Sunday, 8 July 2012

Any other applications for Bessler's wheel?

I suppose it's a bit premature to be considering such things but, there is a little negativity about how beneficial a working version of Bessler's wheel would be.  There is doubt about its capability to furnish an ordinary house with enough electricity to cover all its wants.  We won't know how practical that will be until we have a working one to play with, but there must be other uses which it would still be suitable for.  Here are some suggestions:-

Pumping water in arid areas where a low tech solution is needed.  Even without electricity, air conditioning might also be possible in hot climates, and commercial refrigeration and cold storage facilities seem obvious choices too.   Which leads on to my main point.  There must be other uses for the gravitywheel other than producing electricity for various uses. I wonder if it could be used to compress air?  Compressors are excellent alternatives to electricity for supplying energy to all manner of equipoment.

There may be a requirements for something to replace electricity either permanently or occasionally - something that used a relatively small amount of electricity but for extended periods of time - or moves very slowly and at length? 

Emergency lighting?  Conveyers? Irrigation? Ships? Trains? 

Any ideas or suggestions?

JC


10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10i1k12l3m6n14o14r5s17t1u6v5w4y4-3,1’1.

62 comments:

  1. Okay!,..thats encouraging to hear.I am also nearly finnished biulding my wheel.
    Hope to be testing it this comming week.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Just a word of warning,..The wheel does need to be protected from dust and sand.This probably one of the reasons why Bessler covered his wheels so well.
    The vital parts are fast and free moving.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It could be used anywhere we are now using fuel to turn a shaft...scaled up of course . Just a note : all designs aside there is something bugging me about Bessler's riddle and that is this: even if you discovered how to raised four pounds with one pound and four times as high at that now you have four pounds raised are you now supposed to raise sixteen then sixty-four pounds or just let now the four pounds fall ? There is something wrong with the example that Bessler gave us to aspire to . If I knew this trick I'd throw the weight backward to the three o'clock position time and time again where it would be the most useful and forget about the long journey around the 12 o'clock position .

    ReplyDelete
  4. Desalination, pumping applications, mechanical ventilation, stationary engines, waste treatment systems: in short, any application that need lots of torque (several wheels on a shaft). I can think of a couple of Bessler wheels constantly storing torque in a giant flywheel; such as those used for load balancing in the electric grid or for massive temporary (surge) backup power systems.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Excellent Andre, thanks. Chris I'll explain it to you soon!

    JC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well... I have my own explanation but it doesn't have anything to do with a pound raising more than a pound ... not directly anyway . But I'll listen .

      Delete
  6. Interesting, those 55 (!) characters, John. Looks to me as if you've found the primmer to a (Orffyreus) code?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll give a little clue Andre. There are 56 characters.

      JC

      Delete
  7. TG:
    "The "right track" is the somewhat meandering path one must head in to finally find the design that Bessler actually used. From the time a mobilist gets on that track, he WILL know if he is still on it and making progress based on the amount of the Bessler wheels' external performance data and the MANY "embedded" clues that he is able to rationalize."

    If you can't identify an energy source in your track, you're on the wrong track.
    Springs aren't a source of energy, they can only store energy.
    Weights aren't a source of energy, they can only store energy.
    Levers aren't a source of energy, they can only multiply force.
    Cords.. well.

    What is a source of energy? More specifically, what could have been Bessler's source of energy? Or is everyone afraid of that question, because the answer confirms their worst fear?

    If the energy source is identified, it won't scale up and be of any use now, anymore than it was back then. The concept would pale in comparison to modern technology, just as it paled next to steam. Sorry. I'm just keepin' it real.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "What is a source of energy? More specifically, what could have been Bessler's source of energy? Or is everyone afraid of that question, because the answer confirms their worst fear?"

      Sometimes I wonder if you have ever read ANY of my past comments!

      The "source" of energy / mass inside of Bessler's wheels was their WEIGHTS and NOTHING ELSE! Each of a one-directional wheel's or two-directional sub wheel's weights contained enough energy / mass to destroy an entire town if it was released rapidly enough. Fortunately, Bessler's wheels released it a FAR lower and safer rate. Unfortunately, if would have been nicer if they could have released it at a rate of about 500 times as much as they did!

