There seems to be a body of opinion among Bessler researchers that even when someone does eventually build a successful version of Bessler's wheel - a working wheel - that it will prove little more than a novelty item that will be of no practical use in today's world.
I have written of this before but I thought I'd try again to convince others that this opinion is not supported by the facts relating to the original wheels.
We know, for instance that three of the wheels rotated at speeds of up to 50 revolutions a minute. We also know that the third wheel, as well as rotating at 40 rpm, also turned in either direction. Added to that the fourth wheel turned at 26 rpm also in either direction. Bessler also said that he could make the wheels turn slowly or quickly, lifting the same heavy weights.
So we have the knowledge that the wheels could be designed to run fast or slow, in one or both directions without loss of power or speed and yet all could lift at least the same weights, regardless of their outer dimensions. This suggests that today we could design a wheel which ran faster than 50 rpm, in a larger scale and probably do so while coping with a much heavier load.
Electricity generators need to be able to run at a certain speed and be able to deal with occasional heavy loads. 50 rpm does not seem fast enough but with appropriate gearing the right speed could be obtained. Take wind turbines for example they turn at speeds of between 6 and 22 rpm. Their blade lengths vary - from 102 feet to 208 feet! They produce between 1.3 MW of electricity to 3 MW and one produces 7.6 MW. and that's the biggest one. That one has its hub 443 feet above the ground! Even the smallest one's hub is 197 feet above the ground.
A megawatt (MW) is one million watts and a kilowatt (kW) is one thousand watts. Both terms are commonly used in the power business when describing generation or load consumption. For instance, a 100 MW rated wind farm is capable of producing 100 MW during peak winds, but will produce much less than its rated amount when winds are light. As a result of these varying wind speeds, over the course of a year a wind farm may only average 30 MW of power production. Similarly, a 1,000 MW coal plant may average 750 MW of production over the course of a year because the plant will shut down for maintenance from time-to-time and the plant operates at less than its rated capability when other power plants can produce power less expensively.
The amount of electricity consumed by a typical residential household varies dramatically by region of the country. I found that in the USA, monthly consumption of electricity in residential homes varies on average from 610 kWh to 1151 kW each month, which takes account of areas using air-conditioning and others needing heating. Roughly speaking, I'm told that one megawatt can power one thousand homes.
A large generator sufficient to supply all of the average home's need might need an out put of about 10,000 - 15,000 watts, at the most. High fuel consumption would rule it out but not if the fuel was free as in gravity. If 1 MW equals one million watts and the average residence requires one thousand watts per month we need a Besslerwheel generating one hundredth of the amount the smallest wind turbine can provide - and that is a theoretical figure as we saw above wind turbines only produce 30 percent of the potential power because of fluctuating wind speeds.
So given the enormous structures being built for the generation of electricity it seems to me to be perfectly possible to generate the same levels of power with Bessler's wheel with the latest technology but of far more compact proportions and with a considerably more appealing aspect and able to operate almost anywhere, unlike the wind turbines.
JC
10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.
A blog about Johann Bessler and the Orffyreus Code and my efforts to decipher it. I'll comment on things connected with it and anything I think might be of interest to anyone else.
The ‘Bessler’s Books’ button at the top of the right side panel, will take you to a page giving access to all Bessler’s books. Simply click ‘home’ to come back to my blog.
Note the copyright notice.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
There are a number of images taken from Johann Bessler’s books which appear to support my previous post on Bessler’s Wheel Revealed. I shal...
-
Finally I’m going to share what I know, and what I think I know, about the solution to Bessler’s wheel. This will be a bit shorter than my ...
-
I’m 79 today and I’ve been studying the legend of Bessler’s wheel for about 65 years! Well, about 35 years of serious research. Not quite t...
