such, then why in the world would he keep making them bigger? It just doesn't make sense. If he wanted a wheel to last for 53 days to prove no one could have been turning it from another room or whatever the reason for the duration test was, it would make more sense to make it smaller in anticipation of the 53 day test. It would still have exhibited the same power (or so he claimed) without sacrificing the speed and the wear and tear on the parts. Unless the wear and tear was not the issue he was addressing by making a slower wheel. We'll never know for sure.
Since he didn't build the last wheel(or any of the wheels) that way (smaller but more powerful), you have to ask "Why not?", if it was within his ability to do so. Can anyone explain that?
I don't think there is, or ever could be, a satisfactory explanation because...
We don't know how they worked.
Bessler wrote:
ReplyDelete"If I were to place, next to a 12-Ell wheel, one of 6-Ells, then, if I wanted to, I could cause the smaller one to revolve with more force and useful power than the large one..."
This makes sense since the amount of torque a wheel produced was, IF one only considers radial dimensions and weight masses, proportional to the radius of a wheel and the mass of its weights . Obviously, then, if one halves the radius of a wheel, he can still make its torque greater than that of the wheel double its size by simply installing weights inside of the smaller wheel with more than twice the mass of the larger wheel's weights. And, of course, placing several wheel's (or "ganging" them) on a common axle will increase the torque. However, we must also keep in mind that torque is not the same as power.
The major obstacle that Bessler had to face in constructing larger wheels with more massive weights in an effort to increase their constant power output was that, at a given rotation rate, the weights near the periphery of a larger wheel move faster and experience more CF. CF, as I've previously mentioned, directly interfers with the shifting process that a wheel's levers depend upon in order to keep their CoM on the descending side of the axle during wheel rotation.
So, while it might seem like an easy matter to just double its weight's masses to double a wheel's constant power output in a wheel of a given diameter, it does not quite work out like this in practice.
When Bessler went from using 4 lb weights in his 12 foot diameter Merseburg wheel to using almost 8 lb weights in his 12 foot diameter Kassel wheel, he only went from a constant power output of about 21.4 watts to 25 watts. That's only a 17% increase in constant power output caused by nearly doubling weight mass! Doubling the Weissenstein wheel's weight mass also increased CF so much that it reduced a 12 ft diameter wheel's maximum terminal rotation rate from about 50 rpm down to 26 rpm!
Part II:
ReplyDeleteThis observation must immediately put into doubt any constant power output projections made for larger wheels which are based solely on their sizes and weights' masses unless one has also figured in what the effects of greatly increased CF will be on the location of the weights' CoM and how this will then limit the wheel's theoretical maximum constant power output.
I can just imagine how very disappointed Carl must have been when he saw that the wheel Bessler promised him would have double the power of the Merseburg wheel was only able to produce a mere 17 percent more power despite using the more massive weights. Is it any wonder then why Carl was not sinking his OWN money into buying Bessler's invention?
So, in light of all of this, I hold little hope that gargantuan weight driven Bessler wheels will ever be used to power our world. However, if the CF factor can be eliminated within a wheel (by eliminating the massive weights and making all other structures as light and strong as possible) and if the other, far more stronger forces of nature can be used instead of gravity, then, possibly, this situation could change.
But, before any of this can happen, we will still need to determine the actual weight driven design that Bessler used. We are somewhat in the position of people who want to construct a jet aircraft, but must first duplicate the invention of the Wright brothers in order to learn about the aerodynamic forces that would keep a self powered object aloft. Unfortunately, we have much work to do.
Techno wrote
ReplyDeleteHowever, we must also keep in mind that torque is not the same as power.
Bessler didn't say he could increase the torque. He said I could cause the smaller one to revolve with more force and useful power than the large one..."
More power. We know torque is work using rotational leverage. Power is work per unit of time.
@ Doug
ReplyDeleteWhen Bessler wrote "revolve with more force" he meant with more torque. This is yet another, IMO, case in which the translations of his writings are not as clear as they could be.
Yes, power equals torque times rotation rate. But the point I am trying to make is that one can not assume that just because he, say, doubles the mass of a wheel's weights and also doubles its radius, that its torque and power will automatically increase by a factor of 2 x 2 or 4 times at any particular rotation rate. This is because increasing weight mass also increases CF at any rotation rate which then tends to lower the torque at that rotation rate by moving the CoM of the wheel's weights closer to the axle of the wheel.
Yes, increasing both weight mass and wheel radius will increase a wheel's constant power output at any rotation rate, but not anywhere near as much as predicted by simplistic calculations. Once we have the design Bessler's weight driven wheels used, we will be able to obtain formulas which will accurately generate their power vs rotation rate graphs and all of this will become much clearer.
