Wednesday, 3 October 2012

The tax advantages of the Bessler automobile.

What follows is speculation based on numbers obtained from a variety of sources and they may be open to question but the basic argument  remains unaffected by any discrepancies later revealed.

I had to fill up my car's fuel tank today and it cost me £75, or $120 US dollars.  Petrol or gas costs upwards of  £1.36 per litre here in the UK, which works out at £5.14 per US gallon, or $8.20.  Suppose that one of us succeeds in replicating Bessler's wheel and further development eventually results in an automobile engine that can replace the traditional internal combustion engine..  

In the UK, about £27.3 billion was raised through fuel tax in 2010/11, so if our little enterprise should result in the eventual demise of the old gasoline engine, or at least to its reduction to an insignificant level, where will the government be looking to find their missing billions? Not hard to guess!  Scary as this thought is, it is going to happen sooner or later regardless of which engine replaces the current ones.  So I'm sure that somewhere some accountant has already worked out how to screw similar amounts from the poor old taxpayer.

I suspect numerous road tolls will proliferate - we don't have many currently, here in the UK - and maybe an annual tax, or excise duty, will be applied to each car, just to be allowed to use it on the roads.  But even if that happens will they find the £27 billions from the, roughly, 31 million cars on the British roads?  And that is a falling figure.  That works out at approximately £840 or $1344 per annum from each driver.  All they (the government) have to do is slap a £1000, or $1600, tax on every car using Bessler's wheel - every year -  and they're covered!  However although that sounds like highway robbery think of the savings in not having to buy fuel.  In 2010 it was calculated that we spent about £1500 a year on fuel for our cars, so there's saving of £500 already!

Of course the Bessler engine will (should) be simpler and cheaper to buy as well as to run, so perhaps it will work out even better for us in the long run...and very much greener.

This is not too serious a comment, just a bit of musing for those interested in the possible long term  potential ramifications of replicating Bessler's wheel.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

89 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am taking the petrol engine out of my car right now so that i can fit a bessler wheel in .

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Suppose that one of us succeeds in replicating Bessler's wheel and further development eventually results in an automobile engine that can replace the traditional internal combustion engine.. "

    I can't believe you even wrote such a ludicrous suggestion, John. There is no way that even a set of twenty 16 foot diameter wheels could provide even ten percent of the energy output of a modern car engine. Try stopping a car engine's flywheel with your hand (presuming a safe, toothless wheel was attached to it for you to grab). Can you seriously imagine a tiny Bessler wheel having that much power?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Better to have Bessler's wheel produce ( over a 24 hour period ) the electricity or HHO to power a car ... the mechanism will not function the same in a moving vehicle nor is it powerful enough at that size limit . This here is just silly ... c'mon John , did you have nothing else to say ? I get your point about the fuel but your execution in delivery was flawed to say the least .

    ReplyDelete
  5. PART I:

    Whether or not Bessler's wheel mechanism can ever be adapted to power an automobile is a HIGHLY speculative matter. Like you, I think there are far more important economic issues involved like how will governments continue to collect a "revenue stream" from the use of private modes of transportation in order to fund themselves as automobile fuel economy improves due to technology.

    A revenue hungry government, literally, has a 1001 tricks for taxing everything as much as it wants and if that money is immediately denied it by its citizens due to the slowdown in economic activity it inevitably causes, it will just borrow whatever it needs from foreigners or, as we in the US now do REGULARLY, from its own citizens' anticipated future incomes through various forms of taxation! I saw on the news a while ago that you Brits already have a top federal income tax of about 50% and a national sales tax or "value added tax" of around 20%. If need be, your government will simply raise those to 75% and 30% or even more and you will all be expected to just "tighten your belts" to compensate for it. Over in Greece they got tired of tightening their belts and finally started throwing Molotov "cocktails" at government buildings! Don't think it can't happen in Britain, the rest of Europe, and the US also.

    Oh, you're complaining about the price of gasoline or as you say "petrol" over in Britain being $8.20 USD per gallon? Actually, that could be considered cheap when the soon coming war with Iran gets started! The Israeli's have decided that Iran will be able to make A-bombs by next spring and then pose an "existential threat" to their "state" so the conflict will probably get started before then. The first thing the Iranians will do is try to shut down the oil exports passing through the Straits of Hormuz by blowing up a super tanker or two and mining the strait. The US will then be obliged to respond by destroying the Iranian air force, navy, and any ground equipment near the strait. And, of course, along the way, all of the known or suspected underground Iranian nuclear facilities will be destroyed using the new "ultra low yield" (i.e., less than a kiloton) NUCLEAR "bunker busters" we now possess. These are the next generation of tactical weaponry and this "war" will be an excellent opportunity to see how they work in an actual battlefield setting. Once all of this mess gets started, expect to see GLOBAL gasoline prices DOUBLE and stay there as long as the conflict continues.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I quote, "This is not too serious a comment, just a bit of musing."