      Delete
    2. Did you read my comment?
      Weights only store energy. They aren't a source.

      Delete
    3. Doug, you're absolutely right!

      When Einstein came up with E=mc^2 he must have been coming off a "bender" at the time. He actually thought that mass and energy were the SAME thing. What a ridiculous notion. And I guess that since that is the case as you say, then those tens of thousands of TONS of mass that DISAPPEAR inside of our Sun EVERY second don't have anything to do with all of that radiation streaming out of its surface because, as you've assured us, mass can NOT be a source of energy!

      I'm so glad that you've finally cleared that up for us.

      Delete
    4. Mass never disappears, energy never disappears, weights are not energy, mass is POTENTIAL energy.
      Read your wiki, if nothing else.

      En.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy

      Delete
    5. I think the problem is that you are reading TOO much wiki. I know college profs that do not allow their students to use it as a reference source!

      "Mass never disappears, energy never disappears, weights are not energy, mass is POTENTIAL energy."

      It IS true that energy / mass can neither be created nor destroyed. BUT, it can be TRANSFERRED from one object to another. The object that it leaves WILL, as a result, LOSE some of its energy / mass content while the object that receives it WILL have its energy / mass content INCREASED. In the solar physics example I cited above, the energy / mass content leaving the surface of our Sun (or any radiant star for that matter) in the form of various frequencies of electromagnetic energy was the final result of the LOSS of the energy / mass content of the various nuclei undergoing their fusion reactions at the core of the Sun.

      And, NO, mass is not "potential" energy. It IS energy AT ALL TIMES and a WORKING OB PM gravity wheel CAN extract that energy AT ALL TIMES.

      Delete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sadly, Bessler's wheels suffered from much the same problem as do today's solar panels and batteries: low power density or the amount of power that can be constantly outputted per unit of device weight. Their "saving grace" is that they can provide that low power density for as long as it takes for a wheel to break down and stop running due to part failure.

    Such low power density is, of course, due to Bessler's wheels relying on gravity to slowly extract the energy / mass of their weights and make it available for "outside" work. Gravity is the weakest of the forces of nature and that limits the rate at which it can help extract the energy / mass from a given set of weights of a particular mass. Hopefully, as in the case of solar panels and batteries, continuing research would help improve the power density of Bessler's wheels.

    Let's see...uses for Bessler's wheels ASSUMING that their power density can NOT be improved?

    Well, didn't Bessler use one of his earlier wheels (the Gera wheel?) to drive a grinding stone that he used to sharpen various carpenter tools in his workshop? Smaller one-directional wheels might find other applications in the shop such as powering drills and saws. How about using one to operate a fan to keep the inside air moving about in hot, humid Third world countries that don't have electrical grids to power air conditioning in remote areas? A fan is always better than nothing in such a situation. Several wheels could be run together 24/7 to charge up a bank of batteries that would then provide nightime illumination for small villages and help to power radios and charge up cell phones.

    I guess these are all possibilities, but I suspect that the major use for the first Bessler wheel replicas will be for amusement purposes such as an interesting conversation piece or kid's toy and as an educational aid. Such an item would, more importantly, provide a solid base upon which to make further refinements in the generation of "free" energy that would lead to more powerful versions that could start to become "serious" sources of power. But, don't forget that while that is happening, there will also be further improvements being made in solar panels and batteries and people will always select the one that will give them the most watts at the lowest cost per hour. Then again, with all of the new and unexpected and abundant sources of natural gas being discovered due to "fracture technology" or "fracking", maybe all of the various "alternative" energy sources will be quietly put on the back shelf for another century or two!

