This can be no more than speculation until we know what kind of potential output Bessler's wheel might generate, but when his wheel is proven and accepted, I think there will be many versions appearing, offering home electricity generators. I don't know how large a wheel will have to be constructed but I guess that something powerful enough to provide all domestic requirements will have to be quite big. Bessler's wheels were built very narrow but he did say they could be built with more than one on an axle, so we can imagine something with a lot more width on a single axle. The question then is what size of generator would be required to fulfil all of one household's demands, then we might have some idea of the size of wheel needed?

I found it difficult to discover on the internet, how much electricity a home needs. I realize of course that there are many variations in how much we use so some kind of working average would suffice. I note that to calculate it you need the total square footage of living space, disregarding open porches, garages, and basements or attics, plus you must list all electric appliances, including any AC, or heating, and the voltage and load of each in amperes or wattage. As a short cut I looked at standby electrical generators suitable for home use.

For about £24000 you can get a unit which will power a complete house of 4000 plus square feet, weighing about 8141 pounds and providing 200 kVA. I'm sure there are smaller cheaper units available but that is one I found. Its length is 11 feet, width four feet, and height about seven feet, a pretty big beast. We don't know how much a suitable Bessler wheel would weigh but its cost could be lower due to the simplicity of its design, compared to a diesel engine. On the other hand its size could be equally daunting and weight probably similar to traditional generators.

I know that some disagree with me, but let's consider what we think we know. The only weight described was one from the Merseberg wheel which was estimated to weigh about four pounds. That wheel turned in either direction and I remain convinced that it had duplicate mechanisms, one for each direction. In which case we can discard half the width and half the number of weights. Against public opinion I am also satisfied that there were five mechanisms and Bessler said the weights worked in pairs, so lets assume five pairs of weights at four pounds each.

We are left with a twelve foot wheel of six inches diameter, and ten weights of four pounds each, totalling 40 pounds, capable of turning at 50 RPM. To bring the total weight/power ratio up we can increase the width but we don't know if it is possible to increase the mass of the individual weights. We could extend the width of the wheel to say five feet, so multiplying the six inch width by ten and increasing the number of weights by ten gives us a total weight of 400 pounds rotating at 50 RPM. In the traditional example quoted above, it includes the alternator so we'd have add that to the wheel which would make the comparative sizes roughly the same, although the weight could be less. Even so I think the comparison works quite well and I think a wheel turning at that speed with that amount of weight would be more than capable of producing enough electricity for our individual needs.

I have deliberately ignored any flywheel effect possibly inherent in Bessler's two-way wheels as we know too little to form any judgement on the likely outcome.

JC