    Nevertheless, I don't agree that the basic concept could not be adapted for use in a vehicle. Bessler said he could envisage several wheels in series mounted on one axle. He also said more crossbars produced more power, I'm sure that something useful could be developed which was smaller in diameter, say about eighteen inches, maybe six feet long with heavy weights contributing more power, perhaps to an electric motor. Sorry guys I disagree. :-)

    JC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Again , a more realistic application for the wheel would be to produce power in a stationary place , charging batteries , producing hho , etc, . It COULD be put in a vehicle but , John you are forgetting that you are talking about power from differential motion of static/dynamic weight , your expectations are much too high in my opinion .

      Delete
    2. Chris, I think your approach has merit.

      It would be far easier to have each service station equipped with a Bessler wheel powered generator that would then charge up a bank of capacitors continuously. Small electric cars would just drive into the station, plug into the capacitor banks and drain some of its stored power to charge up their own capacitors which would then power a car's motors for so many miles until another charge was needed. In other words, electrons would replace gasoline molecules and, hopefully, the cost per mile driven would be a LOT less than it is now. Most importantly, using Bessler powered generators eliminates all green house gas emissions and helps reverse Global Warming. Using capacitors is far less expensive and troublesome then using batteries and they can be more quickly charged and discharged than batteries. But, of course, expect a significant portion of the fee for the recharge being taxes that the government needs to keep operating.

      Delete
  7. PART II:

    Right now there is a tremendous trade imbalance taking place on a global level. Money is flowing like a raging river out of the western nations and into the previously impoverished nations such as Brazil, China, India, Russia, and others to purchase their goods that are manufactured with cheap labor. Because of the trade imbalance, that money never returns to the west to pay for OUR exports to those countries, but, rather, returns in the form of low interest loans that only further increase the national debts of the western nations with the US being in the lead with a whopping $16 TRILLION USD debt. This debt has to eventually be wiped out in some way since it won't ever be repaid or serviced "ad infinitum".

    One of the traditional ways to wipe out such large debts is to have a massive war that results in the destruction of the industrial bases of the nations involved in the trade imbalances. Because of the existence of nuclear weapons, however, such a war must NEVER be fought again because it, literally, has the potential to exterminate ALL of humanity! What will probably happen is that attempts will be made to "detach" the western economies from the rising industrializing nations in order to stop the trade imbalance from continuing further. This will be done through a trade "war" involving escalating tariffs and even economic isolationism.

    That will, of course, result in a global financial collapse that will nearly immediately wipe out all outstanding debts. (During this time, the people who have an adequate supply of edible FOOD stashed away should consider themselves "rich" because one of the many problems with gold is that you can not immediately EAT it!) The blackboard will be wiped clean and we can then start all over again. The next time around, however, we will have a new world government with a single currency and set of laws. This government will be a combination of capitalism and socialism with a far more equitable distribution of the world's resources amongst its citizens. Former nations will become only individual states within this single global nation of Earth. The transition will be difficult at first, but in the end it will be better for everyone. Maybe in that world of tomorrow Bessler's wheels will finally find a place and Bessler will receive the credit he deserves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please, keep your comments to 5 words or less. You have already exceeded your monthly quota for October !!!

      Delete
    2. Okay. You are a blockhead.

      Delete
  8. Anyone ever see the Beverly Hillbillies show called Pollution Solution. Jethro builds an electric car that will solve the pollution problem in California. The only problem is he can't find an extension cord long enough to drive the car. Well I think there is a better chance of getting Jethro's invention on the road than a Bessler powered vehicle.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jethro's idea HAS been considered!

      However, the version I saw required that power lines be buried under all of our roads. They would carry AC voltage and it would be possible for a vehicle with a special antenna built into its nonmetallic chassis to extract, via induction, electrical power from the buried cable. Of course, the problem is that one would have to bury a LOT of cable to allow a car to travel all of the roads in a country. However, it might be possible to only bury the cables on main roads and highways and when a vehicle left one of those, it would have to run on electrical power stored in a battery or capacitor.

      Delete
    2. This is a subject I have spent some time musing.

      I agree with Chris’s vision of banks of big wheels charging up batteries; that you would call into the garage to swap batteries rather than fill up with gas.

      I also agree with JC’s vision of some kind of vehicle being possible, driven by a Bessler Wheel powerful enough to propel its own weight and that of say two passengers. A Bessler sports car! This is not a ridiculous idea.
      I think however, the problem here is one of scale (and also one of a potentially useful top speed!) A wheel with sufficient power to achieve this task would probably be too big to be very practical, especially in urban areas. It wouldn't be a very good thing if a one-person mobility vehicle needed to be the size of a Double Decker bus, would it!
      That said I could envision larger vehicles where size is less critical; a caravan of larger vehicles could slowly cross a desert carrying goods to another location for example. Travelling at a speed of say 3 mph, does it matter if it takes day’s weeks or months to arrive, if it is leaving no carbon footprint?

      I'm still painting and assembling, don’t buy the champagne yet!