    One major problem that Bessler wheels will have that does NOT apply to solar panels and batteries is the headache of maintenance. Being mechanical, Bessler's wheels will require such things as regular lubrication and parts replacement. Nowadays, "maintenance" has become a "dirty word" and, I suspect, that in the end it will be maintenance free solar panels and batteries that will win out. But, I could be wrong about that and it's really way too early to make any accurate predictions about any of this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Such low power density is, of course, due to Bessler's wheels relying on gravity to slowly extract the energy / mass of their weights and make it available for "outside" work.

      Gravity is the weakest of the forces of nature and that limits the rate at which it can help extract the energy / mass from a given set of weights of a particular mass."

      So Bessler's wheels & yours will trade mass for energy? What is the half life of a weight used in one of your wheels? Or, how long before the owner would need to change out his weights for new ones? Does the atomic number change or atoms disappear as they are converted to energy over time?

      Delete
    2. PART I:

      All good questions, Anonymous 03:38. I'll answer them one by one:

      "So Bessler's wheels & yours will trade mass for energy?"

      Since Einstein demonstrated that energy and mass are actually IDENTICAL, this requires that the weights in Bessler's wheels MUST have lost a tiny portion of their energy / mass content whenever a wheel rotated and performed "outside" work by TRANSFERRING that energy / mass content to objects in a wheel's environment.

      For example, as the giant Weissenstein wheel rotated and continuously ran the Archimedean screw water pump attached to it (estimated to require 25 watts while working), the 8 weights in the wheel's ACTIVE sub wheel would each lose a fraction of a picogram of energy / mass for every complete drum rotation that took place. This process was cumulative and the longer a drum rotated, the more energy / mass would be lost by each of the wheel's active weights.

      "What is the half life of a weight used in one of your wheels?"

      Fission or fusion type nuclear reactions are NOT required for the weights inside of a Bessler type OB PM gravity wheel to lose their energy / mass content over time. The very small percentage of naturally occurring radioactive isotopes contained in one of his wheel's various construction materials retained their usual half-lives as the wheel ran.

      "Or, how long before the owner would need to change out his weights for new ones?"

      That's hard to estimate precisely. As a wheel runs and continuously outputs its active weights' energy / mass in order to operate outside machinery, the weights will continously lose energy / mass and that will then, over a long stretch of time, lower the amount of power the wheel can output because the active weights will weigh LESS and therefore provide less torque to the axle.

      Delete
    3. PART II:

      The Weissenstein wheel probably could have continuously outputted the energy / mass needed to operate the Archimedean screw water pump for tens of millions of years (assuming that the various parts of the pump and wheel were not subject to wear or were immediately replaced when they failed!) before the energy / mass content of its weights had dropped by 10% and its outputted power level then dropped to 90% of the 25 watt starting output level (the pump would still work at this reduced power level, but would pump the water at only 90% of its starting rate). At that point the weights would need to be replaced with "fresh" ones that were not partially energy / mass "depleted" if one wanted the wheel to again output 25 watts so that the pump could run at its starting rate. OR, one could simply just reverse the direction of the giant wheel and let it then use the UNdepleted energy / mass content in its FORMERLY inactive sub wheel's unused weights (the one's in the sub wheel that was previously undergoing retrograde rotation) to run the Archimedean screw pump.

      When "unloaded" and running at its maximum terminal rotation rate (26 rpm), the Weissenstein wheel might have needed to only output about 1/10 as much power to just overcome the air and bearing drag acting on its parts. That means that the unloaded Weissenstein wheel could have run for HUNDREDS of millions of years before exhausting 10% of the energy / mass content of its weights. To FULLY exhaust the energy / mass content of ALL of a two-directional wheel's weights would require that the wheel run continuously with an ever slowly decreasing maximum terminal rotation rate for BILLIONS of years!

      "Does the atomic number change or atoms disappear as they are converted to energy over time?"

      No, the atomic numbers of nearly all of the atoms in a wheel will remain the same and atoms will not be mysteriously disappearing (however, because of the decay of naturally present radioisotopes, a tiny percentage of the atoms present in a wheel's various structures will transmute into different elements with different atomic numbers over time). But, ALL of the mass possessing subatomic particles contained in the atoms of a wheel's weights (whether or not those atoms are natural radioisotpes) that are active WILL lose a portion of their energy / mass content over time (by transferring it to objects "outside" of the wheel) as the wheel runs and, consequently, they will not have their normal gravitational and inertial properties after that time has passed.