When John has some time he'll post the drawings I sent him. Irrespective if the design is Bessler's or not, it is indeed limited in terms of rotational speed due to effects of CF. That's why I came up with two versions of the actual actuating part (weights and leverage) of the armature. Once you'll see the design I trust you'll see what I mean. It can be improved upon, however, allowing for higher speeds still.
ReplyDeleteJohn, is the translation of the quote open to debate?
ReplyDeleteCould it have been "more torque" rather than "more force and useful power"?
If the translation is ambiguous, that's one thing. If it's not, and he clearly said more useful power, how can you say he meant "with more torque"? You can only say that if the translation is wrong or subject to more than one meaning.
This is a good example of cherry picking information (or pulling it out of thin air in some cases); which happens all the time with the bessler legend to make a case.
Another quote from Techno:
This is because increasing weight mass also increases CF at any rotation rate which then tends to lower the torque at that rotation rate by moving the CoM of the wheel's weights closer to the axle of the wheel.
That doesn't gel with what actually happens. If the CF increases, the weights aren't going to move closer to the axle. They're going to move farther from the axle. Which is what you previously said is why the torque drops! Because of the "principle" that keeps the weights closer to the axle on the ascending side! And the increased CF would interfere with the process! Now you're saying it's the opposite? Make up your mind please.
I'll check the translation, Doug, but give me a few days.
ReplyDeleteJC
Guys, I have posted Andre's design concept here, and you can access it from the side tab, where it says 'Andre La Pierre's design'.
ReplyDeleteJC
Doug, in answer to your question, the exact German goes as follows:-
ReplyDelete" Weit mehr Gewalt, Force und Gaben
Als wie das grosse Kunst-Werk haben..."
Literally from babelfish:-
"Far more force, Force and gifts As like the large work of art… "
My translation:-
""Far more power, force than does the large work of art have."
From my book:-
"more force and useful power than the large one.
Thanks John, I guess torque isn't a possible substitute.
ReplyDeleteThat's a nice concept, Andre.
ReplyDeleteThe little blue circle where the two weights are connected together concerns me though. Is that meant to be a rigid bar through there, just a pivot point? The way the drawing looks, makes it seem to not be a rigid connection; if that were true, I don't see how the round weight could influence the square one and the levers, or vice versa.
Do you plan to build this?
Thanks for posting, John!
ReplyDeleteThanks Doug. These drawings are far from perfect, but that's more due to my limited skills. I used LibreOffice draw for this, not exactly the right (precise enough) tool for this kind of stuff, but easy. The blue circle is supposed to be the bearing around which the shifter weight arm (M1) moves. There could be one single axle, of course, on which all these arms (armatures) are mounted. The axle is not driven by the armatures, but the support structure is.
This design also shows, I think, why such a wheel has what was called (by Techno I think) a terminal rotational velocity: especially the low-speed design (with the round M1 shifter weights) would at a certain "terminal" speed (or just below that) start lifting the shifter weights, causing the arms to contract. I suppose the effects of CF will on the other hand also try to force the M2 weights outwards towards the periphery of the wheel, counteracting the effect.
This corresponds with Bessler's clues that both weights come in pairs AND are "in constant battle" with each other, which is exactly what happens. And all together, they cannot achieve equilibrium. I suppose at some point -at the terminal speed- M1 will wobble around the middle position, and the arms will function erratically - more or less automatically limiting the maximum speed of the wheel. That's what the triangular version is for - it will shift less easily and perhaps less prone of CF effects.
This "shifter-wobble" effect can be improved upon (read: suppressed), I feel, but for simplicity's sake I left it like this.
I am indeed thinking of building it - in fact I did some testing already on a smaller scale and that worked nicely, better than I expected actually.
@ Doug and JC
ReplyDeleteForces, being vector quantities, have directions. If you both think "gewalt" means LINEAR force, then I would ask you exactly in which direction that force is supposed to be working. When using gewalt to describe the property of a ROTATING object such as a wheel or its supporing axle, we are not talking about linear force, but, rather, about ROTATIONAL force, with a direction that is either clockwise or anticlockwise, which is also known as TORQUE. I continue to consider the current translation to be unclear in this regard.
@ Doug
When weighted levers passed the 6 o'clock position of one of Bessler's wheel's they began to "gravitate" toward the axle. In essence they just parted from their rim stops and began to swing inward toward the axle. This motion was absolutely critical to shifting the CoM of all eight weights toward the axle. With increasing weight mass and rotation rate, CF would also increase and impede this process. The result was that the wheel would have to rotate further before a weighted lever at the bottom of the wheel began to swing inward toward the axle with the result that the CoM of ALL eight weights on the wheel's descending side would be rotated closer to the punctum quietus or equilibrium point directly under the axle. This then lowered the torque of the wheel at any rotation rate and eventually resulted in a lower maximum terminal rotation rate for the wheel.