I'm one of those that thinks that, even if duplicated, Bessler's wheels will not be a serious source of power unless they can be greatly increased in power output. On a certain free energy forum many moons ago I calculated that Bessler's Kassel wheel was generating about 25 watts continuously as it powered an Archimedean screw type water pump attached to its axle. If we assume that only half the thickness of the 12 foot diameter wheel was doing the work, then, in order to power a home requiring a constant supply of, say, 7,500 watts, we'd need a Bessler wheel that was 12 feet in diameter and (7,500 watts / 25 watts} x 9 inches thick which equals a wheel shaped like a long cylinder that was 12 feet in diameter and 2,700 inches or 225 feet in length! This would actually be about the size of a house just by itself and weigh about 90,000 lbs or 45 tons. And, one would have to have one of these behemoths for each house on a city block. I just don't ever see this happening when we already have things like solar and nuclear power available.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, the Merseberg wheel was the same diameter as the Kassel wheel, but under a foot in thickness, compared to the Kassel wheel's diameter of 18 inches and it also turned both ways and was able to lift the same 70 pound weight. and turned at 40 rpm
DeleteJust to remind you Ken, Bessler said he could make the wheels turn slow or fast and lift a range of weights. So I disagree with your estimate, sorry.
JC
Yes, the Merseberg wheel was moving a 70 pound load around, but there seems to have been two distinct ways that was done. The most dramatic was to just rapidly hoist the weight upward by using a rope wrapping around the wheel's axle. That was a lift involving the so-called "flywheel effect" in which all of the kinetic energy built up in the wheel after it accelerated for a period of time was used for the lift. If Bessler had used heavier and heavier weights for this demonstration, a point would be reached when the load might only rise a few feet before the wheel came to a stop. The second type of test was the one where a pulley system of some sort was attached to the 70 lb load (or was it 60 lbs?) and the weight was lifted continuously. In those tests, the lifting was described as very slow and indicates a somewhat low continuous power output for the wheel. It's the results of these second types of tests that would be of interest to a buyer of one of Bessler's wheels. These tests are the ones that would really determine how useful his wheels would be as power sources. Apparently, Bessler had an assistant who could brake the Merseberg wheel from its maximum running speed to a standstill just by grabbing its axle! I hope he wore gloves or something or he must have had some really ugly blisters and splinters from these braking efforts.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, there's always the possibility that, once the exact mechanism Bessler used is found, there will be some way to improve its power output. But, it's going to have to be a really big improvement and what is needed might not be physically possible for some reason. Well, time will tell. Meanwhile, we need to concentrate on finding that mechanism or any mechanism for that matter that works. This subject desperately needs a breakthrough.
There is a possibility that the principle behind it may be adaptable for other uses.
DeleteJC
John, when you finally unveil the "principle" you've discovered, that will probably be the most read blog in the history of the internet!
DeleteJohn and Ken, Besslers wheel has plenty of power. The simplest version will be posted on BWF general discussions in April, so you don't have much time to solve it. Good luck.
ReplyDeleteGreat to read that it's finally been completely solved. I guess I might as well not waste any more of my time pursuing a solution since it will shortly be released. Thanks.
DeleteTrevor, you have solved it again in your dreams, just because you think it will work does not mean it will work in reality because the real world is different.
DeleteHello Everyone --- ‘Besslers Assistant’
ReplyDeleteI have no idea where this 25 watt rating of the Kassel wheel came from, but it is very, very wrong.
Here is how I calculate the power of Bessler Kassel and Merseberg wheel ( both being 12ft tall).
Bessler told us how his wheel worked, by shifting weights from close the axel to the edge and from the edge to close the axel. We know he use 4lb. lead weights. In my estimates I stay a foot away from the axel, so my shifting weight goes only 5 feet.
Power(per hp) = (torque (ft-lbf) * RPM)/5252 = (4lb*5ft*20rpm)/5252 = 0.0761hp
Convert to watts = 0.0761hp * 746 watts/hp = 56 watts.
Remember this is the power of one bar shifting, which has 8lb. ( for the people who think in sine waves).
The Kassel wheel has 20 rpms and we know 8 weights fall per revolution. = 160 sine waves
The Merseberg wheel had 320 sine waves.
If we take a rough average of the Kassel wheel power we get about 24 watts (constant power).
Everyone is think , hey that is what Ken said (25watts), but we forget the environment we are in. A 4lb lead weight measures 3.25inch diameter by 1inch thick. There is no way a 12ft diameter 18inch thick wheel has only 8 of these things in it. Bessler could have (and probably did) loaded the Kassel wheel 20 or 40 times this 4lb weight and this is my reasoning. The more load the wheel has the less shifting you need. Less shifting means less ware on the wheel. Bessler needed the wheel to last a very long time.