      Of course, testing this hypothesis will be difficult due to the extremely long time periods required. It's even possible that there might be some unsuspected natural process that takes place and prevents the weights from losing too much of their energy / mass content by somehow restoring it. The physicists of the future will have much to do when Bessler's wheels are finally resurrected!

      Delete
  10. Yes John,..The wheel definitely has applications mainly in industry,not to forget the farmers.
    Power density is not so low either.Can you imagine if our wheels occupied the same space volume wise as the turbines,boilers,coal storage and cooling towers of a normal coal fired power station.
    These are definetely home based power units.
    Cars,planes and trains will use the product,which is gas or electricity.
    Ships can use the wheel directly and serve a dual purpose as weight to keel the ship.
    We have to take into account the space required to drive normal fuel hungry engines will saved.
    No, I think the wheel will fine applications in all walks of life including outer space.There one can use centrifugal gravity!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Okay, let's see now.

      The Weissenstein wheel could output about 25 watts continuously and probably weighed around 300 lbs including its weights. The power density of the wheel was therefore about 25 watts / 300 lbs = 0.083 watt / lb.

      My new Sears lawnmower's output is about 5 horsepower (international) which is 3,728.5 watts and it weighs about 20 lbs even when the fuel tank is full. Its power density is about 3,728.5 watts / 20 lbs = 186.43 watt / lb. It's power density is therefore 2,246.1 TIMES as much as that of the Weissenstein wheel.

      Gas and diesel powered turbine engines have been used for marine propulsion since the 1940's and there are various types available. Their power densities are high. An "average" example might be a turbine that outputs around 20,000 kilowatts or 20,000,000 watts and weighs about 50 tons or 100,000 lbs. Its power density is therefore 20,000,000 / 100,000 lbs = 200 watt / lb which is only a little better than that of my new lawn mower and about 2409.6 times as much as that of the Weissenstein wheel!

      How many Weissenstein wheels would you need to place on a single axle to match the power output of a modern ship's typical gas turbine engine? The computation is simple. First, however, let's be generous and modify Bessler's two-directional wheel so that BOTH of its contained one-directional sub wheels are active at the SAME time because they are BOTH turning in their "preferred" directions so that the drum now outputs 50 watts instead of only 25 watts.

      20,000,000 watts / 50 watts = 400,000 wheels! If the drum of a Weissenstein is 18 inches thick and you placed them on the axle so that there was no room between them, you would need a axle that was 400,000 wheels x 1.5 ft per wheel = 600,000 feet in length which, at 5,280 feet per mile, works out to an axle that was 113.6 MILES long! You're going to need one VERY long hull to hold that power supply in your Bessler wheel powered ship! LOL!

      Let's just say that if anyone wants to use Bessler's wheels in MODERN ships, then he had better be prepared to make some REALLY incredible improvements in their power density!

      Delete
  11. A pm wheel could be used to propel a ship on the ocean .

    ReplyDelete
  12. " arranged so that they can never be balanced(oh yes!), and when they come to be placed together (oh yes!)...one or the other must apply it's weight at right angles to the axis(oh yes!)..." "they rise, these his things as if equal no matter how many sparrows , ,.etc ...(oh no!)

    ReplyDelete
  13. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLNYWDxCuRI

    ReplyDelete
  14. How about producing clean drinking water out of thin air.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/new-wind-turbine-creates-drinking-water-from-humid-air-2012-5

    The above device has the disadvantage of needing a wind. A gravity mill does not have this disadvantage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great idea because they is charging for water now where i live . I will build one of them bessler wheels and use it for that .
      I have'nt build one yet , i have not decided which type to build yet .

      Delete
    2. Good idea Frank. I looked into desalination as a possibility, but its out of the question I think.