@ Andre
I've perused your design and, sorry to say, it just looks like a more mechanically complicated version of several of Bessler's designs such as MT 31. They did not work and, most likely, neither will yours.
Isolated two weight, shifter / shifted designs always look impressive at first glance, but the problem is that as the less massive shifted weight moves in one direction, the more massive shifter weight always moves in the opposite direction with the amounts of shifting taking place being inversely proportional to the masses of the weights. The result is that the CoM of the two weights either remains stationary or drops a small distance! If one has several of these isolated two weight mechanisms symmetrically distributed around the periphery of a wheel, their combined CoM will, as wheel rotation takes place, then either stay at the center of the axle or drop a small distance below it. In either case, the wheel will eventually be in equilibrium.
Because of the complexity of the design you present, I think you will find it difficult to get anyone to model it for you. Wish I could be more optimistic about it.
I think your design looks interesting, Andre; you've obviously put a lot of work into it. Personally I would have drawn it in a CAD program able to export dxf files (which I understand LibreOffice can't do). Then you could have imported it as a dxf file into your silux program, assigned links, masses etc, and it would be ready to analyse.
ReplyDeleteI've used Turbocad for many years, only because it was far cheaper than Autocad. It resembles silux in two respects: the learning curve can be a bit steep at first, but it's worth it in the end!
@Techno: Thank you for your analysis. Odd thing is, personally I don't see it as really complicated, quite simple actually but maybe that's because I am biased as I like it. One has to view each armature (arm) as a single, fully independent and identical mechanism, and then it's simple. My biggest worry wasn't so much the (position of) CoM as it was friction and the lateral forces on the armature itself. I see what you mean, though. I'll put on my thinking cap and also follow Arktos' advise ;-)
ReplyDelete@Arktos: Thank you, too, for your excellent tips. Indeed LibreOffice doesn't export DXF's (I just checked again) and that's why my attempts at analysis with silux were quite primitive. I think I'll redo it or somehow try to import it to a CAD program (I have several floating around, I believe) and then follow your tips to import it to silux (in a Windows virtual machine). Let's see if I can analyze the CoM as well as the terminal velocity speed issue and/or improve on it.
Thanks guys for your help.
Come to think of it... Techno, the biggest issue you have with it was the CoM of the weight falling below the axle, right? Bessler said that "with a discerning eye" it would be possible to find a combination of his ideas that would work. Hmmm. I think I can easily implement a change that would solve this CoM issue. But first I need to create DXF's :-)
ReplyDeleteI tend to agree with you Doug,..I don't think a passive lever system is going to do the job.
ReplyDeleteAll it might yeild is leverage,but with leverage you must forfit distance,which equates to unity out.
No worries, Andre!
ReplyDeleteI dug out my three silux pdf's that I think you will also have downloaded. If you get stuck on anything concerning importing dxf files, turning them into models, etc, you'll probably find the answer in the "Clockwork Mechanism" - it's the last, very detailed example in "Cookbook 2D".
Correct, Arktos, and a very impressive example indeed. BTW I already made some design changes (per the remarks of Techno) and am in the process of converting it to Silux.
ReplyDelete@ Andre
ReplyDeleteI had some time and decided to make a quick and dirty WM2d model of your shifter mechanism. I had four mechanisms at 90 deg intervals around a 36 inch diameter wheel. My heavy shifter weight was 20 lbs and the shifted / extended weights were only 1 lb each.
The results were not good. The extended two arms on the descending side (right side for a CW turning wheel) just sank down toward the 6:00 position, but would not lift the opposite mechanisms with their folded in smaller weights over the 12:00 position. I tried varying the masses of the wheels, but nothing helped.
I based my version of your mechanism on the images JC posted and it's always possible my angles / extended distances are not quite the same as what you have.
But, based on what I saw, I don't think this one will be a runner. If you actually build this with four mechanisms, you will have to have a rather wide drum so they will not be hitting against each other by the axle.
Techno, thanks for testing. Based on your critique I did make some changes in the design already, especially with regard to three points that needed attention/improvement:
ReplyDelete1). Shifter weight "wobble" at high RPM's
2). CoM higher than the axle
3). Easier shifting of the weights
An added "bonus" to the changes I made is the fact that the shifter weights now also conform to another (and documented) Bessler artifact: cylindrical lengthwise pierced weights. I already made some slides and sent them to John so it'll be easier to see what I mean. The changes don't add much complexity and I think it's a better implementation especially since "wobble" at high RPMs is eliminated.
I hope John will have some time and be so good to post it once more.
I've posted version II under version I, Andre, and all.
ReplyDeleteJC
Andre,..Something does not add up.In the last drawing of version II the mechanism on the left of the wheel is back to front.They have been reversed.
ReplyDeleteThe M2 weights are folded in but they are pointing the wrong way!?