      JW

      Delete
  9. Chris, I was highlighting the fact that sooner or later the gasoline engine will become obsolete and need to be replaced. If the replacement needed no fuel, as in the speculative Besslerwheel engine, then the tax revenue would have to be found in other ways.

    Besides that, your comment suggesting "John you are forgetting that you are talking about power from differential motion of static/dynamic weight , your expectations are much too high in my opinion," is wrong, I'm not forgetting what I'm talking about and I disagree with your opinion, but that's just my opinion.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. speculative ... and not thought out very care fully to boot . The power is what is being replaced , the gasoline , not the engine itself . If we used Bessler wheels to wind rubber bands we could not power a car with them with some extensive re-engineering . My point is , and no pun intended ... " why reinvent the wheel ? " there are existing technologies that could make better use of such a device without imposing limits such as size defined by the relatively tiny space of a passenger car .

      Delete
  10. Don't forget ships JW. Good potential in freighters and other cargo ships.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good point JC.

      I was going to mention the canal system of the UK's Industrial Revolution as an example that could be followed.

      JW

      Delete
  11. There is another interesting potential Bessler Wheel application to muse upon:

    The relationship between the typical domestic energy needs of a house, and the size of the wheel that would be needed to supply those needs.
    I have a feeling (being only a poor artist, not a scientist) that a wheel hidden inside a (false) gable end of a two story house could be 1m thick and 6m in diameter, and might be powerful enough to do the job.

    JW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is an idea further on from this, where every domestic application overproduces power and supplies the extra to The Grid.

      Who knows! Armed with our Bessler Wheels, perhaps we could even turn the whole production and supply of energy on its head?

      We may soon be sending ‘them’ a bill for using Our Energy instead of ‘them’ always billing us!

      JW

      Delete
  12. How about a Bessler Wheel Monster Truck. The tires are about the right size.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I think Bessler wheels should be exempt from government taxes .

    ReplyDelete
  14. Would the Bessler wheel work as a helicopter ?

    ReplyDelete
  15. The Bessler wheel is required to be stationary in its current configuration

    ReplyDelete
  16. Electric Cars, Trucks, Buses, Home Heating and Cooling, Hot Water etc. The Bessler will have to be the center of all energy provision. AirPlanes are possible, but the energy storage systems will have to be made a lot more efficient

    ReplyDelete
  17. We can dream I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  18. We've beaten this subject to death several times in the past. As they stand, Bessler's original designs would not be powerful enough to use commercially with our current state of technology. Either his wheels have to have a BIG increase in their power output "densities" OR we have to make our current energy / mass consuming devices MUCH more efficient. I think that the chance of the latter happening is far more likely than the former.

    I just don't see the likelihood of an automobile being able to carry an "onboard" Bessler type power plant for propulsion unless some way can be found to make one that does NOT use massive weights. This MIGHT be possible by substituting spring tension for gravitational force acting on weights and making a device that could output several thousands of watts which is just a few horsepower. That would then have to be used to drive an "ultra lightweight" vehicle. How "ultra"? It would be a small four seat car made almost completely from low density foam plastic and would have a gross unoccupied weight of under 200 lbs! That way, we could get a fairly acceptable acceleration up to highway speeds using only a few horsepower.

    Can this be done? Maybe, but it will require "world class" engineering and, as Doug suggested, will remain a "dream" until AFTER we finally manage to determine the OB PM gravity wheel design that Bessler found and used. And, don't forget that while we're waiting for all of those "minor" problems to be worked out, battery and solar power will continue to evolve and will be offering continuous competition with fossil fuel power sources that will be increasingly harder to beat.

    I was at a gas station the other day and got into a brief conversation with one of the attendants about the cost of gasoline, Global Warming, and the ongoing search for "green" alternatives to fossil fuels. He believed that this was all a bunch of politically motivated nonsense (he didn't use the word "nonsense", however!) and that, as long as there was a single drop of oil still remaining in the ground, NOTHING serious would be done to change the present status quo!

    Somehow, my "gut" tells me he has hit the proverbial nail on the head with his "uninformed" opinion!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Would the tax be less if there were fewer crossbars in the Bessler automobile engine .

    ReplyDelete
  20. Come on guys,think clearly now.The Bessler wheel is definitelt a fixed base generator.
    The output is about 50 watts.If it's size is doubled it will wield 8 times the power which is 400 watts.
    If you double that again it be 3200 watts.
    Even at 400 watts/sec.,if you multiply that by 24 hours it adds up to 400x60x60=1.44 megawatts total for whole day.
    That is enough to charge and power a 300 HP.car for 6 hours.
    There is definitely hope for the Bessler wheel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think I am thinking clearly Trevor,

      I agree with you, The Bessler Wheel is basically a ‘fixed base generator’, however I do foresee other possibilities. I do also have to agree with JC’s vision of ships powered by this means for example. They may be slow moving, but as mentioned previously, so what? If we could move stuff slowly around without polluting the planet, that sounds pretty good to me.

      Bessler’s Wheel Recovered isn’t going to be the answer to all of humanities problems, but it sure is going to be ‘a step in the right direction’, both practically and symbolically.