      JC

      Delete
  15. Put the drum of a concrete mixer onto the wheel and you could mix concrete .
    You could use the wheel as a washing machine to wash clothes and when the clothes are washed clip them onto the rim of the pm wheel and it dry them them as it spins .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So, that's why Bessler attached the Archimedean screw to the Weissenstein wheel! He probably also intended to eventually move that stamping mill over to the trough of water and turn the whole thing into the world's FIRST self-powered washing machine! As a religious man, he certainly would have believed that "cleanliness is next to Godliness" and wanted to make sure his clothes (especially "undies") were clean and fresh whenever Karl introduced him to some bigwig interested in purchasing the wheel! LOL!

      Delete
  16. I know that in the end it comes down to "let's get one running and play with it to see what the output really can be", but it seems reasonable to me that the maximum possible power could be much more than a couple of dozen watts.
    A witness stated that when weights were removed for translocation they filled a considerable box.
    Bessler stated that he could easily adjust the power of any of his wheels over a wide range.
    Isn't it likely that Bessler might have set the power of a wheel to be demonstrated to the minimum required to accomplish the tasks required of it? It would minimize the wear and stresses on components. A lighter wheel is easier to unload and move. It was less about showing power and more about proving that it could keep turning even under meager 'loads', to prove the point and answer the accusations of critics.
    The range of applications for a gravity wheel :-D might well be more in line with our desires than we are lead to believe by some well meaning folks. Even if it's only 200 or 300 watts, it would be enough for my purposes.

    -Mark (of BW forum)

    ReplyDelete
  17. TG:
    "BUT, it can be TRANSFERRED from one object to another. The object that it leaves WILL, as a result, LOSE some of its energy / mass content while the object that receives it WILL have its energy / mass content INCREASED."

    In the case of a weight in Bessler's wheel, the energy wasn't transferred between the weight and other parts of the wheel, or to anything the wheel axle was connected. It's transferred between the weight and the earth.

    The weight is placed in a higher position from the reference position (THE EARTH), increasing its potential energy.

    "The more formal definition is that potential energy is the energy difference between the energy of an object in a given position and its energy at a reference position".

    It takes energy to place the weight in the higher position.

    "Gravitational energy is the potential energy associated with gravitational force, as work is required to elevate objects against Earth's gravity".

    You can make fun if you want, or confuse the basic issue with irrelevant arguments, but nothing elevates itself against Earth's gravity. It takes energy.

    "If an object falls from one point to another point inside a gravitational field, the force of gravity will do positive work on the object, and the gravitational potential energy will decrease by the same amount."

    I seem to recall I challenged you to find a source that said gravity doesn't do work, and you never responded. Interesting. I suppose there isn't (a reliable) one.

    We at least agree on the power-to-weight ratio problem.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-weight_ratio#Power-to-weight_.28specific_power.29

    Bessler was challenged with increasing the machine's power, and the ratio increase was disappointing to say the least.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "In the case of a weight in Bessler's wheel, the energy wasn't transferred between the weight and other parts of the wheel, or to anything the wheel axle was connected. It's transferred between the weight and the earth."

      If SOME of the excess energy / mass content being LOST by the weights dropping (with respect to their rim stops) inside of Bessler's wheels during each 45 degree increment of drum rotation was not being transferred to anything that the wheel's axle was connected to, then from WHENCE did the energy / mass acquired by the machinery attached to the axle come from? It could only have come from one source and it was NOT the Earth or its gravity field! The source was the WEIGHTS inside of the drum.

      "You can make fun if you want, or confuse the basic issue with irrelevant arguments, but nothing elevates itself against Earth's gravity. It takes energy."

      I agree, but that energy / mass does NOT come from the Earth or its gravity field! It can ONLY be supplied by another object which "pays for it" by losing some of its OWN energy / mass content. The energy / mass that Bessler's running wheels continously outputted was paid for by the LOSS of the energy / mass content of all of its ACTIVE weights during each complete drum rotation.

      "If an object falls from one point to another point inside a gravitational field, the force of gravity will do positive work on the object, and the gravitational potential energy will decrease by the same amount."

      You've been reading too much wiki again!