So I gather, after Merseberg, Bessler reduced the wheel speed by half and had it shift half a foot. But he had to increase the weight of each bar (by 10 to 40lb).
Power(watts) = (torque (ft-lbf) * RPM)* 746 /5252 = ((4lb*10)*1/2ft*20rpm)* 746/5252 = 56 watts
My max power for the Kassel wheel .
Power(watts) = (torque (ft-lbf) * RPM)* 746 /5252 = ((100lb)*5ft*40rpm)* 746/5252 = 2840 watts
Now, think of today if the Kassel wheel is made of steel. It would be a thousand times more powerful.
I think your approach of having the weights go from near the rim to within a foot of the axle is way off. My research, based on the actual displayed slow lifting power of the Merseberg wheel indicates that the center of mass of its weights was only about a half inch or so horizontally displaced away from the center of the axle and on the wheel's descending side. This indicates that the weights that swung in toward the axle on the ascending side did not swing in much and probably only moved about six inches closer to the axle from the rim. Interesting how you describe my early estimate of the Kassel wheel's constant power of about 25 watts as being "very, very wrong" yet you then calculate it as 24 watts! Also, what material the Kassel wheel was made of is irrelevant to its constant power output. What counts for this is the mass of its weights and levers. If they were double what they were in the Merseberg wheel, then the maximum power output of the Kassel wheel would have been double that of the Merseberg wheel.
DeleteLooking at your calculations you don't have a clue how bessler's wheel works. Ken B is closer but still wrong. I have been looking at BWF General Discussions today, I must admit I thought it was better than that.
DeleteTrevor stop pretending
DeleteWell,
ReplyDeleteA wheel would work when the river is flowing and when it's not,
when the sun shines and when it's not, and
when the wind blows and when it's not.
The biggest problem would be stopping it for service, can't shut off gravity like most fuels, so if you have a huge GW then you have to have huge brakes or perhaps a way to pivot it and lay it on its side.
Just more thoughts.Bob
There is a quote somewhere in Bessler's writings where he says that he could "repair" a wheel while it was running! That seems impossible to me and I suspect it is a poor translation and should have been translated as he could "adjust" a wheel as it was running. Stopping a large wheel in rotation for servicing might not be that difficult. One would just have to connect it to a large enough load. For example, the wheel could be made to run a pump that moved a large volume of water up into a reserve tank. The system would later be restored by just allowing the water to run back down into a supply tank until it was time to stop the wheel again for servicing.
DeleteYou could do it the way train locomotives do by creating an electrically resistant load on the drive motors and then dissipating that electricity in a carbon pile, in addition to brakes
DeleteThere is a lever on the axle that blocks the movement of the internal levers, allowing some reverse torque.
DeleteWhile some ONE is working on the final touches on his or her 'working' wheel, this is a good and interesting topic to over or under mull.
ReplyDeleteHowever, no matter is relatively weak for it's area occupied, or can be made potently powerful according to same, the main result (in my quite mere opinion) would be that the working of such as a P-M wheel of Bessler's WAS POSSIBLE after all !
For how many centuries now have experts cried "NAY!" to propositions that any energy might derive from Nowhere Land, seemingly? (I think the correct answer here should be 'many'.)
Were it to be realized Bessler-wise, or by any other way, then stocks in old hats and crow beaks, feathers and claws would climb precipitously. These to be fed regularly to the "know-it-alls" that were proved to not really know much at all in this most important of ways, such a deserved feeding to continue if an until they were to apologize for their and their forbears most insolent, obviously enjoyed cruelty, all as based upon a Non-reality itself. (Incidentally, how might a 'Non-reality' be an 'it' or have a 'self' at all? This question is one almost as weighty as that of Bessler's! )
Although I would prefer that Bessler Wheels be capable of tremendous, rip-snorting output per size, I would be comfortable even it it was not to be so; that just to function contra- the puffy, contrary pronouncements of strutting experts having fancy scrolls of accreditation hanging upon walls and all granted-up etc., that would be enough.