@ Andre
ReplyDeleteTrevor is right. You have TWO of the smaller shifted weights in the upper right quandrant and none in the lower left quadrant! This just shows how easy it is to get confused when trying to draw such a complex mechanism.
I did not notice this myself when I was making the wm2d model because I just made one mechanism, copied it, and then pasted it onto a support wheel four times while rotating the wheel through 90° increments between pastings.
Well, I like the use of sliding shifter weights, but it really does not change things much. The CoM of the four heavier shifter weights will still be slightly displaced onto the left or ascending side of a four mechanism wheel and this will just counter balance the CoM of the four much lighter weights that is displaced much farther out onto the right or descending side of the wheel. I think this design looks workable because one is visually impressed by the relatively extreme projection of the small shifted weights' CoM onto the descending side. But, this displacement is only possible by using a VERY large shifter to shifted weight mass ratio. In my model I was using a ratio of 20:1!
While I agree that Bessler's weights were cylindrical and "pierced in the middle" (that is with an axis that had been bored out), I don't think that they were sliding along metal rods inside of his wheels. Rather, they were just mounted on the forked ends of levers with their axes parallel to a wheel's axle. This configuration allowed them to get maximum support as they contacted a wooden rim stop and also allowed for their quick removal / reinstallation whenever Bessler had to translocate a wheel to another set of upright supports to prove to witnesses that they were not being powered by some hidden mechanism within an upright support.
Of course, the most convincing demostration of this would have been if Bessler had let the witnesses pick a site outdoors at which they had set up two upright supports for a wheel. They would have had to have these supports very strongly braced and seperated from each other by a fairly precise distance. Bessler could then have loaded his wheels onto a wagon, driven them to the site, hoisted them into place, and, finally, installed their lead weights to show that the TORQUE driving them came strictly from the interior of a wheel.
@John, thank you again!
ReplyDelete@Trevor: I am not sure I see what you see. It's identical, basically, to the last picture of "version 1", apart of course of the modifications with the sliding weights and the actuator arms. All mechanisms are identical and function completely independently, and are mounted at 90 degree intervals. Therefore the one at the bottom is the mirror image of the one on top (12 o'clock). Maybe I'm missing something (I'm quite thick in the mornings ;-)
Possible improvements of this design:
1. Tensioned springs can be employed at the M1 weights (and perhaps at certain parts of the arm armature) to make shifts more swift and sharp;
2. The length of the green arms extending from M1 to the actuator arms, as well as the length of the actuator arms itself can be increased to provide greater mechanical leverage - the would of course increase the angle of these arms as well (not the armature itself)
3. The length of the armature arm (holding M2) can be increased by 20-30% after implementing (2).
Techno: If I made a mistake, it's better to refer to the previous (the one before the last composite slide) slide to show the idea. In fact two should do the job (if it doesn't then the design is faulty) but it won't be smooth with two arms and will experience "power gaps". I apologize if I make a mistake in the composite drawing but I think the idea is clear.
ReplyDeleteThe shifter mass ratio required is indeed a point of concern. Friction in the armature is certainly an issue here, and should be minimized. I'm thinking of constructing a complete small physical model to tinker with. For example, the M1 shifter weights could also be mounted on sliding rails with ball bearings, such as the ones used in cabinet drawers. Likewise, ball bearings should be used where possible. No doubt pivot points in the armature can be further optimized; tensioned springs can perhaps help to make the folding/contraction action of the armature more snappy and (but won't do much if anything for the forces required to trigger it). Optimizing the leverage of the green actuator arms is another thing. All of this of course to make the action as smooth and snappy as possible.
Andre,..Sorry all the drawings are wrong.You will have to invert the mechanisms on the left hand side.
ReplyDeleteNo offence intended.
Trevor, I'm certainly not offended, as you are correct. It took me a few minutes (as I said, I'm quite thick in the mornings) but eventually the penny dropped - it's a stupid mistake. I rushed it a bit too much, I guess.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, while staring at it the way it is, I was wondering what would be the consequence keeping it as it is. Assuming clockwise rotation, it doesn't look very disadvantageous to have (often) three, and when the 3 o'clock shifter weight reacts, even 4 weights on the descending side.
I suppose the way it is now it probably won't run very smoothly as a result of the CoM going changing constantly.
I think I will construct one (small scale) complete armature and try to optimize that for minimum friction and as snappy and smooth operation as possible. I installed OpenCAD today (which does produce DXF's) so I can export it to Silux and do some more (and more precise) testing.
ReplyDeleteOkay!,..Go well.
ReplyDeleteAren't we going in circles
ReplyDeleteBessler's wheel was supposed to be so simple that even a carpenters son could have made it!!
Why are we trying to complicate things and not keep looking at simple solutions
Thats because it is simple. all the clues are in the books .
ReplyDelete