      An Ancient Mystery Solved would keep hope alive.

      We may just avoid our next scheduled Extinction!

      JW

      Delete
  21. Trevor,
    the watts calculation is incorrect, unless in south Africa you are billed
    for 1.44 megawatts for just using 400 watts over a 24 hr period.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is 400watts/sec.

      Delete
    2. Trevor, your previous calculations for the automobile don't make sense.

      1 horsepower [international] is equal to about 745.7 watts which means that to operate a 300 horsepower automobile for 6 hours requires 300 horse power x 745.7 watts per horsepower x 6 hours = 1,342,260 watt-hours of energy / mass.

      Your oversized Bessler wheel generator would crank out 3,200 watts x 24 hours = 76,800 watt-hours in a 24 hour period.

      Since it takes 1,342,260 watt-hours of energy / mass to operate your 300 horsepower car for 6 hours, that means that in 24 hours your Bessler generator would only have produced enough energy / mass to operate the car for (76,800 watt-hours / 1,342,260 watt-hours) x 6 hours = 0.34330 hours or about 20.598 minutes.

      That's just about enough to make a quick drive to the nearest grocery store and then come right back home again! If you wanted to make a trip that required you to travel for, say, two hours, then you would have to run your Bessler generator for: (2 hours / 0.34330 hours) x 24 hours = 139.82 hours which is equal to 5.8258 DAYS!

      Something tells me we're gonna being using gasoline engines for a while longer!

      Delete
  22. John,
    I have an animation of the Bessler mechanism . I'll show it to you at some point if you wish .

    ReplyDelete
  23. John,
    a tax would cause uproar due to the unfairness of the system.
    would be like paying a fixed set price at the pump, no matter how much one needs.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Bad" news to report.

    I finished the "Goldilocks" magic lever I mentioned in the previous blog entry with the hope that it would finally give me that smooth lifting action of the 9:00 going to 10:30 position weighted lever I wanted to see.

    Unfortunately, when I arranged my active levers into their starting orientations (a process I call "draping"), I immediately noticed that the new lever design put the CoM of the 8 weights almost directly under the axle! So, obviously, this new shape is NOT the one Bessler used because it produces almost zero torque when a one-directional drum is stationary.

    But, my previous to the Goldilocks lever, when draping was completed, DID produce a VERY nice displacement of the CoM. The problem was that its various interconnecting cords were under extreme tension and no lifting action was observed.

    So, now I'm trying to come up with a "hybrid" lever that will use SOME of the good features of the previous to Goldilocks lever, yet will also have the lifting power I'm looking for. And, while all of that is going on, I'll keep scanning those DT portrait clues to see what they suggest.

    It would have been SO nice if Bessler had just cleverly hidden the COMPLETE shape of the lever somewhere in the two portraits (or elsewhere!), but, sadly, that does not seem to be the case (at least I have not found it after years of searching). All he provides are HINTS to nudge one in various directions and, even then, MOST of the hints nudge one in the WRONG direction!

    Consequently, I consider the solution of the Bessler wheel mystery to be the ULTIMATE "black box" problem and one which will test the mettle of the reverse engineer to its fullest. It is for the logician the intellectual equivalent of winning a DOZEN gold medals in the Olympics!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The shapes of levers have no bearing on their function. The only factors that influence the function of levers are the relationship between their load and their effort.

      Delete
    2. "The shapes of levers have no bearing on their function."

      That statement is so ABSURD that I am hesitant to even dignify it with a response!

      There are three different classes of levers distinquished by the relationship of their two arms to each other and to their common fulcrum or pivot point. The levers inside of Bessler's wheels were NOT the simple 1st class ones illustrated in MT. They were a special type known as a compound lever which finds use in such things as clock mechanisms and organs. Without the use of this type of lever and specifically the "magic" one he found and used, it is not possible to duplicate his wheels.

      Delete
    3. Oh okay. 3 levers , one special relationship between the two arms and the fulcrum. Right. Got it.

      Delete
    4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_lever

      "In all types of compound lever, the rule is that force multiplied by the force arm equals the weight multiplied by the weight arm."

      The operative word there is "equals".

      Delete
  25. Okay,okay,..so I'm a bit rusty with my math.At 71 years it's been along time since I was at school.
    That's why I'm relying on you guys to update me.

    ReplyDelete
  26. For those who believe that it was gravity that caused Bessler's wheel to work (I'm not so sure, but let that pass for now):—

    The Earth's gravity field is an acceleration field. The gravitational constant g has units of meters per second squared, or feet per second squared, i.e. it is an acceleration.

    So if a Bessler wheel really works by being immersed in the Earth's gravitational acceleration field, why should it not work by being immersed in a much higher acceleration field generated by a centrifuge? Such an approach would allow proper engineering development, ideally to the stage where the power output of the centrifuge-wheel would be limited only by the strength of its materials; i.e. a very compact, powerful design.