Yes.
Such a novel demonstrated reality would open up NEW VISTAS for research for the mostly young scientists that had not already removed themselves honorably, or hysterically at least, by pitching-out the window head-first. (Good riddance.)
Since the dreamed-of new development would apparently contradict known laws, reasons would have to be found to answer for this new insult done to the established, accepted norm.
Might it be found that the function was allowed by previously misunderstood lacks in application to the accepted laws?
Or, that a new science would now be required to add to all the rest, everything now folding-in to all else nicely, everyone then being novelly happy?
Or, it is that ENERGY is producible after all, from actually NOWHERE whatever, appearing as if by MAGIC and Ergo: Physical proof demonstrating the tangible existence of The Divine. Yet MORE suicides for the crest-fallen MAC's! (NOW we'd be getting somewhere!!!)
The range of possibilities is one truly impressive; the mind WHIRLS around with 'em.
With some admitted impatience, we await the tangible, operative device . . .
James
I agree with you James, the mere fact of demonstrating the working Bessler wheel would be a fitting comeuppance for all those injurious reactions of scorn, contempt, derision and mockery by those to whom we apotheosized, with which they greeted our opinions.
DeleteYou may think the dreamed-of new development would apparently contradict known laws, but in fact it won't and the reason becomes clear the instant all is revealed - that of course is merely my belief at this point, even though I would put good money on my being right. We shall see, shall we not, and soon.
JC
I agree that Bessler's wheels did not violate any of our known physical laws. Also, they were not some new exotic mechanisms that operated by still unknown mechanical principles. They were nothing more than weights, levers, ropes, and springs. But, one has to have all of those components present with just the right configuration and parameters or...one has nothing! Imagine having a large cup with a dozen dice in it. Next, imagine shaking them all up in the cup and then dumping all onto to floor. What are the chances of all twelve dice landing with their 6's showing up? Well, it's (1/6)^12 which is a very small number and probability. That is also about the probability of just guessing how Bessler did it. The only way to beat this high odds game is to cheat! Bessler, imo, did give us a way to cheat, but one must work at it daily for years to beat the system. I'm on model #1110 so far and still no success. I don't know if I'll beat the system with my next model or if I will never do so. Time will tell.
Delete"Might it be found that the function was allowed by previously misunderstood lacks in application to the accepted laws?"
DeleteI would suggest, James, that perhaps it wasn't so much 'previously misunderstood', but more just plain ol' 'previously missed'!
At least that's what my avenue of research seems to suggest.
John,
DeleteEither case I would take, violational or not.
As for the other old issue, it has to cause real trouble because THEY SAY it would, and why it should and must. Obviously, something would have to give . . .
If their Establishment Physics view of our matter is found to have been incorrect all along because some exception was missed to be later discovered, then some effected "Law" would have to be reviewed, and, we are told that if but one exception is found to any law it then FALLS because one no longer, and a new search begins for the one that satisfies ALL observable cases. (No 'rocket science' here!)
Some party post a newly manifested demonstrable reality of a Bessler Wheel turning, must get his nose BLOODIED, and part of the riot of fun of such a delightful development would be all the crow and hat-eating events. What else, crying and whimpering for the angst of our willing tormentors of centuries on-going? I think not.
OK, John!
Then, my Pound coin to yours for our proposed bet, right?
James
@ K.B.
DeleteIn a past sense you state "I agree that Bessler's wheels did not violate any of our known physical laws."
Nonsense! You cannot know any such thing. You possess FAITH that it was and would be so again but, there exists no evidence whatever standing for the assertion. This a belief of yours, and is not knowledge at all but, is stated as IF it were. (I am beginning to sound like Ovyyus here but, in this area he is spot-on correct: what is reality and what is born of faith [belief] should be carefully noted, and kept as separated.)
And incidentally, popular, fuzzy thinking also accounts for why so many citizens (and subjects of monarchs too) confuse The Rule of Necessity with The Rule of Law, the former being but a vile prostitute put on Reality, and the latter a near-glory to same.
"Where Necessity is, Law is not" - Maxim of Law, original in Latin.