      Gravity does NO work on falling objects and, unless the falling object makes contact with something during the fall, its energy / mass content does NOT change (thus, the SUM of the gravitational potential energy / mass and the object's kinetic energy / mass will remain constant if it free falls through a vacuum). If, however, the falling object encounters other objects along the way, such as atmospheric molecules, then the falling OBJECT will certainly do work on them and that OBJECT will LOSE some of its energy / mass content which is then TRANSFERRED to the air molecules. The air molecules that receive that energy / mass content will experience an INCREASE in their energy / mass content which will eventually manifest itself completely as an increase in their temperature. The only function of gravity in this scenario is to facilitate the transfer of energy / mass from the falling object to anything it encounters and to help transform the falling object's gravitational potential energy / mass back into its kinetic energy / mass.

      Once again, gravity does NO work on falling OR rising objects. Gravity can transfer NO energy / mass to objects because it does not have any to transfer. ONLY OBJECTS can supply energy / mass to other objects by transferring some of their own to those objects.

      Doug, rather than confuse yourself further with wiki articles, why not find yourself a forum devoted to real PRACTICING physicists and bring these issues up before them. I think you will find that they will "essentially" agree with everything I've told you although they might have some reservations when it comes to accepting that Bessler had a working OB PM gravity wheel. In fact, don't even mention PM! Just talk about what happens to the energy / mass content of objects in various situations. They will set you straight on these matters.

      Yes, Bessler's wheels were and are a bit of a disappointment with regards to their power output. But, I find the fact that he could build a self-moving wheel at all so amazing by itself that I'm willing to "forgive" their low power densities. And, who knows, maybe someday that problem can be overcome with further research.

      Delete
  18. Could it be used for putting the cart before the horse?

    ReplyDelete
  19. I wish that some of you guys , who aren't trying to understand anything or invent anything , that already think that they know EVERYTHING (duh) would just stay out of the conversations and go try and make a ball roll downhill in the sand or something .

    ReplyDelete
  20. Technoguy, thanks for your very interesting posts - if the Weissenstein wheel only gave out 25 watts, then Bessler's Wheel is practically useless, because the cost per watt is going to be ridiculously high, when you include maintenance costs, which most people are too stupid to be able to do themselves, even though the wheel itself might be simple. (For example, I know about twenty women and not one of them would even consider even lubricating such a device, they can't even change a tyre on a bicycle, preferring to 'wait for a male cyclist to come along and fix it for me'.)

    So after all this effort, is it worth it? Or can the wheel be built out of metal, and have much heavier weights, and thus give out much more power? But then it might cost £5,000 or £10,000 to build, and only give out a kilowatt.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your welcome, Anonymous 18:39. I always try to give my readers something that will provoke thought/comment and, perhaps, nudge them toward getting on the "right track" so that, if not I, then perhaps one of them can go on to rediscover the secret of Besser's wheels.

      Yes, there ARE serious limitations with Bessler's wheels in terms of their power densities. I pursue the subject, not to find some revolutionary power supply, but because I think it is an important part of the history of science which, quite unfortunately, has been excluded from the history books (and physics books!). The elucidation and replication of his WORKING design would immediately change that. IF further refinements can result in COMMERCIALLY viable alternative sources of power based on his invention, then GREAT! But, that will be up to others to pursue.

      Delete
  21. On the other hand.....

    Thanks for all the ideas, guys. All we have to do is build the thing now!

    JC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Speaking of building, how is yours going, John?
      Any timetable for it, one way or the other?

      Or are you timing the final result with the clues you're posting?

      Delete
    2. I can't give you an estimate of when my build will be finished Doug. I've got so many things to do at present that I fit in work on the wheel when ever I can. I anticipate finshing it in a week or two, but when ever I put something down in writing, events seem to conspire to delay things. My best bet is that it will be finished very soon, but don't hold me to that! :-)

      JC

      Delete
  22. Maybe the performance will be very small, but it could be a status symbol, and the academic world finally woke up, and more money would go to the free energy research
    K

    ReplyDelete
  23. Yeah!John I agree.