    ReplyDelete
  27. What is spinning the centrifuge? There is a point of diminishing return when you're trying to mechanically produce work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Energy doesn't necessarily have to be expended from anything to produce an acceleration field. The Earth does it without expending energy. Also, if a centrifuge has a smooth, regular shape, it consumes very little energy when running at constant speed, yet it can still produce its high, radially-directed acceleration field as long as it keeps running.

      I'm assuming, just for the sake of argument, that a Bessler wheel needs only the Earth's (weak) gravitational acceleration field to run, and so it should run a lot better in the centrifuge's stronger acceleration field.

      Of course this is all completely hypothetical. I think you're assuming energy must somehow be taken from the centrifuge. I'm not. Until a Bessler wheel is built, no-one can know.

      Delete
    2. You do not need a planet's gravity field to make one of Bessler's wheels run. The CF inside a centrifuge would do nicely and the running wheels would NOT extract any of the energy / mass from the centrifuge in the process. But, due to various drags in the mechanics of the centrifuge and the air resistance its moving parts experience, you would have to have a motor running to maintain the rotation rate of the centrifuge. That motor could tap a percentage, hopefully, a VERY small percentage, of the power output of the Bessler wheels in the centrifuge.

      Delete
    3. Yes, that was what I was getting at. But to play devil's advocate, it could be argued that the ways of producing an acceleration field can be very different, and that what may work for one, in terms of developing our assumed gravity-driven Bessler wheel, may not necessarily work for all.

      We can produce an acceleration field by:—

      (1) The presence of a very large mass, e.g. Earth. (Newton's law of gravitation).

      (2) Applying a general force to an object or group of objects (Newton's second law of motion).

      (3) Continuously changing the direction of the velocity vector (without changing its magnitude) for an object or group of objects, such as objects placed in a centrifuge.

      Of these options, only (2) involves large energy expenditure.

      Delete
  28. Can you think of anything else that produces work from being immersed in an acceleration field?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes — any falling weight does.

      As I said above, I'm not sure that gravity drives the Bessler wheel. The problem for all those who think it does is how to return the weight using less energy than it delivered when it fell.

      Personally I can't see any way around that problem, so I'm pursuing other ideas, which are too off-topic for this blog.

      Delete
    2. "The problem for all those who think it does is how to return the weight using less energy than it delivered when it fell."

      Not a problem since the descending side weights lost MORE energy / mass than was needed by the ascending side weights to reach the 12:00 position of the drum again. Where did that excess energy / mass outputted by the descending side weights come from? Simple. It came from the energy / mass content of the weights themselves!

      Delete
  29. That was me testing my ipad won't post with a name since the software updated.

    A falling weight doesnt pproduce work that you, the source of the work, don't give it first, and it doesn't give it all back.
    So you're right, gravity didn't drive bessler's wheels.

    Doug

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gravity certainly did NOT drive Bessler's wheels (despite our referring to them as "gravity wheels"), but it DID "enable" the process by which the wheel's weights could output their OWN energy / mass to accelerate themselves or operate "outside" machinery or do both!

      Delete
    2. Weights don't "output" energy. Energy is temporarily stored (from the source that originally lifted the weight; you, an elevator, a truck) in the "Earth-weight system". It's just a battery.

      Delete
    3. "Weights don't "output" energy."

      So, I guess that the 1/10th of 1% of the mass LOST during the fission of the U235 nuclei in an atomic bomb (equal to about 16.5 grams) has nothing to do with the massive explosive energy (equal to that of tens of KILOtons of TNT) released from the detonation? Thanks, for "clearing" that up for us, Doug. LOL!

      Delete
    4. Oh okay. Got it. Nuclear explosion.

      Delete
    5. As usual, you missed the main point of my comment.

      No, there were NO nuclear reactions taking place inside of Bessler's wheels (other than the decay of any natural radioisotopes contained in their construction materials). But, what happens during nuclear reactions illustrates that atoms CAN lose a tiny fraction of their energy / mass content in certain situations. In the case of Bessler's wheels, the sustained asymmetric location of the CoM of the weights would force the weights to continuously lose tiny portions of their energy / mass content as they traveled around the drum's axle.

      Delete
    6. As usual, your analogy is false and misleading.
      Location in a gravity field is only dependent on vertical position from a point of reference.
      Horizontal distance from an axis plays no part.
      The one situation can't illustrate what happens in the other situation.
      It's just bad logical reasoning.