[When and where I can I just cannot resist making the repetition, this just in case ONE single brain might be penetrated, to some good, illuminative effect but, the odds do seem agin it.]
All right, K.B. The cut-off as promised right now is to be at 1200, correct?
But, as all know only too well 'things change,' do they not?
"Always, get it in writing if you can."
I am afraid that, once the promised 1200 is achieved, after all reportage of this and that and of the other of painful minutia has been endured, the new personage-pronounced cutoff will 'somehow' morph-to say . . .1300?
Between the two of you avid seeker/builders, I'd bet on Trevor (The Good I or The Good II.) as the likely winner. It is to be glorious strapping youth, I am sure, that pulls-forth THIS Excalibur from it's stony sheath.
James
I was only agreeing with John's belief that Bessler's wheels did not violate any of our known laws of physics. Actually, I don't really consider it a belief, but, rather, a fact. Bessler's wheels did not involve the use of electric or magnetic fields, only gravity. Over the course of the last three hundred years, if Bessler had found some new "simple" property of gravity, then someone else would have discovered it too even if they did not use it to construct an imbalanced pm wheel. Bessler himself even states something to the effect that he had not discovered some "new form of matter", but found a solution where everyone else had looked which meant finding a way to make an imbalanced wheel stay imbalanced during rotation. If we start assuming that he was using some "new" property of gravity, then we might as well give up on our attempts to reverse engineer his wheels. They will remain in the realm of mystery until the end of time and, most likely, just eventually be completely dismissed as a hoax. I confine myself to working with just weights, levers, ropes, and springs. The answer lies in their use, not in magnets, gearwork, hoaxes, or magic. At this point in time, I'm fairly sure that I will be stopping at 1200 models if I find no success. Of course, that number is not chiseled in granite. If I hit 1200 and seem on the verge of that big breakthrough I need, then I will extend it a little. However, there is also the possibility that I will call it quits before model #1200. Time will tell.
Delete@KB
Delete"I was only agreeing with John's belief that Bessler's wheels did not violate any of our known laws of physics."
Yes, we understand I think, that you and John are concordant in your beliefs which many of the rest of us share but . . . if either of you were required to prove such, say in a law court, where rules-of-evidence and truth oaths are controlling authorities, you would fail in your task and be instructed that the claim is not only one insubstantial, but also is one frivolous.
To go further and insist that such a belief is actual reality, is courting the illusional if not actually that of the delusional itself. (In your case, judging by what you write and how you have done so over a very long while, this would not surprise me in-the-least.)
I assert that parties that are operating in delusional/hopeful mode solely in pursuit of Bessler's achievement, are working with an incomplete intellectual/emotional tool box.
(Here, Vibrator has VERY MUCH to impart to us style and method-wise.)
Let's get real, and make progress; our Romantic proclivity sides NOT being allowed to stand in the way of mechanical logic and workable procedure. (Note: This last does not disallow any working of the intuition! We are humans, not machines.)
James
@Hutch,
ReplyDeleteI'd take either; no prob.
Let's just get this sucker DONE!
-J.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI just realized that three days ago was the 285th anniversary of Count Karl's death on March 23rd, 1730 and there was no mention of it either here or anywhere else. How quickly he has been forgotten despite the pivotal role he plays in the Bessler story. He is the only one, other than Bessler (and perhaps his brother), to view a wheel's interior mechanism and stake his "sacred honor" on the machine being a genuine imbalanced pm wheel. If it was not for Karl's testimony, I, too, would probably have dismissed the Bessler legend as just another historical myth and gotten on to other things. Hats off to Count Karl...
ReplyDeleteWell done Ken. I must admit I missed that anniversary. You're right, without Karl's patronage, we might not even have heard of Bessler, and Das Triumphans would probably not seen the light of day. So I'll raise a glass to his memory and a heartfelt thank you.
DeleteJC
I agree. Thank you Karl. He made a difference.
DeleteI just noticed that the 285th anniversary of Karl's death was five days ago and not three as I wrote. I must have been looking at that 5 in 285 and it distracted me into thinking his death was on March 25th rather than the 23rd. Sorry about that.
Delete"Even the Devil himself deserves his just-due, if earned."