    ReplyDelete
  24. TG and Chris,

    If Bessler's wheel employed shifting weights (something like MT9), how far out do you think the weights extended (2", 6", 1')? On his 12' diameter wheel, I think 6" but I'm interested in what you think.

    Rick

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My research indicates that in the Merseburg wheel with its diameter of 144 inches and its radius of 72 inches, the lever pivots were located exactly 56 inches from the center of the axle. The distance from a lever pivot to the center of its end weight (a small cylinder of lead weighing 4 lbs) was 14 inches which is the lever length. That means that the distance from the center of the axle to the center of a weight, when the lever was aligned with its radial drum support, was exactly 70 inches. Note that 70/14 is 5 which is Bessler's favorite number!

      Thus, the distance between the center of the end weight of a radially aligned lever and the INSIDE wall of the drum's periphery was only 72 in - 70 in = 2 inches. Since the cylindrical weights were about 1 inch in radius, that means that the clearance between the outside of an aligned weight and the inner periphery wall was only about 1 inch! Somewhat narrow a gap, indeed, but it allowed the weights to swing freely without hitting the inner surface of the drum periphery while still being able to make contact with the wooden rim stops that were attached to the inner surface of the drum's periphery. These rim stops would have projected about 3 inches into the drum from the inner surface of the periphery wall.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for your reply.

      Delete
  25. I have always said and I still say that Bessler's wheel was not overbalanced in the way that "classically" has been portrayed in drawings such as MT9 and others . The weights will simply not cooperate in such cases . You are assuming way too much with a question like this one . I don't have an opinion on the above .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chris, you answered my question. "... Bessler's wheel was not overbalanced in that way ...".

      I was interested in what you thought about the weight shifting class of wheel designs.

      Delete
  26. I thought this blog site was about John Collins and him releasing his clues to finding PM. I hear everyone elses opinion about there own theory which is disgraceful. There are other sites where you can get an audiance. Give the guy a break.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes of course this is John site and we respect that, but John has graciously invited all who post to contribute their ideas.
      The main goal is to solve this perpetual problem.

      Delete
  27. The truth is necessarily not owned by anyone but everyone .

    ReplyDelete
  28. He is releasing "his" clues. This one is about the code.
    The comments never stay on topic anyway.
    He decided not to elaborate on this clue.
    So we have nothing to go on to comment on this particular clue.
    So, give everyone a break.

    ReplyDelete
  29. All of us hungry "squirrels" are EAGERLY awaiting the basket of tasty nuts that JC has promised to shower down upon us. So far we have only gotten an occasional nut or two as it seems that there is one delay after another. Those nuts, however, have not really been that tasty.

    Hopefully, we will finally get to see his clue derived pentagrammatic wheel before Christmas of THIS year! I, of course, being obsessed with the MANY "hidden" clues in the Bessler images am looking forward to reading HOW he has interpreted those clues because, utlimately, whatever design one comes up with will be determined by how HE interprets things. ONLY the CORRECT set of interpretations will lead to the SAME WORKING OB PM gravity wheel design that Bessler found!

    ReplyDelete
  30. So far no-one has re-stated the most important point about energy or power density. It has been made before, but some may be missing it:—

    1) The Earth's gravity field is an acceleration field. "g" has the dimensions of acceleration, i.e. length per time squared.

    2) We already know how to produce acceleration fields much stronger than Earth's relatively feeble g = 9.81 m/s². The centrifuge is an obvious example.

    3) If a Bessler wheel will work just by being immersed in an acceleration field, then it should be possible to put an array of suitably designed wheels around a centrifuge, and thereby get a high power density.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We've discussed the results of putting a Bessler's wheel aboard a rotating space station (essentially a giant centrifuge) before and, yes, that will make the wheel run and, if the value of g aboard the space station is so many times greater than Earth's surface g value, then that will increase the wheel's power output / power density by that factor.

      But, imagine the engineering problems involved in trying to keep an array of Bessler wheels operating inside some oversized centrifuge on Earth that subjects their weights to a g that is 500 or more times as great as that on Earth surface and then collecting the electrical power they generate and taking that out of that spinning environment. It just does not sound practical to me.

