BesslerWheel.com

if the servant says the above, she tells a great falsehood. If there was fraud it seems it was contained inside the wheel itself . So in terms of Potential energy: how high could I theoretically lift 100kg with 30,240 Wh ChatGPT: ......So, with 30,240 watt-hours of energy, you could theoretically l...

Under no load, it would not require much. It’s difficult to estimate without all the specs. It could be less than 5 watts depending on its mass? I’ve never trusted the power demonstrations mainly because they weren’t more than a few seconds of load. They could have been staged to his liking to not a...

[quote=eccentrically1 post_id=202151 time=<a href="tel:1695559469">1695559469</a> user_id=2009] . .. .. . No, I don't think so. A bell crank is just that. A lever that redirects a force. It doesn't add force or energy. I believe Sam already posted it didn't work ? How can you squeeze ener...

. .. .. . Adding a bell crank wouldn't solve the energy deficit, it's just a mechanism that needs to be cranked, and gravity can't do that. Is it realistic to think of the bell crank as a phase shifting transmission useful in squeezing some energy out of a so called gradient between translational &...

Without further evidence, it is difficult to determine exactly how Bessler may have defrauded his witnesses. However, the fact that perpetual motion machines violate the laws of physics suggests that his device was likely a hoax in some way. Ecc1: There's the problem; chat sees it too. You know ver...

You’re welcome, Sam. You’re going to need more though.
Sorry.

Ok. Good luck.

I answered your previous post before you edited to add the bell crank stuff.
If weights don't rise and fall then you simply have a flywheel.

Adding a bell crank wouldn't solve the energy deficit, it's just a mechanism that needs to be cranked, and gravity can't do that.

That's a flywheel. What every design becomes at the right rpm's.

If we accept that it is impossible to avoid all energy losses in a build in the real world , then we have to accept that energy out would be less than energy in , and that to solve such a problem requires to adress the energy loss . If you think about it , if the wheel was not fraud it would be bas...

We have to figure out how he gave those masses energy to get to those positions. We’re trying to use a minimum amount of energy to move the smallest number of masses the shortest distance in the shortest time. Mt 63 seems like a good example. Members are more than welcome to looking at MT63 and puz...

How can you change the radius if you don't use gravity? I don't see where there is any energy deficit problem. Seams to me, the energy from falling weights is virtually limitless. Or, if there is a problem, maybe what he discovered to avoid it, was by NOT changing the radius---Sam ETA, Maybe that's...

No , that was just a thought experiment jb came up with to show that gravity isn’t an energy field. It’s just a force field; it can hold potential energy but it can’t be used as an energy source. So, any wheel that depends on gravity to turn fails because of this”energy deficit”. Page 86 0r 87. So t...

The masses in 63 need energy given to them to get to those positions in his drawing. They’re just drawn in overbalancing positions. We have to figure out how he gave those masses energy to get to those positions. We’re trying to use a minimum amount of energy to move the smallest number of masses th...

No. Arcing in the z axis would be wasted motion, right? Lost distance. The time spent moving across the drum’s depth (or heighth depending on your orientation) would be better spent moving in a shorter arc in the X and y axes. Look at the position of the masses in the 8 and 2:00 tubes. Now look at w...