DeleteGiven the above as being necessary no matter how unpalatable, I agree with the sentiments as expressed by K.B.!
Prince Karl will deserve his place on the commemorative gold, silver and bronze medallions co-equal with Bessler.
As for the FIRE BLACKENED LEAD one, for the Three Stinging Hell Hornets and their achievements, this will be and equally deserved "tribute" to the hectoring monsters.
All of these anticipated delights will come-to-pass, but only when the THING itself appears in our three dimensional reality.
(When is to be Karl's birth quad-centennial?)
James
The quad-centennial of Count Karl's birth will be on August 3rd, 2054. I'm looking forward to celebrating it.
DeleteThank you.
DeleteJust as I suspected!
'Twill be far after I've gone to me Heavenly reward but not-so with K.B., obviously, as he intends (as stated) to live 'till some five score and ten or so and by then, will be working upon his 6666th, the final Glorious Product as actualized and self-mechanized - the 6667th - ELUDING HIM STILL!
"Some kinds of peculiar human never know when to quit, and die in conditions of dire stubbornness, such actions going-on even after interment, the on-continuing scratchings of the pathetic to be heard still, from above six feet of earth!" - E.A. Poe
(Only the yawning casket is to ever provide this perpetual personage true solace, the birth moment and ever since having never done-so, nor certainly any discoveries of MOTIONS-perpetual.)
"The good die young."
And, it's a very good thing we do.
-James
This is how I view the subject of the power in Bessler's wheel. I strongly feel that if the bidirectional wheels had back to back mechanisms and if you were to turn around one of them, then the power may have been 4 times greater. ( Bessler mentioned something about him being able to increase the power four fold ) In my opinion, if you wanted to increase the power By forty , just turn around one of the back to back mechanisms and replace the 4 lb. weights with 40 lb. weights!!! You would NOT have to build 40 identical wheels to reach that power. Close to the same size wheel only much more powerful. JMHO
ReplyDeleteMaking both of the one directional wheels inside one of his two directional wheels run in the same direction would only double the two directional wheel's power output. If the masses of their weights and levers were then increased by a factor of ten, that would increase power output by a factor of ten or, since both one directional wheels were running in the same direction, an overall increase in power output by a factor of twenty would occur. If the Kassel wheel was normally outputting twenty five watts, that would increase it to 500 watts. No too bad and actually only about 1/15th the amount of constant power needed for an average sized home. However. the gross weight of the wheel will be greatly increased and the springs needed to counter balance those massive weights and levers will have to be much larger than what was actually used in the Kassel wheel.
DeleteThat is of course, assuming that springs were necessary part of the mechanism, which as you know I remain unconvinced, Ken.
DeleteAll I can say to that, John, is that Bessler admitted that his design used springs and I have found numerous clues about them. Some of these clues even give the values of the spring constants used! I can't dismiss this as easily as you have. Bessler's clues give the minimum amount of information needed to duplicate a wheel and he leaves other details up to the builder to work out such as how to frame the drum, how to attach the ropes to the levers, etc.
DeleteI disagree Ken. The back to back mechanisms lowered the power of his wheels ( possibly by half ). The evidence of this is the wheels being balanced at rest.
ReplyDeleteJohn, please post the quote about Bessler saying he could increase the power four fold and explain the context. Thanks.
From Bessler's Apologia Poetica :- "The point concerns the power of my machines. Wagner calculates the total power of these three wheels, and says that the figure given should be reduced considerably - so much so, in fact, that good Master Orffyreus, the great mathematician, should be thoroughly ashamed of himself! Ashamed also that I, Orffyreus, did not force my patron to write the correct figure.
DeleteListen, Wagner, I'm not your slave! Who is right? You're the one who calculates badly! So I'm to be excused, having done nothing wrong that reflects on my patron. Please note carefully these
facts:-
If I were to place, next to a 12-Ell wheel, one of 6-Ells, then, if I wanted to, I could cause the smaller one to revolve with more force and useful power than the large one. I can, in fact, make 2,
or 3, or even more, wheels all revolving on the same axis.
Further, I make my machines in such a way that, big or small, I can make the resulting power small or big as I choose. I can get the power to a perfectly calculated degree, multiplied up even as much as fourfold."