      But, I'm wondering if one could substitute magnetic force for gravity and build a wheel that would run on that. There are magnets available (VERY expensive) made from exotic materials which can produce a pull of hundreds of pounds on each other when brought close together. With them it might be possible to make a relatively small Bessler's wheel that could continuously output thousands of watts of power and would be able to operate in any orientation with respect to the Earth's gravity field!

      Delete
    2. I don't think the centrifuge needs to be "oversize," nor do I see any great difficulty in extracting energy. Each wheel could be direct coupled to a generator, whose output terminals could all be connected (in parallel) to a single pair of sliprings on the centrifuge's axle. Or, a more modern (fashionable?) way of collecting electrical energy would be resonant inductive coupling, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonant_inductive_coupling.

      Delete
    3. If each Bessler wheel in your centrifugal Bessler wheel generator weighed, say, 200 lbs and you spun it fast enough to make the g the Bessler wheels' weights experienced 500 g's, then EACH Bessler wheel would be exerting a force of 200 lbs x 500 = 100,000 lbs = 50 TONS against the inside walls of your not oversized centrifuge! That's alot of force and that centrifuge had better be very sturdily constructed. Also, EACH Bessler wheel AND the its directly coupled generator, with its components' CF "weights" being increased by a factor of 500 would have to be very sturdy to hold up, literally, in such a g field.

      Yes, assuming one can achieve the above, then slip rings could be used to extract the electrical power from the device. However, one could eliminate them completely by just converting the device's electrical power into microwave radiation which would then be beamed out of the center of the centrifuge to a nearby receiving antenna and immediately converted back into electrical power again. This eliminates the need to periodically replace the brushes pressing against the slip rings.

      Delete
  31. Arktos,..What I visualised was three smaller Bessler wheels revolving horizontally producing cenrifugal gravity.
    This would take little or no energy especially as in a space vacuum there is no wind resistance.
    The Bessler wheels would then come into affect under centrifugal gravity at least 3 to 6 times normal gravity making it more efficient.
    It's just a thought but it is conceivable possible.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I'm sure there are several ways to exploit the centrifuge approach, *if* as I said above, a Bessler wheel will work just by being immersed in an acceleration field. The important point then is that if it is well designed, the power output of such a device would be limited only by the strength of its materials, (which is as good as it can get!)

    ReplyDelete
  33. TG,

    How do you interpret Bessler's AP quote where he states his wheel does not use springs.

    "A wheel appears - is it really a wheel, for it does not have a normal rim.
    It revolves, but without other wheels inside or outside,
    and without weights, wind, or SPRINGS ...".

    ReplyDelete
  34. @ Anonymous 22:23

    "How do you interpret Bessler's AP quote where he states his wheel does not use springs."

    In this quote Bessler is telling his readers what does NOT drive his wheels. We learn that they were not driven by either internal or external gears and, possibly, pulleys. There were no weights as found in a pendulum clock which would be attached to the wheel's axle by a cord or chain and thereby turn the axle and wheel as they dropped (Bessler let members of the public reach in through a hole in the side covering of his wheel's drums so they could "grope" their axles and verify that there were no cords or chains wrapped around their axles). The wheels were not moved by wind like a windmill. And, finally, that they did not use "springs" which would have been the flat, spiral type MAINSPRINGS that Wagner used in his crude replicas of Bessler's wheels and which were starting to be used in mantel clocks and pocket watches as a source of power. Bessler's wheels did, however, CRITICALLY depend upon HELICAL springs that kept their weighted levers under tension. Those springs allowed Bessler's design to temporarily store up and then later release energy / mass when it was needed in order to maintain the imbalance of the wheel.

    I'll say it again: "No cords and no springs means NO PM!"

    ReplyDelete

Bessler’s Wheel, odd numbers and the Pyramids.

You might think there cannot be any connection of interest to us, between Bessler’s wheel and the pyramids, but I will explained. As many...