      Delete
  30. Based on my observations, this seems to me to be a plausible explanation:
    The wheel is built such that it has a number of identical segments (because of the 8 sounds heard, many wheel designs have 8 chambers, I am currently working with 3 chambers, inspired by Besslers drawing in Apologia).
    The wheel has mechanical constraints causing it to always be in an overbalanced state. When stopped, it has to be tied up. In other words, it has an initial torque which plays the role of a potential, thereby "priming" the wheel.
    When the wheel is untied, the weights start falling/rolling and thereby convert the initial torque into rotational energy, enough to get one chamber rotated far enough to get the same situation with the next chamber, however ths time with a starting speed.
    This causes the wheel to accelerate a certain amount for each rotation of a chamber. There is a limitation on the acceleration - once the wheel turns faster than the weights can drop/roll there is no additional acceleration. In a gravity field this would be one g.
    In a centrifuge, as proposed here by others, it would be the centrifugal acceleration (radius multiplied by square of angular velocity).
    The idea of the centrifuge is cool - would enable higher speeds than simple gravity.
    As the wheel is able to turn independently after rotating one chamber, this is the minimum needed speed to keep it going. The difference between the minimum and the maximum can be extracted to do work. Weissenstein: 26 rpm at max, 20 rpm at min.
    Where does the energy come from? The gravitational field is the enabler (in the static wheel - or the centrifugal force in the other construction with the centrifug).
    In a water mill, it is also the gravitational field enabling the rotation, the medium acted upon is water, actually the weight of the water. In the Bessler wheel, the weights themselves are the medium.
    Science does not really understand gravity. We could assume that all energy is of a kinetic nature ("something" is in motion, could be on an atomic level, or a cosmic level, obviously we would not detect the atomic or cosmic level as a motion).
    Gravity may be a "giver of kinetic energy", e.g. weight is "something" tranferred to objects - while they are static it is lower, less kinetic energy. A moving object has more energy.
    As such, TG may be right, that the weights very slowly lose their mass as the wheel turns. The opposite is also observed: the standard kilo weight stored (in Paris?) as a reference for the measure of a kilo is slowly gaining weight.
    The earth also seems to be constantly growing (several centimetres in diameter per year)...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're right, everything in the universe is in motion. But it's always trying to equilibriate.

      "There is a limitation on the acceleration - once the wheel turns faster than the weights can drop/roll there is no additional acceleration. In a gravity field this would be one g."

      That's why the wheels were suspected as fraud. Their acceleration WAS above one g, the limitation placed on them (i.e., the weights then were just "along for the ride").
      This limitation explains why they need extra acceleration (that gravity can't provide) to overcome friction and obviously lift weights through the window. What provided the boost to their speed? TG's innate energy and magic lever shapes? A maid? Or an internal store of slowly released energy that was just as slowly replenished from the environment? We don't have enough of the details about the demonstrations to know for sure, but we can make an educated guess.
      If Karl couldn't see the prime mover, this would be what John was referring to earlier and I've said the same. My hunch is the ________ were the trick.
      Most engines waste a good deal of their energy through heat loss. If the heat loss is recycled, the engine becomes more efficient (but not PM, or overunity).
      The ________ could also have been _______, a discovery slightly ahead of its time.

      Delete
    2. Care to fill in the blanks?

      I didn't think so.

      Delete
    3. I'll fill in my blanks if you fill in yours.

      Delete
    4. The ONLY "blanks" I have remaining to fill in are those that describe how Bessler managed to make his 9:00 going to 10:30 drum position weighted levers begin rotating smoothly CW about their pivots so that their weights would draw closer to their rim stops. When that happens, I will finally have the Bessler wheel mystery solved.

      You, OTOH, will NEVER be able to fill in your blanks because you haven't the faintest idea of how to explain where Bessler's wheels obtained the energy / mass that they were able to constantly output. I, however, DO know where that energy / mass came from and have REPEATEDLY stated its origin on these blog comment pages.

      Delete
    5. When that happens I'll filll in the blanks.

      Delete
    6. And my bet is that if I finally do, you STILL won't because...you CAN'T!

      Delete
    7. On my iPad as anonymous

      Oh yes, I can. The _____ s were hiding in plain sight. His wheels were weak; so would the output of the _____ be. His wheels didn't demonstrate PM, they demonstrated energy conversion on a small scale, but not the type you think, or John.
      The PM stuff was for notoriety, a marketing ploy.

      Doug

      Delete
    8. "His wheels didn't demonstrate PM, they demonstrated energy conversion on a small scale, but not the type you think, or John."

      We're STILL waiting for YOU to fill in the blanks and tell us EXACTLY what that small scale "energy conversion" was. I think those blanks are as blank as are your thoughts on the subject!

      Delete
    9. And we're still waiting for you to explain how Bessler managed to make his 9:00 going to 10:30 drum position weighted levers begin rotating smoothly CW about their pivots so that their weights would draw closer to their rim stops.

      But you never will be able to. I guarantee it. The laws of physics rule it out.

      At least my hypothesis is grounded in solid science, not pseudoscience.

      Delete
  31. I beg to disagree,..The mass/energy relationship is locked in atomically,it cannot be changed.To do so would be on the nuclear level and thats not we're about.
    Not matter what TG does with his weights,they do not change in mass.Raising their height does mean they store potential energy by virtue of gravity and thats all.
    Granted,mass increases infinitesimally with velocity,but in the wheel,the raised weights would cancel out the lowering weights.
    I might be rusty with math but there's nothing wrong with my logic in physics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trevor, now you're making sense.

      Delete
    2. @ Trevor

      Unfortunately, your "logic in physics" seems to STILL be mired in PRE-20th century concepts.

      You need to realize that mass and energy are the SAME thing. You can NOT gain or lose one without ALSO gaining or losing the other.