JC
Bessler's quote is accurate, imo. By changing the values of a wheel's dimensions, the masses of its weights and levers, and the values of its springs' constants, one can produce various multiples of the power of any given wheel. And, of course, placing several identical wheels on a common axle will also multiply the power output. The problem with all of this is that in order to increase the power of a wheel to what is needed to power a home requires one to greatly increase its diameter, thickness, or mass or some combination of all of these. The end result is that to get the 7,500 watts of continuous power output one needs, one winds up with a very cumbersome piece of machinery. I believe that the vast majority of homeowners faced with installing and maintaining one of these levithan contraptions versus installing solar panels on his roof or hooking up to his local power utility company will choose the latter options. Again, I can only repeat that I am not interested in finding the solution to Bessler's wheels because I expect them to solve our planet's energy needs, but, rather, only to finally resolve this historical puzzle.
DeleteI have been studying storks bills for years, the thing that has always irritated me about them is that when fully extended they have a tendancy to lock-up .
ReplyDeleteIs there a way of of building them that they will not lock up ?
DeleteBecause every one I build has this problem that when its fully extended it locks up and because they lock up on a wheel they will not do the job I want them to do on the wheel .
If you put handles onto a storks bill and fully extend the storks bill with your hands and arms you will see how it locks up .
DeleteIf I could only engineer this liability out of the storks bills .
But its probably impossible so I think I will just give up using them .
To prevent stork bills from locking up just make sure they don't extend fully. Perhaps the ends of the pieces that attach to the outer pivots could have small tabs on them that would prevent pieces on opposites side from getting too close to each other. Sort of like tiny bumpers. This will, of course, reduce how far the stork bill will extend, but this could be compensated for by adding an additional segment to them.
DeleteI do not speak to anonymous nor even to Anonymous, ever. (See this discussion and decide for yourselves: http://painintheenglish.com/case/560/ )
DeleteBut, if I ever were to, I would advise that accepting the object of stork's bills as a likely candidate for construction and actual use withing any P-M design propostition, is doomed to near-ignominious failure absolutely.
As I've stated elsewhere before, necessarily the things are full of friction (a loser right there) and are meant, I firmly believe, to be understood as REpresenting some thing other than what they appear-as merely.
Yes, they "lock up" because of the extreme ratio change from beginning to end. This indicates a thing acting exponentially, ratio-wise: Easy at the beginning and locked-up because so high at the end.
Over at the BWF just a week or so ago, I offered to provide a diagram of pivot points for a tapered stork's bill that might be made in any size but typically, HEARD NOTHING back but silence, for my bit of trouble as gone-to!
(This explains at least in-part my intense, demonstrated petulance at like- stupid, studious ignorance, and heedless incivility, as born of self-admiration and service! These are getting us The World that is now forming. It leads to Nowhere Land which it is, understand??? Do you LIKE this? If so, them do nothing for much, much more of it is sure to be ours and immediately. Take a note . . .)
For any that might like to actually construct the thing-peculiar that would work (even though with all the limitations as-highlighted by me and obvious on their face) it is there.
The mechanism represents an extreme ratio change type device (a 'super lever'), I am sure.
- James
After rereading the last blog, I now realize that the term "stork bill" is not appropriate for the mechanism being discussed above. Stork bills are long armed forceps often used in dissections and surgeries. The mechanism discussed above is, I believe, more properly referred to as a "scissor jack". I have had several automobile jacks that use this mechanism and none of them were designed so that it was possible to fully extend their linkages.
DeleteScissor jack is the proper term to build a proper wheel like Wagner would build it properly .
DeleteWe must correct all Johann Bessler's mistakes because he was not proper .
To be proper I must build a proper Scissor jack that does not lock up like Johann Bessler's Storks bills .
DeleteHe was just a very good con man .
ReplyDeleteYour statement means you are the type of person that takes all, but never wants to give anything back.
ReplyDeleteThanks John. Can anyone explain the four fold statement? Four times greater than what? Four times more power with the same size weights? Thanks
ReplyDeleteI think Bessler is saying here that, for any particular one directional wheel, he could immediately quadruple its output by putting four of them on a single axle. If a single one directional wheel was six inches in thickness, then putting four of them together in the same drum would result in a wheel that was twenty four inches thick. Of course, the axle would have to be larger in diameter in order to now support the increased mass of the four one directional wheels.