      When an object is supplied with energy / mass to raise it against the force of a gravity field, the object will gain BOTH energy AND mass while some other object(s) that supply the rising object with the energy / mass must "pay" for it by losing the equivalent amount of energy / mass. This is an ESTABLISHED FACT in 20th century physics and is NOT my opinion! It's also important to realize that the increase in energy / mass by an object does not necessarily result in an increase in its or its components velocities although that often happens.

      When an object gains mass because it has been supplied with energy / mass by some other object, that gained energy / mass must be EQUALLY distributed amongst ALL of the mass possessing subatomic particles that make up the atoms of the receiving object. There is a physics principle involved here which, IIRC, is referred to as the "Equipartition of Energy / Mass".

      I have no doubt that, as in the case of the weights inside of Bessler's wheels, objects can be made to continuously lose small amounts of mass on the order of fractions of a picogram. My question is whether or not it is possible for an object to lose ALL of its energy / mass content and, if it did, what consequences would that have for its various chemical, physical, electrical, magnetic, etc. properties. Maybe someday, AFTER we duplicate Bessler's wheels, we will be able to directly test to see if this is possible and, if so, what the results would be.

      Delete
    3. Trevor, since energy and mass are the same thing, objects can't gain, or lose, both, since they aren't two separate things to gain or lose, there is only one thing to gain or lose. Your logic is fine. TG is a blockhead.

      Delete
    4. Doug, in case you did not notice, I have REPEATEDLY used the term "energy / mass" in my comments to EMPHASIZE that, in the light of 20th century physics, energy and mass are the SAME thing. But, this FACT tends to be easily lost because of the different WAYS in which we measure the energy / mass of objects. On the one hand we can readily measure the mass of an object in grams or kilograms and then proceed to calculate its gravitational potential energy or its thermal energy in ergs or joules. It's easy to forget that, at all times, mass = energy / c^2 and we tend to keep right on thinking about energy and mass being DIFFERENT properties of matter. Physicists spent about 2 centuries after Newton stuck in this trap and, INCREDIBLY, we can STILL see many scientists, inventors, mobilists, and students falling right back into that trap TODAY! I'm trying to change that as best I can.

      BTW, I think your head is FAR more cubical than mine will ever be!

      Delete
    5. Trevor is right. You just can't see it because of your false analogy between GPE and potential energy represented by an object's mass; coupled with the idea that gravity is conservative in one sense and nonconservative in another, which you've alluded to in an earlier post that I'm not going to search for.

      Delete
    6. "...coupled with the idea that gravity is conservative in one sense and nonconservative in another..."

      Gravity fields are ALWAYS "conservative" as are electrical, magnetic, and nuclear force fields. BUT, that does not mean that the "flow" of energy / mass out of and then back into the weights inside of an OB PM gravity wheel must ALSO be conservative. IF Bessler's wheels were genuinely outputting energy / mass and it was not being provided by some "conventional" internal or external source (despite what you might think), then the ONLY place it could have come from was the energy / mass content of a wheel's lead weights themselves. There is NO other possibility!

      All natural processes tend to be symmetrical with the amounts of energy / mass lost by PARTS of a system always being equal the amounts gained by other parts of the system as long as the system is "closed" so that none of the energy / mass can leave it. An OB PM gravity wheel is definitely NOT a closed system in any sense of the term. The maintained asymmetry of its weights' CoM is, indeed, a most UNnatural situation and, consequently, we should expect it do something equally UNnatural like continuously extracting and outputting the energy / mass content of its weights as they orbit a wheel's axle!

      Delete
    7. Those are some big ifs.
      If they were genuinely outputting energy, it couldn't have been coming from the lead weights.
      energy is always conserved too, you're wrong there. In both systems, open and closed.
      If his wheels were open systems by definition they would pass matter across their boundaries. Actual "stuff". They didn't do that. So they were closed systems. You're wrong there.

      Delete
    8. "If his wheels were open systems by definition they would pass matter across their boundaries. Actual "stuff". They didn't do that. So they were closed systems. You're wrong there."

      You KEEP forgetting that energy and mass are the same thing. IF Bessler's wheels were outputting energy as their exhaustive testing indicated, then they were ALSO outputting some MASS or, as I prefer to always write, they were outputting "energy / mass". SOMETHING had to provide that energy / mass. That "something" HAD to be the subatomic particles that composed the lead atoms in the wheel's weights which lost a very tiny fraction of their "innate" energy / mass content as each weight completed a trip around the wheel's axle. There is NO other possibility!

      Delete
    9. To further expand on my previous comment.

      You need to use the 20th century physics definitions of a "closed" and "open" system instead of the now obsolete PRE-20th century definitions. Here is the revised definitions:

      A "closed" system is one from which energy / mass can NOT escape or into which energy / mass can NOT enter.

      An "open" system is one from which energy / mass CAN escape or into which energy / mass CAN enter.