DeleteI've have to take a temporary break from my Bessler wheel research for the next few days. I'm recovering from a bad case of acute bronchitis and, despite that, struggling to finish up my next book and get it on its way to the publisher. However, I do have something new to try with my wheel model, but it will have to wait a while. Once the book is out of the way, I will be able to finally concentrate 100% on it and that should speed my progress.
John,
ReplyDeletethe thing with generating electricity with Bessler's Wheel is, that the frequency of the supply is governed by the RPM, usually 60 Hz = 1800 RPM, 50 Hz = 1500 RPM.
It may be better to produce DC, to charge two banks of batteries, one in use, one charging, and then use an inverter.
The charging would be a fairly steady load, while any sudden heavy loading would be handled by the second battery bank, and the inverter.
Will you have it posted by tomorrow on General Discussions .
ReplyDeleteJohn Collins Sir!... with tears of laughter in my eyes, I don't know how you can say I have not made 1mm. of progress in two years.
ReplyDeleteJust because I have not shown it!... but then neither have you!
I challenge you to show what you have done and then I will show you my working wheel.
Stop this castigation now before you bury your self in humiliation.
You DO NOT have a working wheel Trevor!!! You may want to choose your words more carefully.
ReplyDeleteI mean it my friend, so don't go down with him!
ReplyDeleteSo your wheel runs for days and days?
ReplyDeleteAs long as you want.
ReplyDeleteThe next step would be to trim the efficiency, then increase the number of weight sets to see what practical level of power can expect for a given size wheel.
"weight sets"
DeleteI just know you are tellin lies.
You come here and say that!
ReplyDeleteYou have not the guts to sign your name.
Congratulations, Trevor! It sounds like you've finally got a "runner". I can't wait to learn the details of its construction and operation. Of course, just is case it is not the same design Bessler used, I intend to continue with my own imbalanced pm wheel research for a while longer. Today, mercifully, I was finally able to get my next book's ms CD in the mail to my publisher and I can now turn my full attention to unraveling the secret of Bessler's wheels. Other than a final approval of the book's galley and its cover artwork, the rest is up to them. Meanwhile, if I manage to finally find what I am convinced is the design Bessler found, then I may do a book on it to document the research that led up to the rediscovery as well, of course, as giving enough details so that the craftsmen out there can get to work trying to replicate the design. I'm really hoping that will be the next one I do.
DeleteI am Orffyreus and zhat you have solved my puzzle I think not .
DeleteWhat do mean by 'weight sets', Trevor? Your answer will reveal whether you are genuine.
DeleteJC
It would appear ZHAT one of the Anonymii is Ealadah !
DeleteHow long has it run Trevor? On it's own that is? Minutes? Hours? Days? Truth please and be as exact as you can. Also is there any left over power? What size weights are you using?
ReplyDeleteHi John,
ReplyDeleteInteresting to see if its self starting or needs a push ?
Whoa, whoa, whoa,... if I reveal these details it would be giving it away!
ReplyDeleteI can say that the weights are 500 grams and for that you get 200 grams torque on average.
Of course it has excess or it would not turn itself.
With one weight set it will need a slight push to start but with a full compliment of weights I expect that it will start on its own.
Have you built the one way or the two way turning wheel? It shouldn't need a push if it's the one way one. A one weight set won't work, so you are bullshitting us as usual.
DeleteJC
"...but with a full compliment of weights I expect that it will start on its own."
DeleteThis line indicates that you only have a partial wheel at this point. Partial wheels often look very impressive during a partial test. But, as additional weights are added, every single design I've ever seen then fails to maintain the center of mass of its weights on the wheel's descending side. Partial wheels and their tests ultimately mean nothing, unfortunately. It's what a full wheel does that counts. Bessler had a full wheel.
Does it start to slow down and stop Trevor??? Easy question.
ReplyDeletehelp me to make bassler's wheel.....send details on ajithppanoor@gmail.com
Delete