      By this new definition, it is possible for a system to be "open" even though no physical matter (actually the sum total of the mass possessing subatomic particles from which the matter is composed) leaves it or enters it! By this revised 20th century physics definition, Bessler's wheels would have been "open" systems.

      Delete
  32. Your description of the mechanical restraints is logical and well put, Mimi, and entirely consistent with my own view, although,as you probably know, I favour five chanbers.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've never been "comfortable" with the use of the word "chambers" or "compartments" with respect to Bessler's wheels. Yes, I know his drums, when viewed without the side coverings of wooden slats or oiled linen sheets, would, because of their drums' 8 radial support members, appear to be divided into a collection of 8 wedge-shaped compartments, but such compartments are NOT really necessary for the operation of his wheels and using that term seems to imply that these compartments were sealed off from each other as would be those seen in the UNworkable "Sphere Wheel" designs in the early MT illustrations.

      I work exclusively with 8 weighted lever designs and I could probably say that my wheels' drums have 8 chambers or compartments in them. I avoid doing that because it might create misunderstanding of how the cord interconnected weighted levers interact with each other and suggest that the mechanisms are mechanically isolated from each other. Indeed, the "Connectedness Principle" requires that practically all of the weighted levers interact with each other during drum rotation.

      Each of the 8 weighted levers within one of my drums has a pivot that is located between a set of parallel radial support members and will, as it shifts about, periodically travel into the compartment "below" it. That means that, in a two-directional wheel, each of the 8 compartments will have TWO weighted levers that can for a while take turns residing inside of its space depending upon which of the drum's sub wheels is driving the drum and axle. But, again, these 8 compartments are a accidental consequence of the use by Bessler of 8 radial support members to give rigidity to a drum. If I chose to construct a one-directional wheel's drum with 16 radial support members, I would still use just 8 weighted levers in it and then half of its wedge-shaped compartment would have none of the weighted levers spending any time in it.

      Delete
  33. @JC
    Thanks for your encourageing words. As for the number of chambers - I suspect that several varieties will work, it is mainly a question of required space for the chosen mechanism. I have found 4 independent mechanisms that will move my wheel forward by one chamber, but unfortunately slow down during the movement of the second chamber. The mechanisms are:
    1) One single jointed lever, attached to the frame, pressed down by the descending weight, assists the lifting of the ascending weight.
    2) A straight lever for each chamber (3 in my case), attached on one end to the rim of the wheel (moving along with it) and attached to the weight on the other end, and a ramp outside the wheel, forcing the lever to go upward between 7 and 9 o'clock.
    3) An angled (but fixed, not jointed) lever for each chamber, attached to the rim of the wheel (moving along with it) and forcing the weights to move in a certain way.
    4) One semi-circular lever attached to the frame, making the downward weight push the upward weight along the same distance - this keeps the angular momentum constant. I am still working on this one, it turns much better than expected, but needs work, so that it does not jam into the axle. Will let you know how this one goes, once I have given it more work.
    @Trevor
    I was just musing on what might be going on. You do realise, that staunch belief in current physics implies staunch disbelief in Bessler's wheel? Physics adopted the notion of aerodynamics AFTER the Wright brothers demonstrated the principle. Maybe we will see the appearance of "gravitodynamics" soon?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On the contrary Mimi,..I believe that it is Newton's laws of motion that is the crutch on which perpetual motion relies.
      Yes gravitodynamics probably plays a roll.Maybe in the form of free fall or even angular momentum.
      Nulifying gravity with balance might also be a factor.

      Delete
  34. If the bessler wheel gets solved i think anyone who helped to solve it over the years should be allowed by the governments to use the technology tax free for their pesonal domestic use for the rest of their life .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. After the secret of Bessler's wheels is found, I expect to STILL be driving a gasoline powered automobile and paying my local utility companies for electricity and gas for years to come.

      However, I would VERY happy just to have a nice, handcrafted table top model of one of Bessler's one-directional wheels that I could show off to friends at parties. Maybe next to it I would have a large demonstration type Crooks' Radiometer whose vanes would spin rapidly when I turned on the light to show them the Bessler wheel model. The two devices really have something in common.

      I suspect that in the coming years, the government taxing our Bessler wheels will be the LEAST of our problems. The most important problem we'll have will be obtaining at least 1500 Calories of FOOD and clean drinking water each day for ourselves and our loved ones!

      Delete
  35. Regarding John Collins lever/mech arrangment. The max speed of rotation is determined by the speed/time it takes for the lever to 'fall' across and move the second weight. If sprung, this time can be shortened and the speed limit increased (speed of rotation is a factor in power output). So unsprung maybe 12 rpm, with springs to quicken the action maybe 25 rpm and more power. Or maybe my assumption is wrong...
    Regards
    Jon

    ReplyDelete
  36. The Bessler locomotive will look like a giant wheel rolling on a railway track pulling carriages along behind it .

    ReplyDelete

If You Won Would You Be Willing to Share with Other Claimants?

I noted an observation on the Besslerwheel forum, which I thought worth commenting on.   Mr Tim, I think it was, suggested that “   I'm ...